![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Police involvement in counterterrorism has special ramifications on minority groups that may be viewed as presenting high risk to homeland security. Our public survey shows that the Jewish respondents in our sample expressed positive attitudes toward police involvement in mission of counterterrorism, while Israeli Arabs expressed more concern with the ramifications of police involvement in counterterrorism on its relations with the Arabs in particular. The results show that both communities recognized the central role that the police may play in dealing with terrorism, and they both expressed high levels of willingness to cooperate with the police to fight against terrorism.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Science and Technology directorate of the US Department of Homeland Security under Grant Award Numbers N00140510629 and 2008-ST-061-ST0004 made to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (www.start.umd.edu), and by the US National Institute of Justice under Grant No. Z909601. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the US Department of Homeland Security, START, or the National Institute of Justice.
Notes
1. British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated: ‘We know that these people acted in the name of Islam. But we also know that the vast majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do’ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4661059.stm).
2. There are also marked socio-demographic distinctions between Arabs and Jews in Israel, such as age, income, education level, gender, and marital status (Hyder, Citation2008). For instance, we know that the Israeli Arab minority is much younger and poorer on average than the Jewish majority. Data also indicates that the Israeli Arab population has lower educational achievements than Israeli Jews (Weisblay, Citation2006). See http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m01585.pdf.
5. The remaining .3% were composed of non-Arab Christians who mainly immigrated from the Former Soviet Union.
6. We report findings here from OLS regression results, primarily because the intervals in the dependent measures in our analysis can be seen as equivalent. Nonetheless, we recognize that they also can be viewed as ordinal measures. Accordingly, we estimated (and report in Appendix 3) the findings using ordinal regression. As illustrated in the appendix, the results are very similar to those found in the linear OLS regressions.
7. t(3721) = 2.512, *p < .05, Cohen’s D = .160.
8. We used effect size calculator to estimate the d from a standardized regression coefficient. The unstandardized coefficient of ethnicity is β = −.038 and the effect size is −.130 (see Appendix 2). See: http://gemini.gmu.edu/cebcp/EffectSizeCalculator/d/standardized-regression-coefficient.html.
9. t(3698) = 4.043, P < .05, Cohen’s D = .250.
10. We used effect size calculator to estimate the d from a standardized regression coefficient. The unstandardized coefficient of ethnicity is β = −.034 and the effect size is −.117 (see Appendix 2).
11. t(3705) = 5.925, P < .05, Cohen’s D = .370.
12. We used effect size calculator to estimate the d from a standardized regression coefficient. The unstandardized coefficient of ethnicity is β = −.115 and the effect size is .398 (see Appendix 2).
14. t(3585) = −6.08, P < .05, Cohen’s D = −.360.
15. The multivariate analysis showed similar results. We used effect size calculator to estimate the d from a standardized regression coefficient. The unstandardized coefficient of ethnicity is β = .120 and the effect size is .415 (see Appendix 2).
16. t(3559) = −5.58, P < .05, Cohen’s D = −.330.
17. We used effect size calculator to estimate the d from a standardized regression coefficient. The unstandardized coefficient of ethnicity is β = .129 and the effect size is .447 (see Appendix 2).
18. t(3795) = 7.97, P < .05, Cohen’s D = .530. The multivariate analysis showed similar results. We used effect size calculator to estimate the d from a standardized regression coefficient. The unstandardized coefficient of ethnicity is β = −.162 and the effect size is −.564 (see Appendix 2).
19. t(3771) = 8.48, P < .05, Cohen’s D = .511. The multivariate analysis showed similar results. We used effect size calculator to estimate the d from a standardized regression coefficient. The unstandardized coefficient of ethnicity is β = −.138 and the effect size is −.479 (see Appendix 2).