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 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.