| ||||||
| Homepage Articles Blog | ||||||
| You can help support Daniel Pipes' important work by making a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. | ||||||
Some |
 Send |  Comment |  RSS | Share:   |
Invited recently by the newly formed Pechter
Middle East Polls to ask three questions of 1,000 representative
Egyptians and 1,000 urban Saudis, the Middle East Forum focused on Iran
and Israel, the countries that most polarize the region. The results are
illuminating.
 Some Egyptians and Saudis |
note: Respondents were interviewed face to face in Arabic, in their own
homes using a structured questionnaire during November by a credible,
private, local commercial company with a solid track record. The margin of
error is ±3 percent.)
Iran: In today's Middle
Eastern cold war, the Islamic Republic of Iran heads the revolutionary
bloc, while the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt head the opposing
status-quo bloc. How anxious are the Saudi and Egyptian populations of the
Iranian nuclear weapons buildup? Pechter Polls asked two questions for
MEF: "Assuming the Iranian government continues its nuclear enrichment
program, would you support an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear
facilities?" and "How about an American strike against the Iranian nuclear
facilities?"
In Egypt, 17 percent support an Israeli strike
and 25 percent an American one. In Saudi Arabia, the figures,
respectively, are 25 and 35 percent. Backing for an Israeli strike is
surprisingly strong, for an American one, roughly as I expected. These
numbers confirm a just-completed review of polling data by David
Pollock of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who found
"strikingly high levels of support—especially among Saudis—for tough
action against Iran's nuclear program."
These figures suggest that between a sixth and
a third of the population in the two most important status-quo countries
is agreeable to an Israeli or American attack on the Iranian nuclear
infrastructure. Although not a negligible minority, it is small enough to
give the Egyptian or Saudi government pause about being associated with a
strike on Iran. In particular, giving Israeli forces permission to
traverse Saudi airspace would seem to be out of the question.
Israel: The Forum asked, "Islam defines
the state of Egypt/Saudi Arabia; under the right circumstances, would you
accept a Jewish State of Israel?" In this case, 26 percent of Egyptians
and 9 percent of Saudi subjects answered in the affirmative.
 As this map showing |
posed this question to quantify the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a
conflict not about the size of Israel, its resources, armaments,
sovereignty over holy sites, or the number of its citizens living on the
West Bank. Rather, it concerns the fundamental goal of Zionism, the
creation of a state defined by Jewish identity.
To provide context: About 20
percent of Palestinians since the 1920s have been willing to live with
Israel in a state of harmony. The Egyptian response exceeds this slightly,
the Saudi one comes in substantially below it. These results are in
keeping with the more overtly religious nature of political life in Saudi
Arabia than in Egypt. They confirm that the main source of anti-Zionism
now is no longer nationalism but Islam.
Drilling down into the survey numbers shows
little demographic variation (by age, education, etc.). One difference
runs along gender lines, with Egyptian females accepting a Jewish
state of Israel more than Egyptian males, but just the reverse in Saudi
Arabic, something not readily explainable.
Geographic differences in Saudi Arabia are more
consequential. Residents in the western part of the country, that closest
to Israel, accept it as a Jewish state much more readily than do residents
of the more distant central and eastern regions. Conversely, residents in
the eastern and central regions are 50 percent more likely to endorse an
American strike on nearby Iran than those of the more remote western
region.
The Saudi west (Hijaz, Asir) remains true to
its pedigree as the most liberal part of the country, whereas the east
(Al-Ahsa) has the most Shi'ites and the most fear of Tehran. These
regional variations point to the utility of seeing Saudi Arabia not as a
homogenous whole but as an amalgam of regions with historically different
identities, and perhaps making policy with these distinctions in mind.
In sum, these polling numbers point to a small
but not trivial base of constructive views in countries largely hostile to
the West and Israel. If this base has few prospects of driving policy
anytime soon, it offers a kernel of common sense that, if given suitable
attention, can be built upon to foster long-term improvements.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East
Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution
of Stanford University.
Related Topics:
Egypt, Public opinion polls, Saudi Arabia This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an
integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date,
place of publication, and original URL.
To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.php
(Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 1-2 times a week.)
Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services:
Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles)
Campus Watch (research, news items, press releases)
at http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment