International armed conflicts through the eyes of Israelis: Israel’s role.
According to the bulk of Israelis, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine does not affect the external and internal situation of the state of Israel. Among a third of respondents who believe that this conflict affects the external and internal situation of the state, a negative assessment of its influence prevails, especially on international status of Israel and social situation in the country.
The vast majority of Israelis are convinced that Israel is involved in a situation related to the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict:
– providing humanitarian assistance to the affected population (70%),
– facilitating repatriation of citizens in the belligerent territories (75%),
– granting political asylum to those in need (55),
– supporting its citizens participating in the military operation (33%)
– providing military assistance (33%, and those who do not agree with this is only slightly more (39%).
More than half of citizens (56%) attribute the risks of Israel’s involvement in the situation around Russian-Ukrainian conflict to deterioration of relations with Russia. All other risks Israelis do not consider significant. From 4 to 10% of respondents report about them, and only every 10th shares the risk of deterioration of relations with the United States.
Dynamics of the Israelis attitude change to Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
Over the past three months, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict influence on various spheres of Israel life has begun to be perceived as less significant. In particular, 11% more respondents began to claim that this conflict does not affect the international status and defense capability of Israel.
Despite the fact that Israel participation in the situation around the conflict remains significant, the proportion of Israelis indicating that Israel has provided humanitarian assistance to victims of military conflict has decreased over the past three months (from 79 to 70 percent), has provided assistance through repatriation facilitating (from 80 to 75 percent). The share of those who speak of assistance as in granting political asylum has decreased on 7 percentage points.
However, the share of those who believe that Israel provides military assistance has increased from 25 to 33%.
The assessment of risks associated with Israel’s involvement in the situation related to Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict remained unchanged.
The specifics of Russian-Ukrainian conflict perception among Israelis who differ in their country of birth/political attitudes.
Significant differences in the situation assessment are recorded in groups identified by the “country of birth.”
Thus, Israelis born in the USSR are 2.5 times more often than others speak about the negative influence of this conflict on the social situation, 1.5 times more often than others – on the defense capability, and 7 percentage points more in relation to the conflict influence on the international status of Israel.
In discussing the forms of Israel participation in the situation related to the Russian-Ukrainian military conflict, a statistically significant variation in opinion is observed only in estimates of humanitarian aid, which is less often mentioned by native Israelis (69% versus 78-80% in other groups) and regarding Israel’s support for its citizens participating in the military conflict, which is more often than others mentioned by native Israelis (41%), and less often by repatriates from the USSR (31%).
Native Israelis are significantly more often than repatriates from the USSR (58% versus 44%) speak about the possibility of deteriorating relations with Russia while assessing risks. Repatriates from the USSR are twice as often as others are concerned about possible economic damage associated, among other things, with a decrease in investment from foreign sources, as well as, slightly more often than others, about risk of damage to Jewish communities around the world.
Political attitudes also affect the situation related to the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict assessment. In particular, assessing risks of Israel participation in the situation surrounding this conflict, the most significant differences are recorded regarding the risks of damage to relations with Russia, which are higher for representatives of right (60%) and left (59%) political wings, and lower – for ultra-left (45%). For other risks, representatives of various political attitudes have a certain consensus.
Israel: neutrality and peacemaking.
Most Israelis agree that the state of Israel must remain neutral in international conflicts in order to maintain its relations with other countries and pursue independent policies. However, the neutrality policy should not be fixed at regulatory documents. Neutrality should be, rather, situational, depending on circumstances.
In general, neutrality is a characteristic practice for Israel: only 10% of respondents say that Israel is not neutral in any of military conflicts listed in the poll (Russia – Ukraine, Armenia – Azerbaijan, Civil War in Syria, Trade War between the United States and China).
In total, 78% of Israelis believe that Israel should be a neutral country in relation to military conflicts occurring in other countries, and may be neutral depending on the conflict.
55% of respondents believe that Israel is fully or partially ready to take a course towards peace within the framework of its foreign policy.
54% of respondents believe that the state of Israel should remain neutral in international conflicts in order to maintain its relations with other countries and pursue an independent policy.
42% of respondents believe that Israel refuses to supply weapons to countries in a state of military conflict in order to comply with neutrality.
Israelis have a positive attitude towards Israel’s provision of humanitarian aid: almost 40% of respondents consider it sufficient, and 30% – consider it more or less sufficient. Repatriates from the USSR adhere to this position most often.
The lack of Israel humanitarian aid is most often spoken of by Israelis with ultra-left and left political attitudes, respectively; the ultra-right and right are more often than others convinced in its sufficiency.
The specificity of ideas about Israel policy towards international conflicts is to some extent related to the country of birth.
Native Israelis are more often than others take a situational approach, and are twice as less often claim that Israel should not be a neutral country.
Repatriates from the USSR, on the contrary, much less often adhere to a “situational” approach and more than others are focused on neutrality. They also more often than others claim that in the conflicts indicated in the study, Israel adheres to neutrality. Native Israelis more often than others talk about Israel unwillingness to pursue peace as a part of its foreign policy and less often – about readiness.