An-Najah National University Poll on Hamas Popularity Fails Scrutiny

Feb 11, 2009

By Hiyam Noir in Gaza and Les Blough in Venezuela

"Prior to the advent of polling, public opinion could often only be inferred from political behavior… The advent of polling transformed public opinion from a behavioral to an attitudinal phenomenon. Polls elicit, organize, and publicize opinion without requiring any action on the part of the opinion holder…. From the perspective of political elite, the obvious virtue of polls is that they make it possible to recognize and deal with popular attitudes… before they materialize in some unpleasant, disruptive, or threatening form of political action…. By converting opinion from a behavioral to an attitudinal phenomenon, polling is, in effect, also transforming public opinion into a less immediately threatening and dangerous phenomenon."

- Benjamin Ginzberg in his book,
The Captive Public: How Mass
Opinion Promotes State Power

-

---

Introduction

An opinion survey was conducted in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by the Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah National University during the first 2 days of February, 2009. The survey was conducted on a sample of 1,361 Palestinians who responded to a questionnaire. The results showed that 57 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip believe that Hamas is stronger now than it was prior to the Israelis offensive in December and January, but there were many other queries in the questionnaire method that reveal a pro-Fatah and pro-Israel bias.

Hiyam Noir.Editor of PalestineFreeVoice and Les Blough, Editor of Axis of Logic, decided to examine the survey;

Volumes have been written on the subject of how polls and surveys should be conducted and on their many pitfalls and ways how they have been used to manipulate the public. In this analysis, we will limit ourselves to a few fundamentals that will help us understand the quality of the poll conducted by An-Najah University. The specific target of the survey were the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank Many are now asking who selected the sample, how was it carried out, how were the questions on the survey selected and who interpreted the results.

Purpose of the poll

Political polls are notorious for being used as manipulative tools and/or to provide the ruling class with information for their political strategies and campaigns.The An–Najah National University, Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies, does not even provide a motive of their objectives for conducting this survey. It only states that the poll "undertakes the current political realities" which includes :

· the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip and its consequences,

· aids allocated for the rebuilding of the Strip,

· attempts towards achieving a Palestinian national reconciliation,

· attempts to restore truce between Israel and Hamas,

· the possibility of sending Arab and international troops to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

· in addition political affiliations and other issues."

None of the listed factors answers our two leading questions. Rather, this it speaks to the subject matter which the poll "undertakes". Our first question regarding the purpose and motivating force behind the poll is not answered. Was this poll meant to help Palestinians to understand their collective views for the purpose of achieving some sort of consensus? Or was the poll conducted for some nefarious purpose?

Funding for the poll

An-Najah is known for its support of Fatah, the preference of U.S. and Israel to rule Palestine - democratically-elected or not. Who were the specific people who decided to conduct the poll and in what manner would be designed? What was the specific funding source of the poll? An-Najah does not provide this information. They simply highlight the following words in their introduction: "The University sponsors all polls conducted by its Center". Who funds the university? The "Facts and Figures" section of the An-Najah website states that the university "relies on the in-kind philanthropic donations of its friends and alumni". They describe 3 types of funding: Unrestricted, Restricted and Permanent. The first two are of particular interest in the context of funding for this poll: http://www.najah.edu/index.php?page=833&lang=en

Unrestricted funds give the university the option of using the money for "special opportunities" and "emergency needs". Restricted funds allow the donor to specify the funds " for a specific function of your choice.This post-Gaza slaughter poll could have been funded by any person, political body or nation.

The 1.361 respondents were eligible voters, 18 years of age and older. An enclosed questionnaire was distributed on 861 persons from the West Bank and 500 persons from the Gaza Strip. 4.1% of the members of the sample refused to answer the questionnaire.

The pollsters report, "The sample was drawn randomly and the margin of error is about ±3%; still 4.1% of the members of the sample refused to answer the questionnaire."

General observations

The population the poll is meant to represent is neither, identified or described. The report on the poll does not provide any raw data. For example, the report does not say if the research is based on demographic and socio-economic patterns or stratified according to other variables such as faith (Muslim,Christian or other), gender, income levels, education, injuries or deaths from the war on Gaza, etc.

The poll was conducted exclusively along political lines during a state of complete turmoil and chaos in Gaza.

The poll included 500 people in Gaza and 861 in the West Bank. The West Bank is marked by corruption, internal division, occupation and collaboration with the Israelis under the Abbas/Fatah regime.

The poll was conducted just 22 days after the devastating Zionist attack on Gaza, ostensibly to remove Hamas, the democratically-elected government.

The populations targeted by the poll remain in deep shock and in grief following the 22 day bombardment, preceded by an 18 months Israeli siege.

The universally-accepted purpose of the siege and bombardment was to turn the people in Gaza against their elected government and to subject them to the Mahmoud Abbas regime, the U.S./Israeli choice for ruling Palestine.

9 Key questions about the survey

1. What was the actual intended purpose of the poll?

2. Who paid for the survey?

3. What was the process for selecting the sample?

4. How were the questions selected, worded and in what order were they asked?

5. Were the questionnaires received by mail or were they hand-delivered?

6. If hand-delivered, by students or survey staff, how were the students or staff selected?

7. What training did they receive?

8. Upon what scientific principles was the survey based?

9. Was any process evaluation or outcome evaluation conducted? Where is the raw data?

The population represented

The process of a research survey is often mysterious, particularly for those who do not understand how polls are constructed and carried out. Many Palestinians we have interviewed wonder how the 1361 respondents can truly represent 1.5 million Palestinians? Many people in Gaza who have seen the results are skeptical, to say the least. Their skepticism is healthy. Polls have long been used as a manipulative tool, so much so that polls are even conducted on the credibility of polls!

Selection and composition of survey questions

Questions for a poll are to be constructed scientifically and answers to those questions are to be interpreted scientifically. What is as important as the selection of questions to be asked is the way in which they are worded and the order in which they are asked.

The British Polling Council describes the problem:

"The polls might have asked different questions. Wording matters, especially on subjects where many people do not have strong views. It is always worth checking the exact wording when polls appear to differ. There might be an "order effect". One poll might ask a particular question "cold", at the beginning of a survey; another poll might ask the same question "warm", after a series of other questions on the same topic. Differences sometimes arise between the two sets of results, again when many people do not have strong views, and some people may give different answers depending on whether they are asked a question out of the blue or after being invited to consider some aspects of the issue first."

"Seeded questions" in "retro-polling" are known for influencing the respondent. In this case, a negative valence is applied on the question. For example, a question could be asked, "Why did you pick that absurd name?" - or "Do you support the conservatives or oppose helping children?"

The respondent has to either justify or defend his or her answer rather than simply giving an opinion. Moreover, the effects of this type of question can run even deeper, depending on the tone of voice and expression on the face of the interviewer if present when the questionnaire is delivered. Below, we provide 4 examples of questions that skew the result in the Al-Najah survey:

The very first question on the An-Najah survey asks about the cause of the Israeli bombardment and invasion of Gaza in December and January. The question is framed thus:

"Do you think that the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip was a reaction to the firing of rockets from the Strip?"

The problem with this question, in part, is the order in which it has been asked (i.e. first on the survey). This, being the first of question on the survey, sets the stage for the remaining 42 inquiries which are blatantly designed to favor Fatah and Israel. The first question could as easily been asked, "Do you think that Hamas rocket fire was a response to Israel's 18 month siege and missile strikes in the Gaza Strip?

Another question on the survey suggests a particular response:

"There are those who say that Hamas is belligerent towards Fateh activists in the Gaza Strip. Do you support or reject this allegation?"

The next example is so obscure, the response is negated:

"How do you assess media coverage of the war on the Gaza Strip?".

