**The subject of the study **is public opinion regarding judicial reform in Israel; **the subject** is judicial reform and socio-political destabilization in Israel.

**The objectives of the study are:**

1. To study the population understanding about initiators and interested party of judicial reform.

2. To analyze the relevance degree of this topic to population – the reform being promoted as well as the basic need to reform the Israel judicial system.

3. To analyze the population awareness of the reform and sources of information.

4. To determine the Israelis understanding relative to the conformity of the reform goals with the “public good”.

5. To reveal the degree of Israelis protest activity.

6. To analyze the risks of “Maidan” occurrence – civil confrontation in the case of continuation or inhibition of judicial reform.

7. To determine the optimal for population ways to solve the current situation.

8. To identify socio-demographic and psychological factors that determine the specifics of the various groups of population attitude towards judicial reform and actions in order to promote their own or group interests.

**Sampling and polling method**

The poll was carried out using a structured questionnaire, which included basic as well as reference questions (demographics) of a closed type.

Poll dates are 25.05.2023-01.06.2023.

Empirical data was collected as an integrated poll: most of the poll was conducted using an existing multi-sided Internet panel, and a minority – by phone (mainly in the Arab sector due to the relative lack of representation in the Internet panel).

The sampling method is quota. The adult population of Israel (1000 people) was studied. Quotas are carried out according to the signs: age, gender, area of residence, type of settlement, religion.

The statistical error size is 3,1% with a confidence level of 95%.

Representation of different groups of respondents in the sample (in shares):

Age | | Settlement type | |

17-30 | 30% | City | 76% |

31-49 | 40% | Local council | 11% |

50-64 | 17% | Rural settlement -kibbutz/settlement/village | 13% |

65+ | 13% | Area | |

Country of birth | North | 22% | |

Israel | 87% | Haifa | 13% |

Countries of the former USSR | 6% | Center | 27% |

Other | 7% | Tel Aviv | 8% |

Political attitudes | Jerusalem | 13% | |

Right | 31% | Judea and Samaria | 3% |

Moderately right | 22% | South | 14% |

Center | 20% | Gender | |

Moderately Left | 11% | Man | 48% |

Left | 11% | Woman | 52% |

Others | 5% | Other | 0.2% |

Secular– religious | |||

Secular | 38% | Ultra-religious | 7% |

Observing traditions | 26% | Arab-Christian, Muslim | 18% |

Knitted kippah | 9% | Others | 2% |

**Analysis methods **

1. When preparing the report, the following methods were used to describe and display the data: tabular representation, graphical image, statistical indicators calculation. Frequency distributions, conjugacy tables and correlation analysis are used as statistical methods of analysis.

Correlations were calculated based on the Pearson coefficient (r), which allows to measure the degree of linear relationship between two continuous variables, as well as the strength of this relationship (to what extent one is related to another). The Pearson coefficient (r) takes values from -1 to 1, where: r > 0 indicates a positive linear relationship; r < 0 – negative linear connection, r = 0 – absence of linear connection. A positive linear relationship means that as the value of one variable increases, the value of the other variable also increases proportionally; a negative linear relationship means that when the value of one variable increases, the value of the other variable decreases proportionally. If the values Pearson coefficient are r = 0.3-0.7 we consider it as a moderate association, r ≤ 0.3 as a weak or absent association, and r ≥ 0.7 as a strong association.

2. In some cases, in order to identify the “common denominator” when comparing “heterogeneous” data, we calculated indices that allow us to take into account and lead to the “common denominator” not only the answers “Agree” or only “Disagree,” but both, as well as “Agree partly”.

In cases where the answer to the question is represented by four degrees of phenomenon characteristic emphasis (for example, the phenomenon is interest in the topic; degree of interest – answers: “I am interested to a large extent,” “sufficiently,” “to a small extent,” “I am not interested” – table 1.1.), The index *was calculated as the difference between varying degrees* *of positive and negative responses *(**n _{1} + n_{2} – n_{3} – n_{4}**,,… where

**n**is the answer option). Positive values of the resulting difference characterize the interest predominance, negative – the lack of interest in the topic.

If the answer to the question is represented by three degrees of the phenomenon characteristic emphasis (for example, the phenomenon is the degree of agreement with statements on a particular question: “I agree”; “I agree in part” and “I disagree” – Table 3), the index was calculated by the formula: **n _{1} + ½ n_{2} – n_{3}**,… where

**n**– values of the answer option “Agree”;

_{1}**n**– “Agree partly” and

_{2}**n**– “Disagree”. Based on the assigned weights for each answer option, where the maximum weight received the answer “Agree” and the minimum – “Disagree,” the answer options “Agree completely” and “Disagree” were assigned the corresponding coefficients 1 and -1, and “Agree partly” – the ½ coefficient. Then the products of the coefficient with the corresponding values of the answer option (for example, 61*1+½*24 -5 = 68

_{3}**[1]**) were calculated. The resulting products were summed up. The index values allow to take into account all answer options, giving them different weight (the maximum weight of the answer “Agree, and the minimum -” Disagree “). The higher the positive index values, the greater the degree of agreement with the problem presence, and vice versa. The negative index values rather indicate the absence of the studied problem or its small emphasis.

[1] Example.

Index | Total | Don’t know | Agree | Agree partly | Disagree | Characteristics |

68 | 100% | 10% | 61% | 24% | 5% | There is excessive bureaucracy, procrastination and a lot of delays in the judicial system |