How does is this view of the arabs reconcile with the results of the last survey in Um-Al-Fahm, where over three quarters of the population said they prefer to remain in Israel?

For me it shows that arabs are not blind to economic and practical reasoning, even when matters of dignity and territory are concerned.

I was referring to the view that eliminating Israel is a very high priority of the arabs.

Ha'aretz reported a few weeks ago that a survey was held in Um-Al-Fahm, asking the inhabitants if they would like their city and the surrounding area to belong to a future palestinian state. More than three quarters of the respondents answered negatively to this question, citing superior standard of living in Israel and the more developed democracy as the main reasons.

This shows something about the priorities of Israeli arabs.

Dov,

OK, so we need to agree on the facts.
The survey was reported by Joseph Algazy in Ha'aretz of 1.8.2000, under the title "Umm al Fahm Prefers Israel". It dealt with proposals allegedly toyed with in the Camp David summit (that ended a few days earlier), about a territorial exchange between Israel and the PA: Leaving more settlements in the west bank under Israeli sovereignty in exchange for annexing the northern Meshulash area to the PA.

After the survey was published, arab MKs went on a strong offensive, calling the land-exchange proposal a "transfer" and saying that Israel cannot just "pass" its arabs to another country's rule without asking them first.

The MKs were visibly uneasy with this situation, that exposes the distance between their rhetoric and the reality. But the reality is in the survey, not in the speeches of Dahamshe, who must look militant in order to win popular support.

Arabs had similar dillemas in East Jerusalem (a link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.dawn.com/20...),
but since these residents don't enjoy full citizen rights, only a small group seriously considers Israeli rule. Inside Israel, arabs enjoy many more benefits and hence the majority doesn't consider the corrupt, authoritarian and economically poor PA as an alternative.

From surveys and conversation with israeli arabs it is evident that they don't like Israel. But they value what it gives them: social security for the unemployed, relatively free speech, higher standard of living. Arafat is perceived as managing a corrupt and militaristic administration. The survey I cited just reaffirms that these views have practical consequences.

In the sixth point of your commment you mention the possibility that israeli arabs weigh their nationalistic sentiment on one side and the comfort of being israeli citizens on the other. I agree to this point and want to expand on it. If I understand you correctly, you say that for israeli arabs nationalism is far more important than persoanl comfort. In other words, they are idealistic people, ready to give up property and freedom of speech in exchange for territory, a flag and a hymn.

But killing the jews is against the selfish interest of israeli arabs, because the jews are responsible for their relative prosperity compared with the PA and Jordan - two other arab countries without oil. So the question is whether rational factors play a part in the thinking of israeli arabs. My opinion is that economic prosperity has a calming effect on them, just like it works everywhere else in the world. I would be glad to see evidence to the contrary.

Dov,

I agree with the general approach of collecting facts and building a thesis. Still, I have a few remarks.

Let's not base an analysis of israeli arabs on the tiny sample that includes their top politicians (say, 100 persons?) and the ideological terrorists (perhaps a few dozens inside the green line). For meaningful results, we need more robust statistical facts.

Second, when trying to judge the relevance of economic factors to violent events, the time scale you use is perhaps too short. It is not simply that in a year when there is 5% rise in GDP there is 20% less terror. These processes develop over a long time scale of decades.

As a first shot, here is my understanding of the relationship between economics and violence:
When a group of people feel that they are so miserable that they have nothing to lose, or, at the other extreme, so strong they cannot possibly lose - then there is danger of widespread violence.

According to this line of thought, if Israeli arabs are constantly aware of what they have to lose, violence will not erupt.