What media are people in war-torn Gaza watching? Are the Gazan's reading local Palestinian news papers, news coverage on Internet and New York Times or watching the TV channel's CNN and Aljazeera? In their shell-shocked condition, under continuing siege, without electricity, water, medical treatment, food as a result of hermetically closed border crossings, what media is available to them? How much time and energy do they have to watch the media while burying and grieving their dead, thousands suffering from untreated wounds, struggling to feed their families, the homeless finding shelter and suffering in fear.

A fourth example of this survey's questions assumes that the Palestinian resistance either broke the former truce agreement, which is not true, or it assumes the resistance will be the one to violate a current or future truce agreement. No questions in the survey express the Israelis violations of the truce agreement.

"Do you support military operations by Palestinian resistance factions after reaching a truce agreement?"

Design, execution and interpretation of polls

The sample: Selecting a sample that fairly represents a larger population is the fundamental basis for all survey research. Stratified random selection is the most widely accepted method for selecting a sample if it is to speak for a broader population. Otherwise, the sample cannot be held to represent the attitudes, opinions, or projected behavior of the population of which it is a part.

The fundamental goal of a survey is based on probabilities. The idea is that there is a high probability that the same results achieved through a sample would have been achieved if something on the order of 98% of the population had been surveyed personally.

Random Selection: The crucial element in reaching this goal is a fundamental principle called "equal probability of selection" (EPS). EPS assumes that if every member of a population has an equal probability of being selected in a sample, then that sample will be representative of the population. Thus, the goal in selecting samples is to allow every citizen an equal chance of falling into the sample. This random selection method precludes a rigging of the sample for a desired outcome.

Physical location: A population poll should select a place where all or most citizens are equally likely to be found. That would not be a market or a mall, a larger grocery store, an office building, workplace, a hotel or an event such as a sports game. A place where nearly all adults most likely is to be found, is in their home, so that said, reaching people at home should be the starting place for most population surveys.

Data collection: The standard method to conduct a survey until the mid-1980s, knocking on doors was considered to be a reliable method but the labor intensity of the surveys made this very difficult. The surveys were reported to be highly accurate, with average error of less than 3% points. The validity and reliability of even these surveys is mitigated by foibles such as the construction of the survey, interviewer bias, language difficulties and perception. By the end of the 1980s the vast majority of national surveys were conducted in telephone interviews. Telephone interviews are perhaps easier and less expensive to conduct but even less reliable than in-person interviews. Today, approximately 95% of all households have a telephone and almost every survey that recorded and reported is based on interviews conducted by telephone.

Stratified Sampling: The method of stratified random selection of a sample must first ensure that the respondents were selected randomly. Second, they must be randomly selected across different socio-economic strata, such as political affiliations, race, income, education, gender, employment, etc. In addition, obvious factors for stratification in this poll should include the impact of the war on Gaza on individual respondents (trauma, loss of a family member, loved one or personal injury). While the final question on the survey asked about the respondent's political affiliation, there is no evidence that respondents were selected for the sample based on their political preferences.

A stratified, randomly selected sample of 1,000 respondents could more accurately represent a population of millions than 1,000,000 respondents in a similar population who were not selected randomly and not stratified according to conditions like those described above. On the other hand, as a rule, the more people surveyed correctly - the higher the probability the sample represents the population. This rather obscure poll of 1361 Palestinians among 1.5 million, may or may not represent the views of the Palestinian people as a whole. However, it is reported to serve that very end.

When an organization does not reveal their funding source, their purpose, survey design (selection and wording of questions), their sampling techniques, method of contact and selection & training of interviewers, process and outcome evaluations and method of interpretation, the reported outcome is meaningless at best and a deliberate attempt at disinformation at worst.

February 10 2009

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!"

---

Addenda

The following questions were asked on the survey questionnaire. Multiple-choice lists beneath some of the questions are not included. They can be viewed at the An-Nahah website:

1. Do you think that the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip was a reaction to the firing of rockets from the Strip?

2. Do you support military operations by Palestinian resistance factions after reaching a truce agreement?

3. Do you think that the PLO factions participated in the resistance during the war on Gaza?

4. Do you think that the war on Gaza strengthened Hamas in the West Bank?

5. What are your priorities at the present time?

6. Do you think that funds secured so far for rebuilding the Gaza Strip are enough?

7. In your opinion to whom raised funds to rebuild the Gaza Strip should be given?

8. Do you think that aids sent to Gaza are being distributed on a biased factional basis?

9. Do you think that aids in the Gaza Strip reach those who rightly deserve them?

10. Who in your opinion is best capable of rebuilding the Gaza Strip?

11. Do you think that the reaction of the Arab public measured up to the catastrophe in the Gaza Strip?

12. Do you think that the reaction of the Islamic public measured up to the catastrophe in the Gaza Strip?

13. Do you think that the reaction of the international public measured up to the catastrophe in the Gaza Strip?

14. After the war on Gaza, do you think that there is a genuine desire among all concerned parties to end the current Palestinian division?

15. After the war on Gaza, do you think that the Palestinian leaderships (Fateh, Hamas, Jihad, the Left ---etc.) are capable of ending the current Palestinian division?

16. In your opinion, who stands as an obstacle before a Palestinian dialogue?

17. After the war on Gaza, do you think that the Palestinian public is ready to lead a national reconciliation to a success?

18. Do you think that Fateh is concerned with a national reconciliation on the bases of the top national interests of the Palestinian people?

19. Do you think that Hamas is concerned with a national reconciliation on the bases of the top national interests of the Palestinian people?

20. Do you think that Fateh contributed to the widening of the Palestinian internal rift?

21. Do you think that Hamas contributed to the widening of the Palestinian internal rift?

22. Do you think that the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip increased the possibility of the separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank?

23. Do you think that the new US administration under Obama is serious in its endeavors to achieve peace in the Middle East?

24. Do you think that Hamas should accept a truce for one year and a half?

25. Do you think that the suggested truce will hold for long in the future?

26. Who is the biggest beneficiary from a truce between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip?

27. In your opinion, who emerged victorious in the last war on the Gaza Strip?

28. Do you support or reject the entrance of Arab forces to the Gaza Strip?

29. Do you support or reject the entrance of Arab forces to the West Bank?

30. Do you support or reject the entrance of international forces to the Gaza Strip?

31. Do you support or reject the entrance of international forces to the West Bank?

32. How do you assess media coverage of the war on the Gaza Strip?

33. Are you in favor of forming a transitional government for the purpose of preparing for and supervising new presidential and PLC elections?

34. If presidential elections are held in the present time, to whom from among the following do you give your vote?
If new PLC elections are conducted, whom do you vote for?

35. If new legislative elections were to be held today, which of the following would win?

36. Do you think that there are horizons for national reconciliation?

37. There are those who say that Hamas is belligerent towards Fateh activists in the Gaza Strip. Do you support or reject this allegation?

38. There are those who say that the Palestinian Authority arrests Hamas activists in the West Bank. Do you support or reject this allegation?

