Poll East Jerusalem Arabs prefer to live in Israel then a Palestinian State

Hi,

Interesting poll that was done and it begs to ask the question - has anyone asked the Palestinians what they want? And why?

Poll: One-third of East Jerusalem Arabs would rather live in Israel than Palestine

In new survey, 40% of East Jerusalem residents say they are willing to relocate if their neighborhoods become part of a future Palestinian state.

By Natasha MozgovayaTags: Israel news East Jerusalem Middle East peace

Arab residents of East Jerusalem are divided on whether they would want Israeli or Palestinian citizenship should a future Palestinian state be created, suggests a new poll released on Wednesday in Washington.

The survey, conducted by Pechter Middle East Polls in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations, asked a simple question that the leaders both in Israel and the Palestinian authority seem to ignore all too often: What do the people themselves want? And the people seem confused.

When asked if they preferred to become a citizen of Palestine, with all of the rights and privileges of other citizens of Palestine, or a citizen of Israel, only 30 percent chose Palestinian citizenship – as compared to 35 percent that chose Israeli citizenship. Another 35 percent either had no answer or declined to provide it.

A follow up question asked respondents if “most people in your neighborhood” would prefer to become citizens of Palestine or of Israel: 31percent thought that most people prefer Palestinian citizenship; 39 percent - Israeli citizenship; and 30 percent, once again, declined to answer or said they didn’t know.

When asked if they would move to a different location inside Israel, if their neighborhood became part of Palestine, 40 percent said they were likely to move to Israel, and 37percent said they will not move. In comparison, 27percent said they are likely to move to Palestine if their neighborhood became part of Israel, and 54percent said they will not move.

When asked to provide the top reasons they chose one citizenship over the other, those who chose Israeli citizenship stressed freedom of movement in Israel, higher income, better job opportunities and Israeli health insurance.

Those who chose Palestinian citizenship referred to nationalism and patriotism. Both groups, in each possible scenario, expressed concern over the possibility of losing access to the Al Aqsa Mosque because it’s unclear where the permanent border will be.

Among other concerns about becoming Palestinian citizens that respondents cited were losing access to jobs and free movement in Israel, losing government provided health care, unemployment and disability benefits, and municipal services.

Those who chose to be Israeli citizens are concerned about discrimination, obstacles to receive building permits, problems with visiting relatives and friends in Palestine, and possible moral misconduct of the kids.

"I assume the Palestinian leadership wouldn’t be too happy about the results," Dr. David Pollock, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute, who supervised the survey and analyzed it, told Haaretz.

"But I think the results are very credible and solid. I was there supervising the survey in Jerusalem in November and I am very confident in the results," Pollock said, adding that he felt "the main reason so little attention was paid to the opinion of people living there is because people were nervous to find answers to these questions."

"The Palestinian leadership might have been nervous because they understood these Palestinians have special benefits and interests not to lose these benefits," Pollock added, saying that "from an Israeli point of view – people are more interested in the political significance of the city than perceptions of the Palestinians who live there."
"Neither side had obvious short term interests in finding out what was under the surface," he added.

"A Palestinian expert and colleague of mine suggested to me that he accepts the results and takes it as a signal that the Palestinian Authority must convince more Palestinians that they can provide employment opportunities and services as well as Israel can – it’s a practical kind of challenge," Pollock said.

"From the Israeli point of view it’s kind of a mixed message – on the one hand for the Israelis who’d like to keep these neighborhoods forever it’s probably a pleasant surprise that a high percentage of Palestinians are willing to accept that," the senior researcher said, adding, however, that, "on the other hand around half of the Palestinians in East Jerusalem perceive that they are subject to significant amount of discrimination."

The Israeli government "should decide if they are indeed willing to integrate 270 thousand Palestinians," Pollack added.

"There is a real discrepancy between what policy-makers here, in Israel and in the territories assume about the Palestinians of East Jerusalem and what they actually want. I think that everyone – Israelis, Palestinians, other Arabs – should pay attention to these results," Pollock said.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on January 17, 2011 at 7:01pm

Tony, the occupation has a meaning. It's connected to international law.

