The first question in this poll asked informants in Israel and Palestine to say which problems they thought were ‘Very significant’, ‘Significant’, ‘Of some significance’, ‘Of little significance’ or ‘Not at all’ with a clear focus on the questions of substance that had to be dealt with in the peace process. The topics are familiar to everyone.

Palestinians’ most urgent issues:

1. Establishing an independent sovereign state of Palestine
2. The rights of refugees
3. Agreement on the future of Jerusalem
4. Agreement on managing Holy sites
5. Security for Palestine
6. Settlements in the Occupied Territories/West Bank
7. Rights to natural resources
8. Agreeing borders for Israel and Palestine
9. Peace between Israel and the Arab World
10. Peace between Israel and Lebanon
11. Peace between Israel and Syria
12. Security for Israel

Israelis’ most urgent issues:

1. Security for Israel
2. Agreement on the future of Jerusalem
3. Rights to natural resources
4. Agreement on managing Holy sites
5. Agreeing borders for Israel and Palestine
6. Peace between Israel and Jordan
7. Peace between Israel and Egypt
8. Peace between Israel and the Arab World
9. Peace between Israel and Lebanon
10. Peace between Israel and Syria
11. Establishing an independent sovereign state of Palestine
12. Settlements in the Occupied Territories/West Bank

A number of observations need to be made here. Firstly it is absolutely essential that the issues at the top of these two lists get dealt with in any peace agreement or it is unlikely that that agreement will last. This means Palestinians need to be aware of and address the ‘Security of Israel’ problem that comes in 12th on the Palestinian list at only 21% ‘very significant’ and that Israelis need to be aware of and address the cluster of issues at the top of the Palestinian list starting with ‘Establishing an independent sovereign state of Palestine’ which comes in 11th on the Israeli list at 33% ‘very significant’. ‘Agreement on the future of Jerusalem’ comes in second and third on the Israeli and Palestinian lists respectively. Everyone seems to think this is important and this is agreement of a sort but can agreement be found? We will now look at this and other issues in a little more detail.

Some preliminary observations on solutions. Instead of using questions and answers that can easily be characterised as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ the negotiators in Northern Ireland adopted a scale that would provide them with more detailed knowledge on how far they could take their respective communities towards a peace agreement subject to firm leadership and support from the international community. This scale has been adopted here and for each solution put on offer (collected in Israel and Palestine during the month of field work) the person being interviewed for the questionnaire was asked which options they considered to be ‘Essential’, ‘Desirable’, ‘Acceptable’, ‘Tolerable’ or ‘Unacceptable’ as part of a peace agreement.

A very conscious effort was made in this poll to cover as wide a range of potential solutions as was possible, not only to identify potential points of most likely agreement but also to eliminate points of strongest disagreement. It should be noted that it was not always possible to ask what some would consider to be the more radical options in both societies as, for example, a ‘Greater Israel’ would so upset Palestinians the interview would often be brought to a close as would ‘Historic Palestine’ amongst Israelis.

Not all the questions in this programme of research produced as clear and unambiguous a result as this particular set of questions. The preferred option for Israelis was the ‘Two state solution’ at 45% ‘essential or desirable’ and only 21% ‘unacceptable’ followed by the ‘Political status quo with economic development (also 45% ‘essential or desirable’ but 24% ‘unacceptable) and ‘Confederation between West Bank and Jordan and between Gaza and Egypt’ at 39% ‘essential or desirable’ and 21% ‘unacceptable’. ‘One shared state’ is 66% ‘unacceptable’ for Israelis as is a ‘Greater Israel’ at 47% ‘unacceptable’.