39. Are you worried about your life under the present circumstances?

40. Are you pessimistic or optimistic towards the general Palestinian situation at this stage?

41. Under the present circumstances, do you feel that you, your family and your properties are safe?

42. Which of the following political affiliations do you support?

---

These are the General Results of the survey, Opinion Poll no.37, as it has been interpreted and reported by An-Najah National University:

• 28.6 % of respondents considered the war waged on the Gaza Strip by Israel a reaction to the firing of rockets from the Strip; 69.1% rejected.
• 39.9% of respondents supported military operations by Palestinian resistance factions even after agreeing on a truce.
• 71.1% of respondents believed that the PLO factions participated in resistance during the war on Gaza.
• 57.7% of respondents believed that the war on Gaza strengthened Hamas movement inside the West Bank.
• The top priorities of respondents at the present time were as follows:
  
  - Achieving a national reconciliation 52.6%
  - Rebuilding Gaza 34%
  - Improving the economic conditions 12%
• 27.9% of respondents believed that the aids secured up to the present time are enough to rebuild the Gaza Strip.
• As to whom the funds for rebuilding the Gaza Strip should be given, 19.8% said that the Palestinian Authority should be in charge of these funds, 18.1% said Hamas, 22.3% said a national committee from all Palestinian factions, and 21.1% said the UNRWA should be in charge.
• 45.8% of respondents believed that the aids given to the Gaza Strip are being distributed with factional biases.
• 34.9% of respondents believed that aids to the Gaza Strip reach the people who deservedly need them.
• As for the best side which should be entrusted with rebuilding the Gaza Strip, 35.5% of respondents said it should be local companies, 20.6%said it should be Arab companies and 26.3% said it should be multinational companies.
• 67.4% of respondents considered the reaction of the Arab public to the war on the Gaza Strip measured up to the level of the catastrophe.
• 69.3% from among respondents considered the reaction of the Islamic public to the war on the Gaza Strip measured up to the level of the catastrophe.
• 63% of respondents considered the reaction of the International public to the war on the Gaza Strip measured up to the level of the catastrophe.
• 47.5% of respondents believed that after the war on Gaza there is a genuine desire among the concerned parties to end the current Palestinian division.
• 54.4% of respondents believed that after the war on Gaza, the Palestinian leaderships ( Fateh, Hamas, Jihad, the left---etc.) are capable of ending the current Palestinian division.
• 23.7% of respondents said that those who hinder the Palestinian dialogue are persons from Hamas and Fateh; 15.7 % said it is Hamas movement; 10.9% said it is Fateh movement.
• 60% of respondents believed that after the war on Gaza the Palestinian public is ready to support a national reconciliation.
• 54.4% of respondents believed that Fateh movement is concerned with a national reconciliation on the bases of the top national Palestinian interests.
• 48.6% of respondents believed that Hamas movement is concerned with a national reconciliation on the bases of the top national Palestinian interests.
• 48.9% of respondents believed that Fateh movement participated in widening the internal Palestinian rift.
• 62.8% of respondents believed that Hamas movement participated in widening the internal Palestinian rift.
• 56.9% of respondents believed that the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip increased the possibility of the separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank.
• 24% of respondents believed that the new American administration under Obama is serious in its endeavors to achieve peace in the Middle East.
• 64.3% of respondents saw that Hamas should accept a truce for a year and a half.
• 20% of respondents saw that the suggested truce will hold for long in the future.
• 34.1% of respondents believed that Israel is the main beneficiary from a truce between Israel and Hamas; 17.1% said the beneficiary is Hamas and 43% said that the beneficiary is the citizens of the Gaza Strip.
• 31.6% of respondents believed that Hamas emerged victorious from the last war; 13.4 % said the victorious side is Israel.
• 51.7% of respondents supported allowing Arab troops to enter the Gaza Strip.
• 26.7% of respondents supported allowing Arab troops to enter the West Bank.
• 66.3% of respondents supported allowing international troops to enter the Gaza Strip.
• 21% of respondents supported allowing international troops to enter the West Bank.
• 68.3% of respondents assessed media coverage of the war on Gaza as "good"
• 82% of respondents supported the formation of a transitional government whose aim will be to prepare for and supervise Presidential and PLC elections.
• 79% of respondents said that they will participate in the coming presidential elections. From among those who said they will participate, 31.9% said that they will give their votes to Fateh's candidate; 23.5% said they will give their votes to Hamas' candidate.
• 79.4% of respondents said that they will participate in the coming legislative elections. From among those who said they will participate, 31.4% said that they will give their votes to Fateh's candidates; 24.6% said they will give their votes to Hamas' candidates.
• If PLC elections are to be conducted, 29.7% of respondents expected the winning of Fateh movement; 33.3% expected the winning of Hamas.
• 51.9% of respondents believed that there are horizons for a Palestinian National reconciliation.
• 50.7% of respondents believed that Hamas movement assaults Fateh activists in the Gaza Strip.
• 48.8% of respondents believed that the Palestinian Authority arrests Hamas activists in the West Bank.
• 55% of respondents expressed fear for their lives under the present circumstances.
• 59.3% of respondents said that they are pessimistic of the general Palestinian situation at this stage.
• 53.9% of respondents said that they neither feel safe for themselves nor for their families and properties under the current circumstances.

* As for political affiliation respondents gave the following results: People's Party %1.0, Democratic Front %0.7, Islamic Jihad %3.2, Fateh 30.3%, Hamas 21.5%, Fida 0.1, Popular Front 3.7%, Palestinian National Initiative 0.9%, Independent nationalist 6.5%, Independent Islamist 3.0%, None of the above 28.8%, Others 0.3%

_________________________________________________________________

Majority of Israelis in Favor of Apartheid

30/06/2008 According to a survey conducted for the Center for the Campaign Against Racism and published on March 20th, 2007: 37 % of the Israeli Jews polled think that the Arabic culture is inferior to the Jewish one. The results also showed that each time overhearing someone speaking Arabic, 50 % of Israeli Jews feel fear and 31 % feel hatred. The poll also said that 56 % of the Israeli Jews think that Israeli Arabs pose a security problem to the "State of Israel." 55 % of the Israeli Jews wish that the Jews and Arabs are kept apart in the places of leisure. And 40 % of the Israeli Jews think that Israeli Arabs should be deprived of their right to vote.

International Poll Marks Shift in US Public Opinion Towards Palestine and Israeli occupation

PNN - Dr. Nabil Kukali presents the latest public international poll on the position of world leaders in their dealings with the problem in Palestine vis-à-vis the Israeli occupation. He says that he sees a positive shift in the view of the American people, while all countries receive relatively low marks for efforts to solve the crisis. The United Nations Security Council is widely viewed as the only solution at this point.

College Park, MD—A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 countries finds that in 14 of them people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey). No country favors taking Israel’s side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.

The poll of 18,792 respondents was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world and managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

Interviews were conducted in 18 countries, including most of the largest nations–China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia—as well as Mexico, Peru, Great Britain, France, Spain, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Thailand and South Korea. The Palestinian Territories were also polled. The nations included represent 59 percent of the world population. Not all questions were asked in all nations.

World publics give low marks to Israel, the Palestinians, the United States and the Arab countries when asked how well they are doing their part in the effort to resolve the conflict.

Publics in most countries think the United Nations should play a greater role in the conflict in the Middle East. Majorities say the UN should offer to send peacekeepers to the region not only to enforce an eventual agreement but also to guarantee the security of both Israel and its Arab neighbors.

“Publics around the world are not cheering for either side and want their governments to take an even-handed approach,” said Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org. “All of the key actors are seen as failing to do their part to break the impasse and most want the UN Security Council to step in and offer peacekeeping forces and even security guarantees to help resolve the conflict.”

On average 58 percent of those polled around the world say that they believe their country should not take either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Only 20 percent say their country should favor the Palestinians and just 7 percent say the Israelis.

Large majorities of about 70 percent or more prefer a neutral stance in eight countries, including the United States (71%), as well as Mexico (88%), South Korea (82%), Great Britain (79%), France (79%), Peru (76%), China (74%), and Ukraine (69%).

World publics give low marks to international actors when asked to evaluate how well they are “doing their part in the effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Israel receives the worst ratings. In thirteen out of the fifteen countries asked this question, majorities say the Israelis are “not doing very well” or “not doing well at all.” On average, 54 percent say Israel is not playing a positive role while just 22 percent say it is. Those giving Israel poor grades include three out of five Americans (59%). Only in India do more view Israel’s role positively (35%) than negatively (25%). The Chinese are divided.

