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.

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