Among other more publicized imports from the United States, Israel has also taken over some of the new techniques of “public opinion” research which have expanded so enormously in this country in recent years, particularly in their relation to problems of government and administration. Ruth Ludwig, a citizen of Israel and at present the United States representative of the Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, here describes the activities of that organization in opinion polling and what it has so far been able to discover of the ideas and temper of the population of the new state. 

_____________

When we hear about exporting American “know-how” to Israel, automatically we envisage dams, new machinery, new methods of distribution and merchandising. However, it is in a special field having little to do with technology or industry, that of applied social research, that one of the most interesting transfers of American method to the Israeli scene has been made.

During the last few decades the social sciences in America have expanded enormously, particularly in their application to practical problems of business, government, and administration. The road to a new understanding of social relationships has been opened by studies of behavior and reactions, by deeper systematic insight into the motivations of people, and by exact measurement of their attitudes. There has been an especially impressive development of new techniques for ascertaining public opinion, additionally spurred in the past two years by the failure of old techniques in respect to the 1948 presidential election.

_____________

Ben Gurion was one of the first in Israel to realize the important help the methods of modern social science might provide in coping with the urgent problems to be faced by a new state. Shortly before the State of Israel was established, he welcomed Professor Louis Guttman, associate professor of sociology at Cornell University and a leading figure in the field of attitude measurement in this country, who had come to Jerusalem to work out ways of applying American techniques of study in Israel. Professor Guttman recognized the possibilities for improving and expanding research in a situation so fluid and so full of interesting problems, and also so different from anything in this country or Western Europe.

No less than sixty-one countries on every level of cultural and technological development are contributing to the growing population of Israel. Modern Western cultures clash with medieval ones, and all kinds of social tradition, family pattern, religious observance, and political opinion are represented in transition there. The problem of building a modern state out of such heterogeneous material is tremendous—and unprecedented. Relations between people and government are still new and have not yet fallen into any consistent pattern. The various government departments require much guidance in their work; research projects on urgent social questions would, it was felt, help the administrator to anticipate the consequences of his decisions. Public opinion polls would let him know what people were thinking, and also permit the people to participate in the shaping of their own future.

The question of whether the death penalty should be incorporated into the new code being prepared by the Ministry of Justice was the subject of much discussion and doubt. A new system of austerity regulations had to be worked out. The government wished to know to what extent its position on unrestricted immigration had popular support. On these and many other questions, polls have been held that have provided administrators and legislators with valuable information. Moreover, such surveys are encouraging the thousands of people who are questioned, and who hear and read about the polls, to take a more active part in public affairs and to think harder about them.

In addition to this, public opinion research might well give us an otherwise unobtainable picture of the unique and rapidly changing social composition of Israel. How do the opinions of inhabitants of the collective settlements, the kibbutzim, differ from those of city-dwellers? From those of independent farmers? Are there differences—and how acute are they—between old settlers and new settlers, between immigrants from Europe and from Asia and Africa? How strong are those differences between the young and the middle-aged about which we have heard so much?

After some time devoted to preparation and the training of a staff, Dr. Guttman founded, in January 1949, the government-sponsored Israel Institute of Applied Social Research.¹ The public opinion department of the Institute has already conducted seventeen polls, and full reports have been published in Hebrew; extracts from some polls, in English, appear in a new quarterly published by the Institute under the title What Israel Thinks.

_____________

Perhaps the most important issue facing Israel in the past two years has been that of mass immigration. A poll on this subject was undertaken in August 1949, and the following questions were asked:

Should free mass immigration continue? Or should It be controlled? (The reference here was to general planning involving such procedures as examining and directing immigrants—not to the advisability of limiting the number of immigrants.)

Is the concentration of the new immigrants in the cities dangerous?

Should they be sent into agriculture, even if by putting a certain pressure on them?

Should immigrants of a doubtful moral record (criminals) be admitted?

To whom is the government to grant priority in providing jobs and settlement: new immigrants or ex-soldiers?

The real issue, as one can see, was (and still is): to what extent are Israelis willing to share their limited wealth with penniless immigrants—in unlimited number? The answers to these questions were emphatic, and the intensity of feeling of the respondents was, as measured, high.²

Eighty-two per cent held that the arrival of the immigrants should be systematically prepared for and planned by the government, while 18 per cent thought that immigration ought to be absolutely free, not guided or supervised in any way. A majority of 81 per cent saw a danger in the concentration of immigrants in the cities. Eighty-one per cent thought that ex-soldiers should have priority over new immigrants in employment and settlement facilities; and 55 per cent wanted to oblige newcomers to enter agriculture if they were suited for it.