Palestinians do not fare much better than Israelis. In 10 out of 15 countries, most say the Palestinians are not doing their part in the effort to resolve their conflict with Israel. On average, 47 percent view the Palestinians’ role negatively while 28 percent view it positively. Americans have the largest majority with this negative view (75%), followed by South Koreans (74%) and the French (66%). Those viewing the Palestinian role most favorably are the Palestinians themselves (75%), followed by Egyptians (63%), Indonesians (49%) and Nigerians (46%).

A majority of Palestinians are critical of the efforts of their Arab neighbors and the United States, as well as Israel, in their efforts to resolve the conflict. While Palestinians would like the UN to play a greater role in other ways, they show the highest levels of opposition to a UN commitment to protect Israel if it is attacked by its Arab neighbors.

Eight in ten Palestinians think that Israel is not doing its part well in trying to resolve the conflict, and 61 percent say “not well at all.” Palestinian opinion is only slightly less critical of the United States; more than three-quarters (77%) say that the US is not doing its part well, with a majority (55%) saying “not well at all.” Palestinians are also critical of the efforts of their Arab neighbors: a majority (57%) says that they are not doing their part well, while one-third (33%) says that they are. On the other hand, three-quarters of Palestinians (75%) say that their own nation is doing its part well in its attempts to resolve the conflict, and 40 percent say “very well.”

Palestinians support the United Nations taking a stronger role in the conflict in two out of the three proposed ways. Sixty-three percent support an offer to send a peacekeeping force in the event of an agreement, with 35 percent opposed. Seventy-five percent would support the Security Council offering a commitment to protect Arab countries if attacked by Israel, while 20 percent oppose. However, 85 percent would oppose such a commitment to protect Israel if it were attacked by its Arab neighbors.

The countries that are part of the "Quartet" were also polled on the performance of their country and of the European Union. The Quartet consists of the US, Russia, the UN, and the European Union.

The European Union's efforts were evaluated by France and Britain. The EU receives negative ratings from pluralities in both countries (France 48 %,Britain 45 %), and in both countries those giving positive ratings does not exceed one third (France 33%, Britain 31%).

The British also give their own country poor ratings. A plurality of 47% gives their government an unfavorable review while 33% give a positive review.

Russians are a bit more upbeat about their country's performance. While many do not provide an answer, a plurality of 36% give a positive evaluation while 17% give a negative one.

Twelve of the countries polled say the United States is not doing its part very well. On average, 59 percent view the US role negatively while only 20 percent view it positively. In the United States itself, only 44 percent say their country is doing its part well while 46 percent say it is not.

Evaluations of the Arab countries are negative in 11 out of the 15 publics asked. On average, 48 percent say they are not playing a constructive role while just 23 percent say they are. A majority of the Palestinians (57%) also rate efforts by their Arab neighbors negatively.

Publics around the world think the UN Security Council should take a robust role in resolving the conflict. In 16 of 17 countries asked about this issue, majorities or pluralities think that if Israel and the Palestinians reach an agreement, the UN Security Council should send peacekeepers to enforce it. On average, 67 percent favor this idea while just 20 percent oppose it.

Most UN Security Council members support sending UN peacekeepers to enforce an eventual Israeli-Palestinian agreement, including majorities in China (81%), France (74%), Great Britain (67%), the United States (61%), and a plurality of Russians (47%).

Predominantly Muslim publics in the Middle East also support this proposal, including Turks (65%), Egyptians (64%), and Palestinians (63%).

Most publics polled would support an even higher level of UN commitment: that if Israel and the Palestinians reach a peace agreement, the UN Security Council should offer security guarantees to both Israel and its Arab neighbors. Eleven of the 16 countries polled said the Security Council should make a commitment to protect Israel if it is attacked by its Arab neighbors, while 13 of the 16 thought it should do the same for Arab countries in case of an Israeli attack. On average, 45 percent favor providing such guarantees to Israel and 55 percent providing them to Arab countries.

Comments of Dr. Nabil Kukali on the Results of the International Poll

In his comments on the results of this International Poll, Dr. Nabil Kukali, Director of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, said that "there is a positive shift in the view of the American people towards the balance of the roles of the adverse parties of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, since the US Americans, as seen from the poll findings, do not blame only the Palestinian people for not exerting sufficient efforts to resolve their conflict with Israel, but blame also Israel as well. Three out of five US citizens (59 %) give Israel poor ratings in this respect."

Dr. Kukali added furthermore that:" Publics around the world get now to realize that the United States is not doing its part very well and the US role is negatively viewed while only one fifth of the publics view it positively". "This should give", he said "the US administration an urge to intensify its role in future as to resolve this tragic conflict".

As to the role of the Arab countries in supporting their Palestinian brothers, Dr. Kukali pointed out the fact that, in addition to a clear majority of the Palestinian public, almost half of the publics around the world believes that the Arab countries are not playing a constructive role, and that is a clear indication to the leaders of these countries to exert more efforts".

Regarding the role of the "Quartet", Dr. Kukali said that "the poll findings are talking a clear language, namely pluralities in both countries representing the European Union give their governments negative ratings, whilst a considerable rate of Russians declined to show their attitude."

Commenting on the role of the UN, on which most publics around the world set much of hopes in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Dr. Kukali asserted that "the UN, acting by its UNSC, should have a more effective and robust role by enforcing peace in the form of sending UN peacemakers to anchor an eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and providing security guarantees to the protection of both parties, the Arab countries and Israel alike."

Less Than Half the World Believes al-Qaeda Was Behind 9/11 Attacks

Joshua Holland via quill - alternet Thursday, Sep 11 2008, 5:27pm

An international poll released this week by the Project on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found that outside the United States, many are skeptical that al Qaeda was really responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Sixteen thousand people in 17 countries -- allies and adversaries in Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East -- were asked the open-ended question: "Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?"

On average, fewer than half of all respondents said al Qaeda (although there was significant variation between countries and regions). Fifteen percent said the United States government itself was responsible for the attacks, 7 percent cited Israel, and fully 1 in 4 said they just didn't know.

Among our closest allies, very slim majorities believe al Qaeda was the culprit. According to the study, "Fifty-six percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans cite al Qaeda. However, significant portions of Britons (26%), French (23%), and Italians (21%) say they do not know who was behind 9/11. Remarkably, 23 percent of Germans cite the U.S. government, as do 15 percent of Italians."

Whatever one thinks of "alternative" theories of who the perpetrators were that day, the results are an eye-opening indication of how profoundly the world's confidence in the United States government has eroded during the Bush era. The researchers found little difference among respondents according to levels of education, or to the amount of exposure to the news media they had. Rather, they found a clear correlation with people's attitudes toward the United States in general. "Those with a positive view of America's influence in the world are more likely to cite al Qaeda (on average 59%) than those with a negative view (40%)," wrote the authors. "Those with a positive view of the United States are also less likely to blame the U.S. government (7%) than those with a negative view (22%)."

Interestingly, Americans are also dubious, with more than a third of those polled by Scripps Howard News Service in 2006 saying it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them" because they "wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East." The poll didn't, however, distinguish between those who believed the government actively participated in the events of that day or merely had foreknowledge that the attacks were imminent. (Another poll that year, by CBS News and the New York Times, found that fewer than 1 in 5 Americans believed the government was being fully forthcoming about the attacks.)

In one sense, these findings should come as no surprise. America, like other countries, has been known to conduct "false-flag" operations before. And it has used falsehoods to justify going to war. In the now-infamous "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" -- the incident that would be used to justify America's involvement in that conflict -- a minor skirmish occurred between U.S. naval ships and two North Vietnamese coastal vessels. Two days later, the Johnson administration reported that there had been a second attack, which it claimed was evidence of "communist aggression" on the part of the North Vietnamese. But, as a National Security Agency report revealed in 2005 (PDF), the second incident -- the one that created a "pattern" of aggression -- was invented out of whole cloth. "It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night," reads the report.

