The Impact of Terrorism on Political Attitudes: A Two-Edged Sword

1. The Impact of Terrorism on Political Attitudes: A Two-Edged Sword Ami Pedahzur & Daphna Canetti-Nisim

2. Goals of Terrorism • 2 ‘schools’: • Terrorists wishes to terrorize the public and change its political attitudes • Intimidation and induction of fear are not the ends of terrorist activity but rather means to effect political change Q: Do they success in attaining their goals?

3. Research goals • Looking at the relationships between: • Terrorism >> fear of terrorism • Terrorism >> militant attitudes • Terrorism * Fear of terrorism >> militant attitudes

4. Public Opinion in Israel: Terrorism and Peace Making • 1967-pre-Oslo: Israelis demand strong measures against terrorists, and do not wish to seat to the negotiation table. • The Oslo decade – Al Aksa intifada: a militant public + willingness for peace talks. • Al Aksa intifada: going back to the pre-Oslo days – a militant public who rejects any possible concessions

5. Terrorism Characteristics • Violent acts or the threat to use violence • Political context or goal • Violence has a symbolic/deterrence dimension beyond the instrumental dimension

6. Some Implications of Terrorism • Emotions of fear, anxiety, hysteria • Uncertainty as a result of the irrational character of terrorism and the randomization of its victims • Frustration and inability to function because of luck of clarity in regards to the goals of terrorism and available mechanisms of coping • The individual’s coping with continuous & intensive terrorism usually leads to an ongoing mental pressure

7. Victims of Terrorism in Israel 1. Low socio-economic status: • The “bold and the beautiful” can better protect themselves • Goals of terrorist attacks are public places (e.g. markets; public transportation) 2. Younger people/teenagers: They constitute a large percentage of those who use public transportation/coffee shops/dancing clubs 3. Those who live along the “seam line”: They are an attractive target to terrorism perpetrators due to their geographic location

8. Fear • It was originated in the 12th Century. It means sudden danger. It is a sudden, unpleasant, and strong emotion which is caused by expectance or awareness to danger • Most researchers agree that it is a threatening and unpleasant emotion which appears as a reaction to danger • Fear is not the enemy but the friend of humans – it is “the red light” which helps in the process of survival • It allows humans to react to dangers in their environment • "Fear is an uneasiness of the mind, upon the thought of future danger likely to befall us." Locke. • "Where no hope is left, is left no fear." Milton.

9. Terrorists and Fear of Terrorism • Anxiety, hysteria, and fear are major ‘tools’ of terrorists in their war on political goals • The central assumption of the terrorists is that the creation of an anarchic atmosphere, anxiety, and uncertainty, would serve as a pressure instrument on policy makers to accept the demands of terrorists • Terrorism within the Israeli-Palestinian context was mainly afflicted towards civilian population, and to a limited extent towards military and particular political targets

10. Fearful Individuals would Present: • A general impatience towards ‘others’, and the tendency to ignore basic civil rights • A decrease in the efficiency of cognitive processes >>> irrational thinking and reliance on stereotypes • Greater willingness to take risks • Aggressive and militant reactions

11. Militant attitudes Attitudes towards the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Number of casualties Number of terrorist attacks Personal fear National fear Framework of Analysis Terrorism intensity Fear of Terrorism Political attitudes

12. Data Sources 2 databases: 1. Terrorism database of the NSSC Review of the “Ha’aretz” 1948 - 2002. Data collection through questionnaires regarding each terrorist incident. A total of 2434 acts of terrorism 2. Semi-annual surveys of the NSSC More than 2000 respondents in each survey (5 surveys so far) Regular attitudinal Qs - To what extent do you agree with… A total of 10,000 respondents

13. Indices: Intensity of Terrorism • Monthly casualties (deaths & injuries) 2. Monthly terrorist attacks (suicide & non-suicide)

14. Indices: Fear Questions 1. National Fear • Fear of terrorism within Israel that would startle the political system • Fear of terrorism as a strategic danger to Israel 2. Personal Fear • Fear of terrorism that effects daily life in Israel • Fear of terrorism that would injure me and my family

15. Indices: Militancy • WMD should be a major component in Israeli national security • Every military action Israel initiates is justified • All means are justified in Israel’s struggle against terrorism • In case of a missile attack, Israel is obliged to react in full power

16. Findings

17. Moving Sum (X, X-1, X-2) of Terrorism’s Casualties

18. Moving Sum (X, X-1, X-2) of Suicide Terrorist Attacks

19. Fear of Terrorism (0-100 scale) (X-1)*20

20. Militancy (0-100 scale) (X-1)*20

21. Terrorism Intensity and Fear of Terrorism

22. Fear of Terrorism and Militancy

23. Militancy (X-1)*20 among Fearful and Fearless

24. Differences in Militancy between ‘Fearful’ and ‘Fearless’ • The lines flow differently: fearful and fearless present decrease in militancy from t1 to t2. Fearful present a major increase in t3 whereas fearless present an increase only in t4. From t3 they present opposite trends: fearful reduce militancy, whereas fearless increase militancy. • In general fearful are militant in levels 75.4-79.4 whereas fearless are militant in levels 55.4-62.2 • Greatest differences were found in October 2001: 79.4-55.4=24 • T test showed that the differences in all points of time were significant

25. All Means Are Justified in the Struggle in Terrorism – ‘Fearful’ & ‘Fearless’

26. All Means are Justified in the Struggle against Terrorism • Fearful individuals wish to use more force in the struggle against terrorism • Differences between the 2 groups were found to be significant in all 5 points • The most significant difference was in October 2001

27. Terrorism, Fear of Terrorism and Militancy

28. Summary & Conclusions • Is terrorism a two-edged sword? • Terrorism has 2 major effects: one emotional and one attitudinal • Terrorism generates fear which leads to changes in political attitudes, however, the changes are not in the desired direction

29. Summary & Conclusions • We could see a general increase in levels of terrorism with a pick in April 2002 • Suicide attacks are the major cause of casualties – both attacks & casualties at their pick in April 2002 • The highest rate of national fear was in October 2001, whereas the highest rate of personal fear was in April 2002 • Militancy is similar in its nature to national fear – a decrease in April 2001 and a strong increase in October 2001

30. Summary & Conclusions • As opposed to some assumptions on curvilinear relationships, all correlations between terrorism variables and militancy are linear – they co-vary • Terrorism & fear: a relationship between suicide attacks and fear in general, and in particular personal fear • Fear and militancy: a relationship between national fear and militancy • The ‘fearful’ are more militant than the ‘fearless’, however, the differences are much more significant

31. Summary & Conclusions • As for the question of terrorism, fear of terrorism, and militancy – • Assuming terrorists wish to inflict fear in order to change political attitudes in a certain direction, do they manage to do so? No - during times of terrorism, the public intimidated • A proposed model: • Suicide terrorism >> personal fear >> national fear >> militant attitudes