The attitudes of the collective settlers, private farmers, and town-dwellers showed marked differences; each group emphasized different points in its answers. The members of the collective settlements are concerned primarily to have priority of immigration given members of the Zionist pioneer movements: these immigrants have had both agricultural and military training while still abroad, and should from the first be an asset, rather than an initial burden, to the settlements. However, the settlers insist that—notwithstanding these priorities—immigration as a whole should be absolutely free.

The private farmer stresses quite different points. He is most insistent that the moral record of the immigrant be scrutinized. Secondly, he feels that Zionist propaganda abroad should avoid painting too rosy a picture of Israel lest newcomers be disappointed. And finally, he stresses the necessity of a physical examination of the immigrants before, and not after, immigration. In general, the private farmer shows a tendency to be more cautious than the collective settler—which would tend to show that independent farmers are very much alike all over the world.

The town-dweller takes a position closer to the collective settler’s than to the private farmer’s. One reason for this may be that such a great number of the townspeople are workers, or dependents of workers, who have more in common ideologically with the kibbutzim.

A breakdown by countries of origin also showed differences. Israeli citizens of German origin take a more favorable view of controlled immigration than do those from other countries:

One set of data is not easy to interpret. On the question whether soldiers or immigrants should get priority in settlement, we find the following differences among those coming from different countries.

The Israeli-born are apparently more anxious than the rest of the country to favor new immigrants over ex-soldiers.

The question as to the admittance of immigrants with a doubtful moral past was asked at a time when excitement over the Stanley case had not yet died down. Sidney Stanley, a British Jew guilty of embezzlement, had been expelled by Britain and had applied for an Israeli visa. There were interesting differences on this question between town and country:

_____________

This first questionnaire on mass immigration did not raise the fundamental question: whether the number of immigrants should be restricted or not. At the time the poll was held, it was unlikely any Israeli Jew would have favored any limitation of the number of those whose arrival all had, for years, longed and prayed for. Three months later, however, the situation had changed, and the immigration problem again became the subject of a poll. By that time the full impact of the wave of new immigrants had been felt, and economic crisis threatened the country. The questions asked were:

Shall we restrict the number of immigrants in order to overcome the crisis?

Are there other means of overcoming the crisis besides reducing immigration?

What would be a desirable number of immigrants for the coming year?

The results showed that 75 per cent of the population was opposed to restricting immigration. On the question as to the desirable number of immigrants for the coming year, only 26 per cent proposed specific figures. Fifty-seven per cent said there was no need to limit the number, and 17 per cent said they had not pondered the question. At the end of each interview, respondents were asked: “How many immigrants arrived, in your opinion, during the last three months? During the current year?” The answers showed that the majority of the public was not aware of the correct figures.

The differences among different occupational groups are small but interesting. The figures show that those favoring unrestricted immigration number 88 per cent of the unskilled workers, 81 per cent of the members of collective colonies, 79 per cent of the skilled workers, 76 per cent of the civil servants, 73 per cent of the independent entrepreneurs, 70 per cent of the housewives, and 66 per cent of the free professions. Opinions on free or restricted immigration were clear, assured, and decided. Those favoring restriction showed a slightly higher intensity of feeling than those against it.

While the country as a whole seems to be strongly united on the issue of free immigration, when it comes to the question of the economic measures necessary to absorb immigrants—austerity—we find that social divisions are much sharper. The austerity regime, as a consequence of mass immigration, was officially introduced in Israel in the late summer of 1949. The government wanted to know how the people would support these unpopular measures, and a poll was taken in early autumn. The people already knew life under austerity but had as yet experienced it neither for any length of time nor in its most drastic forms.

The poll revealed that 58 per cent of the population was in favor of introducing austerity. But there were very striking differences among the different occupational groups. Those favoring austerity included:

    46% of the owners of shops or factories;

    58% of the skilled workers;

    61% of the civil servants;

    66% of the unskilled workers;

    76% of the collective farmers.

And while 76 per cent of the inhabitants of rural areas favored austerity, only 53 per cent of the inhabitants of Tel Aviv favored it. Interestingly enough, Haifa, Israel’s working-class city, was 62 per cent for austerity. In general, on questions where the interest of the individual has to be subordinated to the common good of the nation, the settlements and the city of Haifa very often head the list in expressions of willingness for self-sacrifice.

_____________

The response to the questions considered above were affected by economic interests. Answers to other questions, however, were swayed by strong political allegiances.

In the summer of 1949 a poll was taken on the attitudes of the people to three salient factors in Israel’s foreign policy: Israel’s membership in the UN; the loan from the United States; and the armistice agreement signed with Egypt at Rhodes. The replies showed that 80 per cent saw in Israel’s admission to the UN an important political achievement strengthening her international position; 20 per cent thought it would have been better to have waited for the signing of peace treaties with the Arab countries before joining the UN. On this question, a certain number of people were not very decided and had a tendency to change their opinions.