In 1990, on the eve of the first Gulf War, Pentagon officials cited top-secret satellite images and said definitively that Saddam Hussein had amassed a huge army -- with 250,000 men and 1,500 tanks -- along the Saudi border in preparation for an invasion of that country. Jean Heller, a reporter with the St. Petersburg Times, purchased some Russian satellite images of the same piece of desert and found that in fact there was nothing there but sand. After the U.S.-led attack, a "senior (U.S. military) commander" told New York Newsday, "There was a great disinformation campaign surrounding this war."

Those incidents are in no way analogous to the attacks of 9/11. But in 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that the CIA might launch a series of terror attacks within the United States, blame Cuba, and use the ensuing panic to justify military action against the defiant island-nation. (The plan, called "Operation Northwoods," which became public in 1997, was reportedly killed off by John F. Kennedy himself -- it got that far up the food chain.)

Yet, whatever the historical context, there can be little doubt that the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy and well-documented dishonesty fuels the debate over who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11. Earlier this year, an independent study conducted by the Center for Public Integrity documented 935 lies mouthed by senior administration officials to gin up support for the invasion of Iraq (one of which was Donald Rumsfeld repeating the long-disproved claim that Saddam had amassed a huge army on the Saudi border in 1990).

Just the fact that the administration blamed a group in Afghanistan for the attacks and then invaded a different country -- with some of the world's richest oil reserves -- would have been enough to create suspicion around the world. And no satisfactory explanation has ever been given for why the Bush administration didn't step up airline security in the face of repeated warnings -- some quite specific in terms of time and place -- from foreign governments and their intelligence agencies, warnings from allies like Israel's Mossad to "enemies" like the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The credibility gap that has developed around the world's pre-eminent power is more than a matter of academic interest. Around the world, many of those who embraced us immediately after 9/11 and offered almost unconditional support for our policies now don't believe a word coming out of our officials' mouths, and that affects U.S. foreign policy, and the stability of the whole international system, in ways both obvious and subtle.

A good, obvious example is Pakistan, where most Americans believe we're allied with the government and a majority of the Pakistani people against a small group of Al Qaeda extremists who are undermining the U.S.-led battle against their terrorist brethren in Afghanistan (where we are allied with that government and most of that country's people). American politicians expend much hot air accusing the Pakistani government of "not doing enough to rein in extremists" in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

But as Princeton scholar Zia Mian wrote in July, "most damaging of all for the United States is that people in Pakistan overwhelmingly see the United States as the problem." Mian cited a poll (PDF) conducted in May by the Pakistan Institute for Public Opinion, which found that "60 percent of Pakistanis believe the U.S. 'war on terror' seeks to weaken the Muslim world, and 15 percent think its goal is to 'ensure U.S. domination over Pakistan.'" About a third had a positive view of al Qaeda, twice as many as the number that viewed the United States in a positive light. Mian touched on what is probably the key finding in the study -- and one that speaks to our officials' utter lack of credibility when they say that they're fighting "extremism" or "terrorists." The poll found that "44 percent of Pakistanis believe the United States is the greatest threat to their personal safety ... (while) the Pakistani Taliban, who ... by some estimates have up to 40,000 fighters, are seen as a threat by less than 10 percent. Al Qaeda barely registers as a threat, slightly surpassing Pakistan's own military and Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI)."

With almost half of the population saying the United States is the greatest threat to their own personal safety, any Pakistani government will be left between a rock and a hard place. In that part of the planet, the real-world consequence of our government's credibility gap is that the cooperation Washington seeks from Islamabad -- both internally and with neighboring Afghanistan -- can only result in destabilizing an already unstable political scene.

Around the world, the United States is at the nadir of its post-World War II influence. Among foreign governments and publics, in international institutions and commercial markets, our ideologies haven't had less power to sway people than they do today. We've never had less "soft power;" hard power doesn't come cheaply or without unintended consequences, and there's no guarantee that the Iron Fist can ever be put back into the Velvet Glove now that it's been exposed.

The fact that fewer than half of the world's citizens believe we were really attacked by al Qaeda seven years ago is merely a reflection of far deeper problems that our foreign policy makers are going to have to try to face in the coming years. That's Bush's foreign policy legacy.

All of which brings us to what historians will probably consider the great irony of the decline of the brief U.S.-led mono-polar order that existed between the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the second Gulf War: The neoconservative movement, which was so obsessed with the preservation of American power and the suppression of its rivals -- from its birth in the Nixon administration, through Reagan's "Dirty Wars" in Latin America and culminating in the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- ultimately oversaw the crash and burn of the World's Only Superpower's ability to influence world events.

http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/releases/relea00012.pdf

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/PakistanPollReportJune08.pdf

Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No (27)

.

With Increased Dissatisfaction with the Performance of Mahmud Abbas and with the Government of Ismail Haniyeh Seen as Having Greater Legitimacy and Better Performance than the Government of Salam Fayyad, Hamas’s and Haniyeh’s Popularity Increase and Fateh’s and Abbas’s Decrease

PSR - Survey Research Unit: Poll No. 27 - Press Release

March 17, 2008

These are the results of the latest poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip between 13 and 15 March 2008. This period witnessed a limited lull that prevailed between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the Israeli incursion into Gaza in early March that left more than 130 Palestinians dead and after the bombing attack in West Jerusalem that led to the death of 8 Israeli religious students. Total size of the sample is 1270 adults interviewed face to face in 127 randomly selected locations. Margin of error is 3%. For further details, contact PSR director, Dr. Khalil Shikaki, or Walid Ladadweh at tel 02-296 4933 or email pcpsr@pcpsr.org.

Main Findings:

Findings indicate that a major shift, in Hamas’s favor, had occurred during the last three months with about 10% of the population shifting their attitudes and perceptions. The change included increased popularity of Hamas and its leadership, increased support for its positions and legitimacy, and greater satisfaction with its performance. These changes might have been the result of several political developments starting with the breaching of the Rafah border with Egypt during the last week of January and first week of February, followed by the Israeli military incursion into the Gaza Strip leading to a large number of Palestinian causalities and an increase in the number of rockets launched from the Gaza Strip against Israeli towns such as Sderot and Ashkelon, the two suicide attacks in Dimona and Jerusalem leading to the death of nine Israelis, and ending with the failure of the Annapolis process in positively affecting daily life of Palestinians in the West Bank, in stopping Israeli settlement activities, or in producing progress in final status negotiations. These developments managed to present Hamas as successful in breaking the siege and as a victim of Israeli attacks. These also presented Palestinian President Abbas and his Fateh faction as impotent, unable to change the bitter reality in the West Bank or ending Israeli occupation through diplomacy.

The gap between the standing of Fateh compared to the standing of Hamas decreases significantly in three months from 18 percentage points to 7. If new parliamentary elections were to take place today, Hamas would receive 35%, Fateh 42%, other electoral lists combined 12%, and 11% remain undecided. This represents a significant increase in Hamas’s popularity compared to December 2007 when it received 31% compared to 49% to Fateh, 10% to other lists and 11% undecided. Hamas’s popularity increased to 34% during the breaching of the Rafah border with Egypt during the last week of January while Fateh’s popularity dropped to 46%. Hamas is more popular in the Gaza Strip reaching 40% compared to 31% in the West Bank. Fateh’s popularity is slightly greater in the Gaza Strip, reaching 43% compared to 41% in the West Bank.

