Polls, Peace, and Partnership

Do public opinion polls actually reflect genuine public opinion?

I am frequently asked about public opinion in Israel and in Palestine – especially about what people in Gaza think. My answer since October 7, 2023, has been that wartime polls have no real relevance regarding a longer perspective of where the publics might be a year after the war.  I caution that all polls are a snapshot of a moment in passing time. Wartime polls reflect a high level of emotion, and in our cases, also trauma. There is usually a rallying around the flag and the almost thoughtless acceptance of mainstream narratives fostered by leaders and the media. Wartime pollsters, and maybe pollsters at all times, are usually looking for headlines and noticeable heights in positions held by the wider public. Support for the war effort, perceiving the troops, especially the fallen fighters, as heroes, limiting or marginalizing criticism of one’s own side – these are all very common trends in wartime polls, and they were very apparent in the Israeli and Palestinian polls over the past two years.  I don’t find the polls during wartime to be particularly important when trying to understand longer-term potentials of political processes.

As all of my readers know, I have not stopped advocating policies that will lead us to genuine Israeli-Palestinian peace. There was a period of a few years prior to October 7 when I questioned if the two-state solution was still viable, and as such, I engaged in several attempts to brainstorm with other Palestinians and Israelis on alternatives to the two-state solution.  Shortly after October 7, I came back to understanding that there was no other solution to our conflict than the two-state solution (there can be variations on this theme of two states) and that it was back on the table and more relevant than ever.

Naturally, I have been challenged by almost everyone on both sides, claiming that Israeli and Palestinian public opinion was further away from two-states, or from any solution, than ever before. Current public opinion polls on both sides reflect that reality very strongly. Nonetheless, I continue to believe that this solution is more relevant than ever, and that we are closer to reaching it than ever before. The pollsters, on both sides, in fact assist in the freezing of the narrative that the Israeli and Palestinian publics are not prepared to even think about peace, and Israelis are certainly not ready to consider the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel, nor are Palestinians willing now to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

That is a correct reflection of the reality that is shaped by public opinion polls and by people who call themselves leaders, but who are in fact followers – not leaders. These so-called leaders follow what is perceived as public opinion, failing to understand that the challenge of leadership is to shape and to make public opinion and not to follow it.

It always amazes me that pollsters ask the questions that they want the answers for without thinking about whether or not a follow-up question would change the results. For instance, when Palestinian pollsters ask the Palestinians if they support the armed struggle, or armed resistance against Israel, especially during wartime the results are around 50%, sometimes even higher. I asked Khalil Shikaki, one of the leading Palestinian pollsters, why don’t you ask the next question? He asked, What’s the next question? I responded: Are you willing to pick up a gun and fight the Israelis? Are you willing to send your son to pick up a gun to fight the Israelis?  He answered me (unsatisfactorily in my opinion), “Putting our human subjects at risk is not something we are willing to do.” Since the polls are completely anonymous, I have no idea what risk he was talking about. But I am quite sure that if he did ask the question, the results would drop to near zero.

Israeli and Palestinian pollsters ask all kinds of questions about support for various kinds of solutions to the conflict. It is clear that both publics are very far away from considering any kind of support for any kind of solution. The once clear majorities on both sides for the two-state solution disappeared in the last two decades of violence that we have experienced and in the total absence of any leadership direction in even attempting to lead us towards a peaceful solution to the conflict. My own, non-scientific experience in talking with thousands of Israelis and Palestinians over the past 20 years, since the second intifada in 2000, has been an overwhelming number of people on both sides who use the same exact words to express their position:  I want peace but THEY don’t.

This statement is in essence an expression of the reality that both of our peoples have lived since the failure of the peace process and the violence of the second intifada. The myth created after the failure of Camp David in July 2000 of “no partner” took hold firmly as both sides proved to each other that they were not a partner for peace. Whether it be Palestinian support for suicide bombings in Israel, or for the very high number of killings by the IDF during the second intifada, or since then. Or the constant expansion of Israeli settlements and the confiscation of Palestinian land. Or the support of the Palestinian public for the atrocities of Hamas on October 7. We can all find more than enough expressions of the non-existence of partners for peace within Israel and in Palestine.

In 2005, I led a public opinion research study on the Israeli side in which we wanted to understand what would convince Israelis that Palestinians were partners for peace.  We wanted to know this because in previous research we found that if Israelis believed that Palestinians were genuinely prepared to live in peace, a majority of Israelis would be prepared to accept the kind of concessions that could make a two-state solution succeed. We did normal polling, and we also conducted five in-depth focus group discussions. The results were quite remarkable because we got the exact same answers from all five groups (some homogeneous, including religious people, and some heterogeneous). At that time (and I believe that today’s responses would be very similar) the Israelis said that if the Palestinians were to teach peace in the classroom (change their curricula and text books) and if Imams in the mosques all around Palestine were to preach peace – then we would believe that the Palestinians were genuinely prepared to live in peace next to the State of Israel. I believe that most Israelis would also ask to hear from Palestinians that the Jewish people have a legitimate religious and national connection to the Land of Israel.