The first choice for Palestinians is, as might be expected ‘Historic Palestine’ at 82% ‘essential or desirable’ followed by an Islamic Waqf at 71% ‘essential or desirable’. ‘One shared state’ is rejected by Palestinians at 66% ‘unacceptable’ followed by ‘Confederation’ at 65% ‘unacceptable’ and the ‘Political status quo with economic development’ at 40% ‘unacceptable’. The Palestinian results for the ‘Two state solution are very similar to the Israeli results at 53% ‘essential or desirable’ and only 24% ‘unacceptable’. So the ‘Two state solution’ continues to be the most widely accepted option for both Israelis and Palestinians and all other options presently being considered are less likely to gain as much support in both societies as a basis for a peace agreement. This is progress of a sort, but what about the other contentious issues on the ‘problems’ list that have to be dealt with.

The next question in the poll provided the person being interviewed with a range of options for dealing with the problem of refugees, the second most important issue for Palestinians after their desire for a sovereign state. As would be expected the first choice for Palestinians was ‘Right of return AND compensation’ at 92% ‘essential or desirable’. But this option was rejected by 77% of Israelis as ‘unacceptable’. The results for other options are mixed and incomplete but the prospect of ‘An Israeli recognition of the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, while most refugees return to the West Bank or Gaza and some return to Israel (1948)’ was ‘essential or desirable’ for a majority of Palestinians at 53% and ‘unacceptable’ for only 23%. Unfortunately 60% of Israelis found this option ‘unacceptable’ but this level of resistance may not be insurmountable within the context of a comprehensive peace agreement and when coupled with some other options tested here could possibly produce a workable solution. For example a minority of Palestinians (34%) considered the option of the UN closing the refugee camps and resettling them with compensation outside Israel ‘essential or desirable’ so this option may work for this minority. Carefully crafted apologies were an important part of the Northern Ireland settlement and undoubtedly could play an important role for peace in the Middle East. This option needs to be considered and factored in.

As security appears to be the number one concern for Israelis we can expect them to have strong views on this issue and they do. Sixty three per cent of Israelis are opposed to Palestinians having an army as ‘unacceptable’. But only 19% are opposed to them having a strong police force. The distinction between a strong police force and an army needs to be explored in more detail as clearly it is in Israel’s interest for an independent Palestinian state to be able to manage its own security effectively. Sixty two per cent of Palestinians are like wise opposed to Israel having observation posts in the Palestinian state as ‘unacceptable’.

But the idea that ‘On signing a peace agreement a force of international, regional and Arab states should replace the IDF in the Occupied Territories/West Bank for an agreed period’ is only 32% and 39% ‘unacceptable’ to Israelis and Palestinians respectively. Additionally the suggestion that ‘The international force will ensure security on the Jordanian border’ is only ‘unacceptable’ to 17% of Israelis and 32% of Palestinians. Clearly there is a role for the international community to contribute to the security of Israel in a substantive way in the context of a peace agreement. Finally it is worth noting that only 35% of Israelis consider it ‘essential or desirable’ for the IDF to remain in the Occupied Territories/West Bank while 43% consider this option ‘unacceptable’. Israelis, it would seem, have no great desire to stay there. A comprehensive peace agreement, a stable Palestine, international commitments and regional allies would seem to be the way forward.

One hundred per cent (‘essential or desirable’) of Palestinians want all the settlers to leave the Occupied Territories/West Bank and for the settlements to be demolished. Twenty six per cent of Israelis agree but 53% consider this option ‘unacceptable’.

The idea that settlers who choose to stay in Palestine/a future Palestine might like to take up Palestinian citizenship seems to be equally ‘unacceptable’ to both Palestinians at 61% and Israelis at 69% while having the option to choose citizenship is also rejected at 66% and 58% ‘unacceptable’ for Palestinians and Israelis respectively. The option that seems to work best here, if a compromise is being sought, is for most of the settlements to be dismantled, to move settlers to large blocks and to exchange land at 54% ‘unacceptable’ for Palestinians and 51% for Israelis. But when separately asked if ‘Abandoned settlements and infrastructure should be given to Palestinians’ 89% said this was ‘essential or desirable’. Fifty eight per cent of Israelis considered this option ‘unacceptable’ but perhaps the government of Israel might wish to consider this option as one of the ways in which they can assist those refugees who choose to return to Palestine. The most popular option for Israelis is for all the settlements on the Israeli side of the security wall to be part of Israel at 49% ‘essential or desirable’ but this option could not even be asked of Palestinians as it proved to be too contentious. As for all the settlements remaining as they are, like the IDF remaining in the Occupied Territories/West Bank that option was only supported by 36% of Israelis as ‘essential or desirable’ while 35% considered the option ‘unacceptable’.

