MIT 2013

7/29/2019 MIT 2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mit-2013 1/8

Student attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinians at a major USA campus:

A survey at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Irwin J. Mansdorf, PhD1 and Dalia Leibowitz2

Summary of major findings:

• We used a random convenience sample of 89 students at MIT. We had 46 men,

43 women divided between about 65% undergraduates and 35% graduatestudents. Average age was 21.7 years, 68.5% identified as either "democrat" or

"liberal", 11.2% as "republican" or "conservative" and the remainder as "other."

Caucasians were the majority ethnic group (57.3%) and 11.2% identifiedthemselves as "international" students.

• We asked a number of questions on "foreign policy" that did not identify the purpose of the survey as one whose intent it is to gauge opinion specifically about

Israel and the Palestinians. After all questions were asked, we asked the

respondents whom they sympathize with to a greater degree, Israel or the

Palestinians.• Among the questions asked were items that concerned United States policy

towards Europe, the Koreas, China, Russia and the Middle East.

• We also sought to understand the impact of the ideology of Prof. Noam Chomsky

(of MIT) on the thinking of these students.

• Our findings were as follows:

• Students have little awareness of Prof. Chomsky and are generally not

familiar with his ideology. When asked "How familiar are you with the ideology of Prof. Noam Chomsky?", the average rating, on a scale of 1-10, was 2.9. When asked

"how much would you say his ideology has affected your thinking on foreign policy?"

the score was even lower, with an average rating of 1.8 (also on a scale of 1-10). We canconclude that the impact of Prof. Chomsky of this particular sample of students at his

own university was negligible at best.

• In general, student support for Israel is strong. When asked to rate a group of 10

countries in terms of who can be considered a reliable ally of the United States, Israel

scored 7 out of 10 on a scale of 1-10, with only England scoring higher (8.6). The

Palestinian Authority scored lowest of all the countries, with a "reliable ally" score of 4.3.The other countries were China (5.1), Egypt (4.5), South Korea (6.6), Turkey (5.7),

Russia (4.7), Saudi Arabia (5.3) and Mexico (6.6).

• When asked which country the United States should lean towards supporting more,

the students consistently chose Israel over other Arab countries by a wide margin .

When pairing Israel and the Palestinians, 75.2% of the sample chose Israel, 19.1% chosethe Palestinians and 10.1% chose "both." Similar percentages were found when pairing

Israel with either Jordan or Egypt. The differences between these percentages were

statistically significant at a level of p< .01.

• A number of "talking point" statements were tested with the student sample. One

involved asking how much they agree (on a scale of 1-10) with the following:"Palestinian refusal to negotiate with Israel is an obstacle to peace." This was followed by

asking for a similar rating of this statement, "Israel is a colonial state and practices

apartheid-like policies." The student sample appears to feel that Palestinian refusal to

make peace is a more credible idea than that of Israel as a colonial state with

7/29/2019 MIT 2013


apartheid-like policies. We found that agreement with Palestinian refusal to negotiate as

an obstacle to be rated 6.9, while agreement with the statement on Israel as a colonial

state with apartheid policies at 5.2. The difference here also was statistically significant,with a t=5.442 (p<.01).

• The sample also found Israel's settlement policy equally an "obstacle to peace",

rating the following statement with a score of 6.2, ""Israeli settlement activity is anobstacle to peace." The student sample did not appear to accept the notion of

Palestinians as solely indigenous to the area. On the statement "Palestinian Arabs arethe only indigenous people of Palestine", the average student rating was 3.2 on a scale of

1-10. The Israeli "talking point" statement of "Israel has repeatedly attempted to make

peace" rated 5.2.

• The students surveyed appear to identify both Israelis and Palestinians as needing to

make concessions. While for Israelis, the sample felt (6.7) that "Israel needs to make moreconcessions for peace with Palestinians", they equally saw the need for "the Palestinians to

recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state" (6.9).

• Despite the generally strong and consistent support for Israel, student sympathies

appear to still be greater for Israel but somewhat more balanced. When asked "Withwhom are your sympathies greater in the Israel-Palestinian dispute?", 56.1% chose Israel,

33.7% chose the Palestinians and 10.1% said "both."

Conclusions:

This brief survey appears to show rather solid support for Israel among a young academic

population that leans heavily towards liberal ideas. However, despite this support, there

appears to be at least a moderate amount of "sympathy" for the Palestinians, despite notstrongly buying into some of the arguments presented by Palestinian groups. The notion

of Israeli settlements as an "obstacle to peace" appear to be as strong as that of

Palestinians refusing to negotiate. Students see the need for Israeli concessions nodifferently from the need for Palestinians to recognize Israel as a "Jewish" state. Theconventional wisdom that certain key faculty members have an influence on student

thinking is not supported by our results. It appears that students form their opinions based

on information obtained outside of the campus as well. Here, Prof. Noam Chomsky of MIT, one of Israel's foremost critics in academia, was barely known and even less

seriously considered an influence on student thinking at his own university.

The other conventional wisdom of strong criticism of Israel on campus and strong

support for the Palestinians is not supported by the results of this survey. However, the

sense of sympathy towards the Palestinians, a moderate level of around 33% of the

sample, may indicate that an emotional factor may be operating here and responsible for the gap between feelings of what policy should be (favoring Israel with percentages in

mid-70's) as opposed to personal feelings of sympathy for Israel (which range only in the

mid-50's). Further investigation would be needed to look at this phenomenon and todetermine if it represents an isolated finding or if it is indeed a trend.