The gap between the standing of Abbas compared to the standing of Haniyeh decreases significantly in three months from 19 percentage points to almost zero. If new presidential elections were to take place today, Mahmud Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh would receive almost equal number of votes, 46% for Abbas and 47% for Haniyeh. Abbas’s popularity stood at 56% and Haniyeh’s at 37% last December. During the breaching of the Rafah border with Egypt, Abbas’s popularity dropped to 51% and Haniyeh’s increased to 43%. Haniyeh’s popularity today is the highest ever registered since Hamas’s electoral victory in January 2006. However, if the competition was between Marwan Barghouti and Haniyeh, the former would receive 57% and the latter 38%. Moreover, the percentage of non-participation would decrease from 34% (if the competition was between Abbas and Haniyeh) to 24% (if the competition was between Barghouti and Haniyeh).

Findings show continued decrease in the level of satisfaction with the performance of Abbas and a greater positive evaluation for the performance of Haniyeh’s government over the performance of Fayyad’s government. Satisfaction with the performance of Abbas stands today at 41% and dissatisfaction at 56%. Satisfaction with Abbas’s performance stood at 50% last December and 46% during the breaching of the Rafah border with Egypt. Moreover, only 30% say that the performance of the Fayyad government is good or very good and 42% say it is bad or very bad. By contrast, 39% say the performance of the Haniyeh’s government is good or very good and only 34% say it is bad or very bad.

Findings show depreciation in the legitimacy of Fayyad’s government and a significant rise in public perception of the legitimacy of Haniyeh’s government. 49% say Haniyeh should stay in office as Prime Minister while 45% say he should not. Last September only 40% said Haniyeh should stay as prime minister. By contrast, today only 38% say Fayyad’s government should stay in office and 55% say it should not. Support for Fayyad’s government stood at 49% last September. Similarly, 34% say Haniyeh’s government is the legitimate Palestinian government and only 29% say Fayyad’s government is the legitimate one. 9% say both governments are legitimate and 24% say both are illegitimate. It is noticeable that Haniyeh’s government receives greater public legitimacy both in the West Bank (32% to Haniyeh’s compared to 26% to Fayyad’s) and the Gaza Strip (37% to Haniyeh’s compared to 34% to Fayyad’s). It is also worth mentioning that this is the first time that Haniyeh’s government has received greater public legitimacy than Fayyad’s. Last December, belief that Fayyad’s government was legitimate stood at 38% and belief that Haniyeh’s government was legitimate stood at 30%.

Despite the fact that the majority continues to reject Hamas’s June 2007 violent takeover of the Gaza Strip, only a small minority believes that Hamas alone is responsible for the continued political split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Rejection of Hamas’s violent takeover stands today at 68% and acceptance of the takeover at 26%. Rejection of the takeover stood at 73% last September. Acceptance of Hamas’s takeover increases in the Gaza Strip reaching 33% compared to 23% in the West Bank. However, only 17% believe that Hamas alone is responsible for the continued split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and in fact 21% say Fateh alone is responsible for the continued split. A majority of 54% believes that both Hamas and Fateh are responsible for the continued split. The tendency to avoid blaming Hamas alone for the continuation of the split reflects a change in public perception regarding the positions of the two factions regarding return to dialogue as an exit from the current crisis. Support for Fateh’s and Abbas’s position, which demands a return to the status quo ante as a precondition to dialogue drops from 46% last September to 39% in this poll. Support for Hamas’s position, which calls for unconditional dialogue, increases from 27% to 37% during the same period.

Perception of personal and family security and safety diminishes considerably in the West Bank declining from 44% last December to 32% in this poll. Perception of security and safety improved greatly in the West Bank in December 2007 compared to September when it stood at 35%. In the Gaza Strip, perceptions of personal and family security and safety diminish somewhat from 52% to 46% between December 2007 and March 2008.

This PSR survey was conducted with the support of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Ramallah

POLICAL CLIMATE NOT RIPE FOR U.S. SPONSORED PEACE CONFERANCE

In a survey conducted between the 28th and the 30th of September which included 1000 residents of the Gaza Strip the West Bank and Jerusalem, 55% believed that the timing and the political climate is not ripe, for a peace conference aimed at ending the Israeli/Arab conflict in the Middle East. Most Palestinians are not hopeful that the US planned peace conference will result in any progress towards a final resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Poll Shows Ismail Haniyeh Would Win Precidency

Poll by Al - Quds News

July 4 2007

In an opinion poll conducted by the website of the Palestinian Al-Quds newspaper show that PA chief Mahmoud Abbas's popularity was at its lowest ebb with only 13.47% voting for him as president if elections were held now.

The poll further said that if an honest election process was held Ismail Haneyya, premier of the care taker government, would win 51.47% of the votes, which is 38% more than Abbas.

The poll further indicated that Marwan Al-Barghouthi, a detained Fatah leader in Israeli jails, would only get 12.16% of the votes while Dr. Mustafah Al-Barghouthi, leader of the National Initiative party, would only get 5.93% of the total votes.

It further showed that Salam Fayyad, the premier of the so-called emergency government, would win the least of votes with 4.93%.

The paper is closely associated with the Fatah faction and the PA presidency.

Israel Labeled as Third Most Violent & Dangerous Place to Live In

Only Sudan and Iraq were described as worse in the annual survey, which listed 121 countries according to how peaceful each country is, based on levels of violence and organised crime within the country, as well as levels of military expenditure.

A report by the Economist Intelligence Unit has labeled Israel as the third most violent and dangerous place in the world to live.

Israel ranked at number 119 amongst the most peaceful and tranquil countries out of 121 included in the report, as a result of the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and the high expenses on military. Scandinavian countries fared well as the most peaceful places in the world, with both Norway (1) and Denmark (3) in the top three.

The report highlights that the US invasion of Iraq, and the high level of criminal acts conducted with firearms caused Iraq to be the rated as the most dangerous place. Jordan came 63rd in terms of tranquility, Egypt 73rd, Syria 77th and Lebanon 114th of the 121 countries surveyed.

The United States of America was rated 96th, sandwiched between Yemen and Iran, due to huge domestic gun crime, homicide rates, prison population as percentage of citizenry and military spending which is greater than most of the rest of the world combined. The United Kingdom was ranked 49th, primarily due to its involvement in the war on Iraq.

The Economist Intelligence Unit explained that they used 24 points for the evaluation and measurement in their classification, which included street violence, violence in prisons, organized crime, military expenditure and number of law enforcement officers. The level of tranquility also took into account average income and the level of education, "in addition to the ability to assimilate in the area".

Majority of Israeli Jews in Favor of Apartheid

Opinion poll: A majority of Israeli Jews are in favour of the Apartheid

According to a survey conducted for the Center for the Campaign Against Racism and published on March 20th, 2007:

Culture: 37 % of the Israeli Jews polled think that the Arabic culture is inferior to the Jewish one.
Arabophobia: Each time overhearing someone speaking Arabic, 50 % of Israeli Jews feel fear and 31 % feel hatred.
Security: 56 % of the Israeli Jews think that Israeli Arabs pose a security problem to the State of Israel.
Segregation: 55 % of the Israeli Jews wish that the Jews and Arabs are kept apart in the places of leisure.
Citizenship: 40 % of the Israeli Jews think that Israeli Arabs should be deprived of their right to vote.

Study Shows - "Israel" is at the bottom in each area

.The Israeli Brand by considerable margin the most negative ever measured

A survey published in the US in five months ago ( late November 2006) says that "Israel" suffer from the worst public image among all countries of the world.

The Index surveyed 25,903 online consumers across 35 countries about their perceptions of those countries across six areas of national competence: Investment and Immigration, Exports, Culture and Heritage, People, Governance and Tourism. The NBI is the first analytical ranking of the world's nation brands.

"Israel's brand is by a considerable margin the most negative we have ever measured in the NBI, and comes at the bottom of the ranking on almost every question," states report the author of the survey Simon Anholt.

Anholt draw the conclusion that the politics of a nation is affecting every single aspect of a person's perception about a country.

In the light of the recent announcement the Israeli Foreign Ministry has taken upon itself to "re-brand Israel", Anholt comments that to succeed in permanently changing the image - a country with so negative to image must be prepared to change its behavior.Anhold believes that a reputation cannot be constructed: it has to be earned.

"If Israel's intention is to promote itself as a desirable place to live and invest in, the challenge appears to be a steep one," Anholt concluded.

The survey also indicated that "Israel" is at the bottom in each area by a long margin, including the fact that of the 36 countries ranked, there is nowhere that respondents would like to visit less than "Israel" - the survey also indicates that Israel’s people were also voted the most unwelcoming in the world.

Another unpleasant surprise - the index indicated that the Americans has ranked Israel just slightly above China in terms of its conduct in the areas of international peace and security.

The 35 countries polled for the study were: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, and the USA.

The study, called the National Brands Index was conducted by the government advisor Simon Anholt and powered by global market intelligence solutions provider GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.)

______

God Bless Palestine
Palestine will live - Palestine will be free

© Hiyam Noir

World Split in Torture " Etics " - Israelis Top 43 % Endorse Torture

Poll4Palestine Mars 8 2007 - 10.23 am

Torture Of Prisoners

Muslims in Israel, who represent 16% of the total number polled, are overwhelmingly against any use of torture.

All of the countries surveyed have signed up to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of torture and cruel and degrading behaviour.

"We are judged by how we treat our enemies rather than how we treat our friends"Jay Kandy, London

Countries that face political violence are more likely to accept the idea that some degree of torture is permissible because of the here>extreme threat posed by terrorists.

The Israelis has the largest percentage of those polled endorsing the use of a degree of torture on prisoners, with 43% saying they agreed that torture should be allowed.

The question

Most countries have agreed to rules prohibiting torturing prisoners. Which position is closer to yours?

**Here>Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives
Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights

World split on torture ethics

Other countries that polled higher levels of acceptance of the use of torture include Iraq (42%), the Philippines (40%), Indonesia (40%), Russia (37%) and China (37%).

The Israeli figure conceals a stark difference in attitude within the country, split along religious lines.

A majority of Jewish respondents in Israel, 53%, favour allowing governments to use some degree of torture to obtain information from those in custody, while 39% want clear rules against it.

Meanwhile opposition to the practise is highest in Italy, where 81% of those questioned think torture is never justified.

Australia, France, Canada, the UK and Germany also registered high levels of opposition to any use of torture.

Views on torturing prisoners

Country Against all torture * Some degree permissible * Neither/Don't Know
Australia 75% 22% 3%
Brazil 61% 32% 8%
Canada 74% 22% 4%
Chile 62% 22% 16%
China 49% 37% 13%
Egypt 65% 25% 9%
France 75% 19% 6%
Germany 71% 21% 7%
Gt Britain 72% 24% 4%
India 23% 32% 45%
Indonesia 51% 40% 8%
Iraq 55% 42% 1%
Israel 48% 43% 9%
Italy 81% 14% 6%
Kenya 53% 38% 9%
Mexico 50% 24% 27%
Nigeria 49% 39% 12%
Philippines 56% 40% 5%
Poland 62% 27% 12%
Russia 43% 37% 19%
S Korea 66% 31% 3%
Spain 65% 16% 19%
Turkey 62% 24% 14%
Ukraine 54% 29% 18%
US 58% 36% 7%
Average 59% 29% 12%

*27,000 respondents in 25 countries were asked which position was closer to their own views:

* Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights standards against torture.

* Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.

The survey was carried out for the BBC World Service by polling firm Globescan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

All of the countries surveyed have signed up to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of torture and cruel and degrading behaviour.

Source: BBC/Globescan/PIPA

Israel’s Attorney General receives 40 torture complaints in past year, investigates none

Twenty-four hours before the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit, Israel Defense Forces soldiers broke into the home of Mustafa Abu Ma'amar in Rafah. Special Israeli terror unites arrested Mustafa and his brother in their respective homes.Abu Ma'amar two weeks later told an attorney for the Public Committee Against Torture: "One or two days later (I discovered afterward that it was the same morning that the Israeli colonel Shalit had been kidnapped), three interrogators came to where I was held at 6 A.M. [approx. one hour after the abduction - N.H.].( Hitting and kicking and trottle the victim) They didn't ask me anything, just started kicking and hitting me while an interrogator named Moti grabbed me by the neck and throttled me until I thought I was going to die. The other two grabbed me and forcibly removed me."

The interrogators later used the "exercise technique," as Abu Ma'amar calls it. "They forced me to hold my legs to the chair legs, with the back of the chair to my right and nothing supporting my back. They pushed my back backwards and told me to 'exercise.' It made my stomach muscles cramp up and caused unbearable pain," Abu Ma'amar explained.

The interrogators asked about the tunnels that he had helped dig:"while cursing me and my mother and father an threatening to demolish my house if I didn't cooperate. They also told me they had arrested my brother and were torturing him."

The Shin Bet who interrogated them told him to stand on his toes and then "bend my legs and bring the lower part of my body downward .... It's very difficult and painful. They forced me to stand like that for hours on end, and each time I brought my foot to the floor or moved up or down I got hit," Abu Ma'amar wrote in his statement.

Abu Ma'amar's statement is one of many complaints of torture made by Palestinian detainees against Shin Bet agents. The PCAT claims the security agency's techniques are creeping back toward those used before 1999, when the High Court of Justice banned torture.

In Abu Ma'amar's case, the Shin Bet might be able to claim that he was a clear case of a "ticking bomb," since according to his indictment he had a (very small) part in planning the abduction, and his interrogation might have helpful for locating Shalit. Abu Ma'amar claims his torture began before the abduction and continued after it was obvious he had no information about Shalit's location.
According to attorney Leah Tsemel, whose clients include Abu Ma'amar, Shin Bet agents use torture in about 20 percent of their cases. In the remainder, more sophisticated interrogation techniques are employed, involving use of stool pigeons, rewards and threats.
In the past year alone, about 40 allegations of serious torture of Palestinians have been submitted to Attorney General Menachem Mazuz. The Executive Director of PCAT, Hannah Friedman, stresses that the organization thoroughly examines the credibility of each complaint, often interviewing the detainees three times. However Mazuz has not deemed any of the complaints as warranting a criminal investigation against the interrogators.

Each complaint is handled the same way. It is passed on to a Shin Bet employee who works in concert with the State Prosecutor's Office, and who eventually issues a letter stating that he met with both the detainee and the interrogators. After that, one of two possible responses to the complaint are issued.

The first is that the complaint was shown to be unsubstantiated. The second does not deny the facts of the case but justifies the actions with a standard formula: "An examination showed that Mr. ... was detained for questioning due to a serious suspicion, based on credible information, that he was ostensibly involved in or was an accessory to carrying out major terror activities that were liable to have been carried out in a very short time frame and which could have hurt or threatened human life." In plain English, a "ticking bomb."

PCAT officials say the Shin Bet should emulate the police and make the Justice Ministry's Police Investigations Department (PID) responsible for investigating its conduct, and are considering a High Court petition on the matter.

The Shin Bet confirmed that no criminal investigation has been launched against one of its agents for 18 months, but officials say that the complaints have resulted in disciplinary action against a number of agents.

Among the interrogation techniques described by recent detainees are being forced to maintain painful, cramped positions for long periods of time, positions whose regular use prior to 1999 earned them nicknames such as the "banana," "half-banana" and "frog." Detainees also complained about the use of painful wrist restraints, sleep deprivation and severe shaking as well as of being slapped and punched.

In one extreme case, a detainee claimed that an interrogator known to him as Captain Daniel Ba- ron used various objects to rape him anally while the detainee was in restraints.