Eighty per cent thought that the government had done well to obtain a loan from the United States; 20 per cent wondered whether this would not endanger Israel’s national independence. For the 20 per cent giving critical replies, the delicate problem of keeping neutrality between the West and Russia, and fears of becoming a “sphere of influence,” came to the fore. Such an attitude is somewhat typical of a young nation emerging from a long experience as a colonial ward. On this question, opinions were quite decided and did not seem likely to change quickly.

Eighty-one per cent saw a political achievement in the armistice treaty with Egypt; 19 per cent thought it meant a setback. On this question opinion was emphatic and intense.

It is most interesting to observe that the opposition to all three of the government’s steps showed almost exactly the same percentage of the total. However, while the statistical breakdown for the first two questions did not show great differences among various groups, except that the city of Tel Aviv led in favorable replies, the answers to the question on the agreement with the Egyptian treaty showed marked variations. The youngest age group was cooler toward the armistice than the older (62 per cent of the 18-20 age group favored it, against 89 per cent of the 46-50 age group). Differences among the various types of communal settlements were even greater—and politically more revealing. Favoring the armistice with Egypt were:

Kibbutz Artzi (the left-wing Hashomer Hatzair kibbutzim, associated with the anti-government Mapam), 37%;

Kibbutz Meuhad (center), 77%;

Kibbutz Dati (Orthodox), 87%;

Hever Hakvutzot (center), 96%.

_____________

One cannot but wonder how decisively these differences in attitudes and opinions are affected by party allegiances. It is well known that these play a great role in determining the opinions of the Israeli citizen. Party discipline is strong in the Orthodox bloc, in the left-wing socialist party (Mapam), in the right-wing Herut, and also in the Labor party (Mapai), which is the largest. Unfortunately, we do not know the voting behavior or party membership of those questioned in the polls (except in those cases where we deal with a very small homogeneous community, as in the left-wing or the religious kibbutzim). We do, however, have some data on party influence in two polls that touched a sensitive nerve in Orthodox circlespolls dealing with equal rights for women and with their military conscription in peacetime.

According to rabbinical law, women have extremely limited rights, and to this very day when a woman appears before a rabbinical court on matters of inheritance, succession, divorce, and so on, the inferiority of her status becomes strikingly evident. The official status of women in the state, however, grants them the greatest possible freedom and full equality. The Orthodox element views this with misgivings, and when the questions of equal rights for women and of their conscription arose, the issue between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox was sharply drawn.

In the country as a whole, it turned out that 52.5 per cent were in favor of the military conscription of women in peacetime. The breakdown by professions revealed (the percentage indicates the number approving conscription):

A map was drawn indicating the distribution of voters for the Orthodox parties in the last election, and it appeared from this that the vote against conscription almost exactly coincided with the vote for the religious parties.

_____________

Polls often help us go far deeper into the social psychology of a people, and its different strata, than a sample listing of political opinions would suggest. A poll was taken in September 1949 on the question of the death penalty. The new state had to answer the question: what was to be the highest punishment it could mete out? There is a growing tendency among nations to limit the application of capital punishment or even to abolish it altogether. To a question like this, public opinion attaches special importance. When the legislators of Israel had to take a decision on this subject, there was no precedent or habit of former law to indicate a course. Considerations other than that of public opinion may move the legislator, but a clear knowledge of the people’s stand would no doubt put him in a much better position to decide on issues such as this. The results of a poll taken in September 1949 showed that 75 per cent of the Israelis were against the death penalty, while 25 per cent were in favor of it. However, more than 50 per cent wanted to see it applied only in one case, that of high treason and espionage.

The intensity of feeling measured was high; the answers were clear-cut and decided.

Interesting differences of opinion were observed between the new immigrants and the old settlers; the longer a person had been in Israel the more inclined he was to abolish the death penalty. The breakdown of those opposed to the death penalty shows:

The last figure, on the Israeli-born, who are mostly still young, shows them closer to the middle-aged and older immigrants than to those of their own generation among the newcomers. This is further illustrated by a breakdown into age groups. The 18-20 age group showed as few as 62 per cent against the death penalty, while among those over fifty years of age, 79 per cent expressed themselves as against it.

No great differences could be observed among groups based on other breakdowns. Nine months after this poll was published the Knesset passed the second reading of the law abolishing capital punishment.

_____________

Public opinion surveys are only one part of the activities of the Israel Institute of Applied Social Research. A special department is devoted to research on large-scale problems that require more than a poll for adequate study. This department at present has under way twelve projects.

The first comprehensive study of the special department was begun early last year, and deals with the social adjustment of new immigrants in Israel, covering such aspects as immigrants’ plans for the future, the nature of their present work, their satisfaction with their jobs, their adjustment to the local population, their knowledge of Israel, the social distance and tensions among people of different countries of origin. Such matters as religion, problems of leisure time, relations to government and other officialdom, parent-child relations, and problems of personal adjustment are also investigated. The study compares new immigrants still in the reception camps with those already settled outside. Samples of 3,000 cases in both categories have been designed for cross sections of both these populations. A third sample of 2,000 cases has already been taken from the older population, so that the adjustment of the newcomers can be compared with that of settled Israelis. Work on this study is partly finished.

A number of other research projects of the Institute are in various stages of progress:

A study of the relations between religion and state deals with the age-old problem of church and state in its present Israeli version. It analyzes the various traditions of Jewish communities from different countries of origin, their influence upon Israeli social conditions, and the relations between religion and modern Jewish life. A preliminary study on the rabbinate has been undertaken by an American scholar.

Another young American scientist working for an American doctorate was at the Israel Institute making a comparative study of personality growth in the communal settlements and in the cities. A number of American scientists use the facilities of the Institute for projects of their own in which they need material that the Institute can supply: for instance, an experienced clinical psychologist on the staff of the Institute has conducted a series of “deep” biographical interviews (in Hebrew) for a study that has been undertaken in America where the Israeli material is being used for the elaboration of certain points.

A special research section is being developed for a social survey of Israel’s Arabs. The 200,000 Arabs now in Israel have lost social contact with their fellow Arabs and have not yet become adjusted to living among their Jewish fellow citizens within the new state. The first survey will study their contacts with Jews, their attitudes toward Israel and toward the Arab states, their changed economic status, leadership structure, morale, their plans, worries, needs, and their aspirations for the future. The survey will facilitate the readjustment of this minority. The Arab section will also specialize in race relations, prejudice research, cultures, traditions, and related problems.

The Ministry of Education has commissioned an intensive study of educational methods in schools. The research team working on this project will also study the attitudes, plans, and problems of Israeli youth.

Other projects of the Institute deal with health problems, juvenile delinquency, the social aspects of housing, and the relations between the people and the state. Market research and surveys of consumer habits investigate conditions in the whole Middle East as well as Israel.

In the field of psychometrics, original tests are being devised for the use of the personnel department of the Israel Treasury, which is responsible for the hiring of civil servants and promotion in all ranks. The newly devised tests of the Institute will also be used by the Israel civil service commission.

_____________

The Institute keeps in close contact with American universities and research institutes, particularly in the field of basic, or methodological, theory; it exchanges material with research bodies in European countries, and in Japan, where the United States occupation army has set up an institute similar in structure to the Israeli organization.

Several new theories on measuring techniques for socio-psychological data have been developed by Dr. Guttman and Dr. Foa during the last three years. Dr. Guttman was recently in the United States, lecturing to social scientists at leading universities on his new findings relating to the shortening of questionnaires while retaining strict scientific standards, and also relating to the measurement of social status and of the intensity of feeling of respondents.

In this way, the Israel Institute, which owes so much to American science and proficiency, is now developing to a point where it will be in the position to make its own original contribution to that wide field of basic theory and applied knowledge which was conceived and developed in this country.

_____________

¹ he Institute is under the direction of Dr. Guttman and of Dr. Uriel Foa, formerly of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and it has a staff of twenty persons, among them expert statisticians, psychologists, and sociologists; in addition, there are about thirty part-time field workers. The activities of the Institute include public opinion polling; special studies of acute social problems; market research and studies of consumer habits; psychological testing; and basic research for all these fields.

² Two to three thousand people are questioned in each poll. To a great extent the reliability of its results depends on the sampling procedure, and the various procedures are still a matter of controversy. The Israel Institute is in the fortunate position of having access to the official lists of the first national census of November 1948, when all eligible voters for the first general elections were registered. This permits the use of what is unquestionably the best method of selecting a sample for a poll: list sampling. The field workers are specially trained to insure the right approach to the respondents and to avoid bias. Since a great part of the more recently arrived population does not yet speak Hebrew fluently, the field worker has to be multilingual, although the questionnaire is eventually filled out in Hebrew. A field worker makes two to three return visits; the selected respondent cannot be replaced by another. All Israeli polls measure not only content but also intensity of conviction and feeling according to the method of scale analysis devised by Dr. Guttman at Cornell University and during his service in the research branch of the United States Army. (This method is not yet in general use in this country.)