Eighty six per cent of Palestinians (‘essential or desirable’) would like Israel to withdraw to the 67 border. Sixty per cent of Israelis consider this option ‘unacceptable’. Seventy three per cent of Palestinians similarly reject a border established by the security wall as ‘unacceptable’ and 35% of Israelis agree. Only 21% of Israelis consider this option ‘essential or desirable’. The potential for compromise here would appear to be for Israel to withdraw to the 67 border with adjustments through agreement of equivalent exchange of land. This option is ‘unacceptable’ to 30% of Palestinians and 39% of Israelis and ‘essential or desirable’ for 49% of Palestinians and 20 % of Israelis with another 21% ‘acceptable’ and 11% ‘tolerable’.

The West Bank-Gaza connector options were only asked in Israel. Of the three options on offer a ‘Corridor between Gaza and West bank on land given to Palestine under land exchange’ seems preferable at 43% ‘unacceptable’ in comparison to the proposed tunnel at 57% ‘unacceptable’ or bridge at 47% ‘unacceptable’.

With regards to water there appears to be a consensus on this point that a regional solution (94% and 60% ‘essential or desirable’ for Palestinians and Israelis respectively) is preferable to some sort of division (59% and 32% ‘essential or desirable’). As for ‘energy, minerals and air space’ 98% of Palestinians consider control of these natural resources to be ‘essential or desirable’. As only 35% of Israelis find such control ‘unacceptable’ this option should not present a major problem for negotiators.

As Jerusalem is second and third on the Israeli and Palestinian lists of priorities it is necessarily going to be a difficult problem to resolve. Inevitably then the most attractive option for Palestinians is for all of Jerusalem to remain in Palestine at 95% ‘essential or desirable’ and for Israelis it is for all of Jerusalem to remain in Israel at 56% ‘essential or desirable’. Clearly, as these two options are mutually exclusive proposals to internationalise or divide the city also need to be considered. The idea that ‘Jerusalem should be an ‘International City of Peace’ under the authority of the UN’ is ‘unacceptable’ to 78% of Palestinians and 69% of Israelis so if the decision is left to the Palestinians and Israelis alone (and not the UN) that proposal will not get very far. However the suggestion that ‘Jerusalem should be an ‘International City of Peace’ under the authority of a Multi-faith Municipal Covenant’ is less problematic at 50% and 61% ‘unacceptable’ for Palestinians and Israelis respectively. Some aspect of ‘internationalism’ might therefore be part of the solution to the problem of Jerusalem but it is unlikely to be the whole answer.

If the city is to be divided then the ‘least, worst’ option for Palestinians is to divide Jerusalem along the pre 67 border at 50% ‘unacceptable’. The ‘least, worst’ options for Israelis are ‘Divide the city according to Palestinian and Israeli neighbourhoods’ at 55% ‘unacceptable’ (61% for Palestinians) and ‘Arab neighbourhoods should be the capitol of Palestine/a future Palestine and Israeli neighbourhoods should be the capitol of Israel’ at 54% ‘unacceptable’ for Israelis.