7/29/2019 MIT 2013


1 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Actual survey items

Importance of Issue

0

2

4

6

8

10

Issue

R a t i n g

Series1 6.011 7.966 6.921 6.629 5.472 6.798 5.506 5.753 4.506 4.862

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

President Obama is beginning his second term in office. We are interested in learning how students feel aboutsome of the foreign policy issues that he will be facing and would appreciate if you could spend a few minutesanswering some questions.

First can you tell me, on a scale of 1-10, how important you feel the following are, where 1 is not important at all

and 10 is extremely important.

1. Relations with Russia _____

2. Relations with China _____

3. Ending the war in Afghanistan _____

4. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute _____

5. Developing relations with Egypt _____

6. Preventing Iranian nuclear capability _____

7. Improving North-South Korea relations _____

8. Solving the civil war in Syria _____

9. Spreading democracy in the world _____

10. Improving relations with Venezuela _____

7/29/2019 MIT 2013


Talking points-issues

0

2

4

6

8

Specific talking point

R a t i n g

Talking points-issues 7.03 5.35 4.38 6.72 6.94 5.36 5.31 6.27 5.23 5.51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Now I would like to ask you about your personal opinion on a few foreign policy matters.

How much would you agree or disagree with the following statements, using a scale of 1-10 where1 is totally

disagree and 10 is completely agree.

1. The current government in Syria is committing genocide and human rights violations _____

2. We should unequivocally support the Egyptian government, now democratically elected _____

3. We should actively try to bring democracy to North Korea _____

4. Israel needs to make more concessions for peace with the Palestinians _____

5. The Palestinians need to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state _____

6. Pres. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is a danger to peace and stability _____

7. The USA needs to use any and all measures, including military, to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb _____

8. The USA needs to pressure Pakistan to eliminate all Islamic terror groups operating in its borders _____

9. Russia is reverting back to the undemocratic ways of the communist era _____

10. The USA should completely disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan _____

7/29/2019 MIT 2013


Reliable ally of the USA

8.6

5.14.5

6.65.7

7

4.3 4.75.3

6.6

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Country

R a t i n g

Reliable ally of the USA

Please rate the following as to whether they can be considered a reliable “ally” of the USA, on a scale of 1-10,where 1 is definitely not an ally of the USA and 10 is definitely a strong and reliable ally of the USA.

1. England _____

2. China _____

3. Egypt _____

4. South Korea _____

5. Turkey _____

6. Israel _____

7. Palestinian Authority _____

8. Russia _____

9. Saudi Arabia _____

10. Mexico _____

7/29/2019 MIT 2013


Talking points-issues II

0

2

4

6

8

Specific talking point

R a t i n g

Series1

Series1 5.4 3.82 4.22 6.29 6.99 5.25 5.28 3.26 6.52 4.84

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How much would you agree or disagree with the following statements—please rate on a scale of 10 where 1 isdo not agree at all and 10 is completely and totally agree.

1. European interests need to be coordinated with USA policy _____

2. Immigration has endangered European identity _____

3. It is critical to safeguard Western Europe from Russia _____

4. Israeli settlement activity is an obstacle to peace _____

5. Palestinian refusal to negotiate with Israel is an obstacle to peace _____

6. Israel is a colonial state and practices apartheid-like policies _____

7. Israel has repeatedly attempted to make peace _____

8. Palestinian Arabs are the only indigenous people of Palestine _____

9. The Iranian potential for a nuclear bomb is a threat to peace and stability _____

10. The USA should intervene in Syria to topple the Assad regime _____

7/29/2019 MIT 2013


Sympathies

50

30

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3

Israel-Palestinians-Both

N u m b e r o f s

t u d e n t s

Sympathy with Israel or Palestinians

Percentage "sympathy" for Israel/Palestinians

56.1

33.7

10.1

0

20

40

60

Israel-Palestinians-Both

% a g e s y m p a t h i z i n g w i t h

Percentage "sympathy"

for Israel/Palestinians

Percentage

"sympathy"

for

Israel/Palesti

56.1 33.7 10.1

1 2 3

With whom are your sympathies greater in the Israel- Palestinian dispute?Israel Palestinians (Both)

7/29/2019 MIT 2013


Chomsky impact

2.9662921351.887640449

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3

Familiarity--Affect on thinking

R a t i n g o n 1 - 1 0 s c a l e

Chomsky impact

(Bar 3 is a simulation of the maximum score possible. Bar 1-2 are actual ratings)

How familiar are you with the ideology of Prof Noam Chomsky? (1-10) _____ How much would you say his ideology has affected your thinking on foreign policy? (1-10) _____

USA should lean towards supporting

75.2 77.5 77.5

19.1 21.3 22.5

3.4 1.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3

Israel/PA Israel/Egypt Israel/Jordan

% a g e s u p p o r t

Israel

PA-Egypt-JordanBoth

For each paired entry, choose the country that the USA should lean towards supporting more:

England-Russia France-Turkey

Mexico-Venezuela England-ArgentinaIsrael-Palestinians Turkey-GreeceEgypt-Israel Israel-JordanTurkey-Egypt Iran-Saudi Arabia

Documents

MIT 2013