Palestine has not been occupied for 2,000 years. You could argue that the Israelites occupied Canaan, and then the Canaanites occupied somebody else if you try to go back to 2,000 years ago since the Israelites

were from Iraq originally. At any rate some people and historians are saying the Israelites were in fact people who emerged mostly from the Canaanites as did the Palestinians.

UN Resolution 242 and 338 deals with land for peace between Israel and the Arab states. Thus, to have peace with the Arab states it would have to give occupied territories.

The US understanding of that resolution and most states on the Security Council is that Israel should not annex land and demolish homes on the lands as it does. It may in a deal acquire some of the territory in exchange for land given from the 1948 war. Israel, however, chooses to ignore all that. The Hague is clear on things, the UN Security Council resolutions are, so I don't know why you are confused. They are not.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 18, 2011 at 1:58am

Basil.

International Law is not a codified document and therefore a moving object. Quoting it has no basis in fact as different countries have different interpretations. As far as ownership of land , that is even more complex. You have today many disputes involving land such as in Spain, France and even Italy and that does not touch on the Balkans, Germany(France, Poland and the old Czechoslovakia).

This is only in Europe. You have this phenomenon all over the world.

According to 242 the dispute is between the "high contracting parties"-Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Israel.

two of these disputes have been solved, namely Jordan,Egypt and Israel. The Palestinians are not even a party to 242 and 338. Both however are silent on how much land and leave it to Israel to determine its security needs. The 1948 war resulted in an armistice and is not even mentioned in 242 or 338.

There is no confusion involved and I do take offense to being called confused when the drafters of 242 gave quite lengthy interpretations at the time when this was drafted. So perhaps in your zeal to show how bad Israel is , you misinterpreted both the( "international Law" and '242,338)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on January 22, 2011 at 5:09pm

Tony are you saying that Israel has a lot to be proud of in the West Bank and Gaza over the past 43 years?

242 was a line in the sand that said 'no' to the acquisition of territory by force. Israel has thumbed their nose at the resolution for decades and built settlements, evicted Palestinians, assassinated and beat up 1000's to stamp out opposition.

Instead of being a beacon for freedom and liberty, the United States has supported the occupation through billions in military aid and the necessary political veto in the UN Security Council.

The point Basil was trying to make was the survey does not justify the occupation of Palestinian territories. Basil gave some good examples eg an Indian living in Britain etc. His example of German Jews who may have chosen living in Germany in 1933 than elsewhere was unfairly misconstrued by Dan. Although I understand Clara's point of trying to clarify the record on the situation of German Jews in the 1933 period. There are examples of those persons of Jewish birth that supported Hitler (and managed to evade questions about their heritage). Famous examples include:

Field Marshall Erhard Milch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Milch

Emile Maurice - SS Officer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Maurice

Or those who hid their Jewishness and fought as a German soldier in order to survive

eg Solomon Perel [whose story was made into the film Europa Europa].

The point Basil was trying to make - was the results of the survey, don't justify the occupation - was lost in the ensuing debate (and mischaracterisation) of what he was trying to say. Thanks again Basil.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on January 22, 2011 at 6:08pm

Stewart you are ignoring the facts - more Arabs in Jerusalem would rather live under the "horrible" occupation than under a corrupt Arab ruler. I know you care so much about the Palestinians, if you really did you would go after the PA for their horrible human rights record and try to understand what the poll means. This has nothing to do with a few examples of Jews trying to save their lives from murder these are people who WANT by CHOICE.

You are also forgetting that Israel was ATTACKED by Jordan - who lost their land. This is not a game where u can say - I want it back - stop starting wars. Even after Israel offered the land for peace and were given the three famous No's.......

If Arabs really cared about their people they would have open democratic elections, they would give their people rights and not blame teh Jews because it is convenient. 95% of Palestinians currently live under the PA and I and willing to bet a large majority would prefer to live under the Jewish state....

On this "peace site" people act like Israel is this huge human rights abuser. Are you joking? You should be fighting for the rights of the "free araba" they have it much worse then those under occupation....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on January 23, 2011 at 6:20am

In Australia we have those from the dominant society ie European Australians blaming Aboriginal Australians for all their woes. The domestic violence, alcoholism, sexual abuse are all blamed on Aboriginal people by those who sit in a position of power. Instead what is required is to look at the systematic root of the problems that we see today. Dispossession, colonisation and the suppression of cultural norms have created generational trauma for Aboriginal people. There is a cycle of poverty and abuse. As a teacher it is imperative that the Europeans acknowledge their part in the creation of the problem. Most right wing elements live in denial where they only look at the problems without a historical lens. Until a broad view of history is taken to understand people in trauma there will be no peace.

The same applies to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Yes, acknowledgement needs to happen for the trauma of the Jewish community for millenia of dislocation and suppression. But so to is the rightful acknowledgement of the trauma of the people of Palestine who are non-Jewish. This community who made up the majority of the population of the region for millenia now has lived for the past 62 years in limbo. For the Bedouin of Israel they were moved off their lands to the Siyag. For the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza they have been under the control of Egypt, Jordan and for the past 43 years Israel. Enough is enough. Let us acknowldge the humanity of the other. The rights and the wrongs. There is much to condemn tthe PA and Hamas for. But does that excuse the excesses of the Israeli military which is acting as the strong arm of the State of Israel. What harm do settlements create to the people of Israel? How do settlements undermine the right of Israelis and Palestinians to a future of peace and stability?

Israel is certainly not the worst state in the world. The thing is if Israel can't get it right who are we to judge the actions of North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Sudan? If it is too hard for Israel to live by the principle of human rights and international law, then why the heck should anyone else follow it. You either have a rule of law, applicable to everyone or you have hypocrisy and double-standards.

I look to an Israel that shows compassion to the people of Palestine. There is much Israel can be proud of. However, 43 years of occupation is a dark side of Israel's history, and is a source for mourning. We can do better.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on January 23, 2011 at 2:20pm

"This community who made up the majority of the population of the region for millenia now has lived for the past 62 years in limbo." - And where were they before these 62 years? They did not exist..

"The thing is if Israel can't get it right who are we to judge the actions of North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Sudan?" - The fact that you would even makes such a comparison is ridiculous...

I too want peace - I think that there Arabs living in the west bank , gaza and in Israel proper should all live in one state. I don't want them in our electorate. let them live under their arab dictatorship and see how much they like it.

I only care about teh security of my country. I am not willing to let what happened in Gaza happen to teh rest of teh country. Giving land away until now has only brought war, death, rockets and bombers. How can you expect andyone to once again "take a chance for peace?"

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on January 26, 2011 at 11:02am

In Australia Europeans justified invasion based on the doctrine of Terra nullius. It is a despicable legal trick that legitimises occupation by denying the existence of a people. Europeans defined people as 'civilised' and claimed Aboriginals were not civilised, therefore they did not fall into the definition of a people.

In the context of Israel and Palestine. The worst proponent of this terra nullis theory for Palestinians is Joan Peters. It is an epic low in the dehumanisation of a people (that was debunked by Finkelstein amongst others).

Comments by certain mepeace community members continue to advocate this terra nulius doctrine for Palestine. They try and wish away the problem, by denying the existence of Palestinians. Where this logic fails is regardless of the name people identified themselves nearly 90% of the human beings that lived in this region did not identify themselves as Jews.

See more photos of the people of Palestine - Muslim, Christian, Jewish

Please take the time to reflect on the humanity here. And reflect on what the dreams of the people here would have who had connection with the land. It doesn't matter which community you choose to reflect on, so long as you remember that 90% of the community was not Jewish in 1917 (the time of Balfour).

This is not said to deny Israel's legitimate place today in the community of nations, but to be a reminder of the effect of Israel's creation has had on all those 90% (and their descendants) who were not Jewish in 1917.