With regards to the Old City the suggestion that it should be under international control was equally ‘unacceptable’ to both Israelis and Palestinians at 72% and 71% respectively. Similarly joint control of the Old City was not particularly attractive at 69% ‘unacceptable’ for Israelis and 59% ‘unacceptable’ for Palestinians. Ninety four per cent (‘essential or desirable’) of Palestinians seem to require that ‘Arab Jerusalem will be connected to all of the Palestinian/future Palestinian state’. As only 50% of Israelis find this option ‘unacceptable’ there is clearly room for negotiation here. Critically, when asked ‘If everything is agreed except for Jerusalem Palestinians should proceed with the agreement’ 78% of Palestinians considered this option ‘unacceptable’.  So pushing an agreement through without resolving the status of Jerusalem has little chance of success. Fortunately, however, only 50% of Israelis strongly objected to the proposition that ‘As the last step to a final agreement give the Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem to Palestine’ as ‘unacceptable’.

Palestinian and Israeli views on the management of Holy sites are very similar to their views on Jerusalem. In this case the ‘least, worst’ option was ‘Free access for everyone to the Holy sites. No side will have sovereignty on the Holy sites. Israel will be ‘guardian’ of the Wailing Wall and the Palestinian State ‘guardian’ of the Islamic Holy sites. The status quo of Christian Holy sites will remain’ at only 46% ‘unacceptable’ for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Many of the critical issues reviewed in this poll are ‘border line’ in terms of negotiation. That is to say the levels of ‘unacceptable’ are close to 50% for Palestinians and/or Israelis. Sometimes they are a little more and sometimes less. But as has been repeatedly demonstrated in both Northern Ireland as a matter of practice and research and in Israel/Palestine through polling the ‘whole’ of any peace agreement is ‘greater than the sum of its parts’. So when put together as a ‘package’ it should be possible to reach a comprehensive settlement on all the issues dealt with here in a way that is acceptable to a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. It should be noted that the levels of ‘unacceptable’ for the issues that had to be negotiated and agreed in Northern Ireland were comparable to those found here.

With regards to the implementation of an agreement there is a great deal of common ground to be found between Israelis and Palestinians. Ninety six per cent (‘essential or desirable’) of Palestinians want a referendum, as do 58% of Israelis (levels of ‘unacceptable’ are only 1% and 11% respectively). The idea that ‘Each party will mutually recognize the state of Israel and the state of Palestine’ is only ‘unacceptable’ to 17% of Palestinians and 12% of Israelis. Almost everyone wants an agreement to be the end of the conflict (72% ‘essential or desirable’ for Palestinians and 63% for Israelis with ‘unacceptable’ at 10% and 13% respectively). Ninety nine per cent of Palestinians want all political prisoners to be released and in contrast to the vast majority of Protestants who opposed such releases in Northern Ireland only 45% of Israelis find this proposal ‘unacceptable’. Finally, the last option in this part of the questionnaire asked Israelis and Palestinians for their views on an international body acceptable to both parties being established to monitor and enforce the full implementation of an agreement. Only 4% of Palestinians and 12% of Israelis considered this proposal ‘unacceptable’ (79% ‘essential or desirable’ for Palestinians and 57% ‘essential or desirable’ for Israelis). In Northern Ireland such international involvement in all aspects of the peace process was the norm so perhaps the failure to reach an agreement in Israel and Palestine is not a problem of substance but a problem of process.

About the poll. This poll was commissioned by OneVoice Israel and OneVoice Palestine in collaboration with Dr. Colin Irwin of the Institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool. The fieldwork to develop the questionnaires was undertaken by the research team in Israel and Palestine in November and December 2008. The fieldwork for the public opinion polls was undertaken by AWRAD of Ramallah and Dahaf of Tel Aviv following the elections in Israel in February 2009. Five hundred interviews were completed in Israel and six hundred in the West Bank and Gaza to produce representative samples of both populations in terms of age, gender, social background and geographical distribution. Publication of the results of the polls has been timed to provide the new administration in the US and new government in Israel with information to assist them in developing their policies for peace in the Middle East.

658,125

VOICES

SUPPORT A TWO STATE SOLUTION