The Shin Bet issued the following response, in part: "It is regrettable that the Public Committee Against Torture misses no opportunity to attack the Shin Bet's investigators, who work day and night to prevent terror and save lives, using claims that in most cases are baseless. Every complaint related to terror investigations is examined and checked thoroughly under the supervision of the State Prosecutor. In more than a few cases, the complaints submitted via the committee were not confirmed by those in whose names they were ostensibly submitted."

The attorney general's office responded as follows: "All complaints are examined very thoroughly by the [Shin Bet complaint handler] before being submitted, with no exceptions, to a thorough examination on the part of the senior prosecutor who is in charge of that handler. Some of the complaints are found to be baseless and others refer to events covered by the necessity defense. In certain cases, the examination leads to a change in procedures. In a few cases, when it is determined that a violation of procedures has taken place, a decision is taken to initiate a disciplinary or criminal procedure."

Haaretz November 8 2006

Israelis Anxious to Strike Iran - Actually Enjoy War

Hiyam Noir Poll4Palestine February 26 2007

The Israeli Warmongers Wage a New War

The Israeli Mossad presume that Iran through its nuclear enrichment program, are in late state of development of a nuclear warheads by 2009.
However Iran insist that their nuclear development program is solely for the purpose of peaceful nuclear technology, rather than the development of weapons.

The Israeli information gathering intelligence - Mossad said that the Israelis should make an attempt to an a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear bases.The preparations are under way and the planning came in response to Mossad's, assessment.The Israelis are in negotiations with the United States to create an "air war corridor", over the occupied Iraq - the Israelis must fly over Iraq to be able to attack in unilateral strikes on the Iranian nuclear bases.

	Should the Israelis if responsible for a possible war on Iran have to pay for it with warmonger tax
	Should assets of newsmedia and politicians who pushed for war be confiscated sold the $ to victims

POLL 4 Palestine - Implementation of Democracy Without Interference ?

Is implementation of principals of democracy without interference essential on the Occupied Palestine Territories ?
	A free nation would tolerate competing organizations to be recognized as official agency of foreign policy
	Who need to be persuaded to grant recognition to a free nation,the fools rather then the people
	Paramount objective of foreign policy of a free nation must ensure that the nation remains free

75% of Palestinians do not think that [in principle] Israel has the right to exist !

Zionist and Stern-gang terrorist leader Ariel Sharon
the "Butcher" & "Bulldozer" on "his' farmland
stolen "confiscated" from a Palestinian landowner

______

Poll4Palestine February 25 2007

22% Have (Most) Trust in Ismael Hanyieh
While 19% (Most) Trust in Mahmoud Abbas.

Near Eastern Consulting's Ram'allah Palestine
Bulletin # II-2 - Main Findings, February 2007

75% of Palestinians do not think that [in principle] Israel has the right to exist, 70% support One State
In the period 12-15 February, 2007, Near East Consulting (NEC) conducted a phone survey of over 1200 randomly selected Palestinians in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem of which 806 were successfully completed. It is worth noting that the margin of error is +/- 3.4% with a 95% confidence level.

# 51% of Palestinians feel less secure since the January 2006 elections, as compared to 48% last month, and 44% in December 2006

# The majority of Palestinians (85%) of the Palestinians continue to be either extremely concerned (55%) or somewhat concerned (30%) about the current situation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This constitutes a decrease of 6% since NEC's January 2007 survey

# 19% are concerned because of the economic hardship that their household is facing (+1% since January), 31% are concerned because of the general absence of security for their families (+5% since January), while 29% remain concerned because of the internal power struggle (-13% since January)

# Despite the recent Mecca agreement, 75% continue to feel insecure with respect to themselves, their family, and their property (+1% since NEC's January 2007 survey)

# 82% of the Palestinians believe that the Executive Force should be integrated within the other security forces (+3% since January)

# While in NEC's January 2007 survey, 43% of Palestinians believed that a civil war was likely, since the Mecca agreement 77% think that this likelihood has decreased, 8% believe that the likelihood of a civil war since the Mecca agreement has increased, and 15% feel that it remained the same.

The Mecca agreement and the future developments

# The overwhelming majority of Palestinians (94%) support the Mecca agreement.

# 79% believe that the Mecca agreement will hold. Equally, 79% believe that the envisaged Unity government in the Mecca agreement will succeed.

# 63% believe that the embargo against the PA will be lifted as a result of the Mecca agreement.

# 20% believe that Fateh most benefited from the Mecca agreement, 19% feel that Hamas most benefited from the Mecca agreement, while 38% believe that both benefited equally. Although originally not an option to answer in the survey, 23% of the respondents insisted that the Palestinian people most benefited from the Mecca agreement.

# Despite the optimism surrounding the potential of the Mecca agreement, an exact equal percentage of Palestinians as last month (76%) believe that the crisis between Fateh and Hamas will end. In other words, the Mecca agreement did not further influence Palestinian perceptions on this issue.

Factions and leaders

# Between trust in Abu Mazen and trust in Ismael Hanieh, 51% most trust the former, while 49% most trust the latter. However, when - more generally - Palestinians are queried about their trust in Palestinian personalities, 22% most trust Ismael Haniyeh, while 19% most trust Abu Mazen. Some of the other personalities who receive trust from a proportion of the Palestinian people include: Marwan Barghouti (16%), Khaled Masha'al (9%), Mustafa Barghouti (8%), and Mohammad Dahlan (6%). Although his name was not included in the list of Palestinian personalities, 9% of the respondents still insisted that they most trust the late President Yasser Arafat.

# Very similar to NEC's January 2007 results, 43% believe that the people in their neighbourhood mainly trust Fateh, 33% believe that they mainly trust Hamas, while 21% believe that the people in their neighbourhood do not trust any faction.

# Personally, 34% of the respondents place their trust in Fateh (a drop of 6% in comparison with NEC's January results), 28% most trust Hamas (compared to 26% in January), while 33% do not trust any faction (an increase of 6% since last month). In other words, last month's high level of trust in Fateh has receded as an increasing percentage of respondents again opt not to trust any of the existing factions.

The Palestinian-Israeli context

# 70% support a peace settlement with Israel, compared to 72% in January 2007 and 77% in December 2006.

# 51% believe that Hamas should change its position towards the elimination of Israel (a drop of 5% since January 2007, and a 10% drop since December 2006).

# 63% of Palestinians believe that Hamas should use all its efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.

# 85% of Palestinians believe that there is a Palestinian peace partner. This indicates an increase of 8% since December 2006, and is the most positive answer since NEC began asking this question in its May 2006 survey.

# Meanwhile, 26% believe that Palestinians have a peace partner in Israel. This indicates a downward trend as in December 2006 still 30% believed that there was a peace partner in Israel, while this was this the case for 36% of Palestinians in November 2006. The current results consist of the least pronounced belief that there is a peace partner for Palestinians in Israel since August 2006 (at the height of Israel's war against Hezbollah).

# 62% of Palestinians support[ed] the planned meeting on 19 February between Abu Mazen, Ehud Olmert, and Condaleeza Rice.

# While principally 75% of Palestinians do not think that Israel has the right to exist, 70% support a one-state solution in historic Palestine where Muslims, Christians and Jews live together with equal rights and responsibilities.

Poverty conditions

# The percentage of Palestinians who live under the poverty line is lower than previous months and it stands now at 64% (32% are hardship cases and 32% are below the poverty line).

# Supporters of Fateh seem to be less privileged than other respondents. While the national rate for those below the poverty line is 64%, the percentage is 67% for Fateh supporters and 62% for Hamas supporters. This tendency has been rather consistent every month since March 2006.

# Poverty level is higher in the Gaza Strip (72%) than in the West Bank (59%).