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 26, 2011 at 5:18pm

Stewart: Are you a member of any group that advocates equal rights to the local population of Australia and most important are you at the forefront to give them back the land that were stolen from them and for which they were murdered by your forerunners?

I guess Terra nullius is alive and well in Australia and yet people there have the audacity to poke their noses into other parts of areas far away from them and distorting the history to justify their own country's violent past.

the word "gall" comes to mind.

Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on January 30, 2011 at 1:53pm

Tony, I will be the first to admit my failings in terms of indigenous justice in Australia. I grew up in country Australia. The two significant communities were European and Aboriginal. Growing up in the 80's I saw racism first hand between European Australians towards Aboriginal people and vice versa. When I travelled to Israel and the Occupied Territories in 2000 and 2001 it reminded me of what Australia would have been like in the 1880s. There were two worlds: the hyper modern hedonistic city of Tel Aviv and the occupation going on just a stones throw away.

Each person in life must choose a path. You cannot do everything. For those who strive for basic human rights of the people of Egypt, Sudan, China, Tibet, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the like - thank you.

Yes, I can do more for indigenous justice back home, but what compels me to act in the case of Israel and Palestine is Aboriginal people today are not confronted by weapons of war on a daily basis and secondly, there is already a significant body of Australians working to improve the situation of Aboriginal people (whereas most Australians do not have much experience on the situation in Israel and Palestine and sadly many have prejudicial views of Muslims courtesy of our media).

That is not to deny the tremendous challenges facing Aboriginal people in Australia. But it is to provide a perspective why I respond to this situation of injustice and not another. What compels me to act for Israel and Palestine is the friendships I made in both communities. I want them to live in peace and enjoy what I experience every day.

Tony I realise you have your set view on me and that is sad. I hope you realise I will not be quiet when fellow human beings are suffering at the hands of another [and yes it happens in both communities and yes Israel as an occupying nation has a greater opportunity to withdraw and release the military matrix of control]. I will continue to contribute to a narrative of history that is often ignored, minimised, delegitimised or unknown.

I wish you peace.

Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on January 23, 2011 at 6:34am

A similar poll would have found the people of Iraq would prefer to live under Saddam Hussein than the present anarchy today.

A similar poll would have found certain Aboriginal Australians would have preferred to live under English rule than traditional law. [These are the ponts Basil - quite brilliantly was making]. These are the compromises people make in order to survive. Does that excuse the military tactics of the oppressor. A most definite no.

What does that mean for us today? End the occupation, end the siege and put in place the necessary structures and supports for civil society to survive in Palestine. Withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines (with obvious exceptions) and base decisions on the protection of fundamental human rights.

http://palestineisraelaselasleh.blogspot.com/

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on January 23, 2011 at 2:24pm

These comparisions on not the point at all.... Jerusalem Arabs have it much better under Israeli rule - they are afraid of an Arab dictatorship, they are afraid to loose their rights..... why do you think that is so?

Read the reasons that they would want to stay under Israeli rule, then you will understand. The days of protecting dictatorships are over.... You call for human rights - demand it from the PA, Hamas and all other Arab governments- as the people of Tunisia have shown - they are the real enemys here.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Feldman on January 26, 2011 at 5:53pm

Dan,

The results of this poll are not an endorsement for either side.

We could have phrased the poll results in other terms:

70% did not choosed Palestinian citizenship.

65% did not choose Israeli citizenship.

69% did not feel that their neighbours would choose Palestinian citizenship.

61% did not feel their neighbours would choose Israeli citizenship.

60% were unlikely to move to another place in Israel, and 73% are unlikely to move to Palestine.

It all comes down to how you spin the numbers. Moreover, as other readers have pointed out, there are methodological lacunae common to almost all newspaper reports everywhere on polling results.

When I read this article, the result I come to is that East Jerusalem Arabs are wary of pollsters, distrustful of governmental/bureaucratic authorities, and concerned about the economic well-being of their families.