We did not conduct the same in-depth study on the Palestinian side but if we were to conduct it today I expect that Palestinians would indicate their belief that Israelis were partners for peace if they saw a policy of freezing all settlement building, even more if there was an Israeli decision to dismantle many of the outposts that were built over the past two years (about 130 of them), if Palestinians heard from Israelis the acceptance, even in principle, of the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people and the acceptance of the idea of a Palestinian state. The issue of prisoners is very important for every Palestinian citizen, so if they heard from Israeli leaders that, in the framework of a genuine peace deal which would end the occupation, Palestinian prisoners accepting the peace deal would be given amnesty (which is what generally happens in conflicts that are resolved).

We Israelis and Palestinians need to see actual expressions of partnership between both ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, as well as from people who call themselves leaders. Both of our societies will soon be entering into the election season. Here it is absolutely critical that leaders who call themselves leaders understand that their public statements are not only consumed by their own potential voters; people on the other side of the conflict are also listening intently to know what to expect and to be prepared for it. If there were a positive dynamic of the echoing of positive messages of peace from one side to the other, it would most definitely have a positive effect on the electorate of the other side. The question is whether or not potential Israeli and Palestinian leaders have the awareness of their ability to shape the outcome of elections on the other side.

Do Israeli leaders who speak about peace with the Palestinians cause a loss of potential votes or would they gain votes? I am sure that the political strategists who advise the candidates will tell them not to talk about peace with the Palestinians. I was a direct witness and participant in this dynamic back in 2015, during which I initiated and facilitated a back-channel negotiation between Yitzhak Herzog, then the leader of the Labor Party, and President Mahmoud Abbas. They had each appointed a representative to negotiate on their behalf. In the process of convincing Herzog to engage in the process, I said to him that if he would reach an agreement with Abbas, he could go to the public and call for elections based on the agreement that he has in his hands that would bring about peace between Israel and Palestine.

Three weeks before the elections, when Herzog was actually leading in the polls, I called him from Ramallah, from the home of the Palestinian representative of President Abbas and told him that Abbas was willing to convene a press conference with Herzog to announce that they had reached an agreement. Acting on the advice of his strategists, he told me to tell President Abbas “to shut up, and not to say anything,” and the rest is history. I believe very strongly that had Herzog exposed to the public that he had a potential peace agreement in his hands, he would have won those elections – but that is of course just conjecture.

I am quite sure that if our leaders or those who want to be leaders do not speak about genuine peace with the other side, we will not have leaders who will lead us to peace. But they need to be aware and conscious of the fact that the current international and regional environment for talking about Israeli-Palestinian peace has never been better. The existence of a United States President who has demonstrated that he has to power and the will to force Israel to end the war and to stick to the sentence about a pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood in the United Nations Security Council Resolution should point is to understanding that when the circumstance on the ground here improve, Trump will be willing to use his power to move us much closer to the two states solution.

The desire of the regional Arab countries to see the two-state solution emerge and their preparedness to expand the Abraham Accords by entering into full diplomatic relations with Israel should be a positive sign to the Israeli public that peace is actually possible, if Israel is prepared to accept the two-state solution. Furthermore, there is an overall understanding that Israeli-Palestinian peace is no longer a bilateral process, but a multi-lateral regional process ensuring a regional architecture for security and economic development. Israeli-Palestinian peace based on the two-state solution will improve the security and the economy of the entire region, and that should also give confidence to Israelis that now is the time for peace.

The Palestinian people have to understand that after Gaza especially there is no viable armed struggle to free Palestine. Palestinians will not achieve statehood by killing Israelis. Palestinians will not achieve statehood by rejecting the legitimate connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. Palestinian leaders, or those who want to be Palestinian leaders, also need to understand that the Israeli people are listening to them when they speak, not only the Palestinian public. Palestinian leaders also need to be courageous enough and smart enough to know that fulfilling the promise of freedom for Palestinians goes through Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and all around Israel, and not only through the capitals of Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and North America.

We Israelis and Palestinians need to begin to understand that we must now address the hearts and minds of people on the other side of this conflict. My advice to people who ask me, “What can I do to help?” is to find someone on the other side of the conflict and say to them, “Tell me about yourself, who are you? Why do you believe in what you believe? What is your story?”  I say, don’t argue – listen. You will have the time to tell your story as well. But try to understand the person you are talking with.  It is not a contest of who is wrong and who is right. It is an attempt to understand the person on the other side of this conflict.  I admit, it is not easy and the desire to respond and to score points is intense. But try to do it without having to respond to every point that you don’t agree with.  There are no guarantees for a positive outcome, but there is a chance that it will could be one. The more that we can demonstrate true partnership for peace, even at the personal level, the higher are the possibilities for success in making peace.

Lastly, start learning and speaking the language of the other side.  This is the best heart opener there is, and when you learn the language and the culture of the other from a genuine desire to understand their world, you will enter a path of new discoveries that will open your eyes and enable you to imagine a new reality.