Survey Experiment on Political Use of Force: The Case of Operation Guardian of the Walls in May 2021

ABSTRACT

This study uses an online survey to conduct a list experiment to determine whether the military conflict between Hamas and Israel (mid-May 2021) – the so-called Operation Guardian of the Walls – should be considered political use of force by Prime Minister Netanyahu to preserve his threatened political career and life. Our study analyzed the experimental data and contributed to the studies on the political use of force from the perspective of political psychology. The result revealed that citizens with perceptions of political use of force rated Netanyahu’s war leadership more highly than citizens without such perceptions.

KEYWORDS:

• Political use of force
• Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• rally ‘round the flag effect
• survey experiment

Acknowledgments

This article was originally presented at the 2022 meeting of the Japanese Political Science Association held in Kyoto City. The author wishes to thank Keigo Ohmura, Masaaki Higashijima, and Gaku Ito.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data Access

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TIGORM

Notes

1. OCHA, “Protection of Civilians Report, 24-31 May 2021,” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Available at: https://www.ochaopt.org/poc/24-31-may-2021 (accessed March 29, 2022).

2. Hermann, T., and A. Or. “Israelis Assess Operation ‘Guardian of the Walls,’ The Israel Democracy Institute, May 24, 2021. Available at: https://en.idi.org.il/articles/34565 (accessed March 29, 2022); the poll used a direct question format, and the sample included not only Jewish citizens but also Arab citizens.

3. D.M. Foster, “An ‘Invitation to Struggle’? The Use of Force Against ‘Legislatively Vulnerable’ American Presidents,” International Studies Quarterly 50, no. 2 (2006): 421-444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00408.x

4. C. Butcher, “Diversionary Theories of Conflict: The Promises and Challenges of an Opportunities Approach,” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, ed. N. Sandal, (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Available at: https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-606 (accessed March 29, 2022).

5. J.D. Hagan, “Diversionary Theory of War in Foreign Policy Analysis,” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis, ed. C. Thies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 391-416.

6. B.O. Fordham, “More than Mixed Results: What We have Learned from Quantitative Research on the Diversionary Hypothesis,” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Empirical International Relations Theory, ed. W.R. Thompson, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 549-64.

7. J. Schanzer, Gaza Conflict 2021: Hamas, Israel, and Eleven Days of War (Washington, DC: Foundation for Defense of Democracy Press, 2021).

8. This perspective was suggested by the anonymous reviewer’s remarks. I would like to thank him for his comments.

9. The reason for a large number of U.S.-based research cases may be because U.S. military intervention had a large impact on international politics, as well as in an environment where public opinion polls frequently measure support for the president.

10. J.S. Levy, “The Diversionary Theory of War: A Critique,” In Handbook of War Studies, ed. M. Midlarsky, (Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 259-88; C.W. Ostrom, and B.L. Job, “The President and the Political Use of Force” American Political Science Review 80, no. 2 (1986): 541-66; B. Russett, Controlling the Sword: The Democratic Governance of National Security (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).

11. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are considered the most reliable epidemiological studies. The review of multiple empirical studies should be exhaustive and systematic through a pre-set transparent procedure. This systematic review has the effect of reducing arbitrariness by eliminating the active inclusion of prior studies that favor the author’s research (Green, 2005).

12. A. Godefroidt, “How Terrorism does (and does not) Affect Citizens’ Political Attitudes: A Meta-analysis,” American Journal of Political Science 67, (2023): 22-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12692

13. G.W. Downs, and D.M. Rocke, “Conflict, Agency, and Gambling for Resurrection: The Principal-Agent Problem Goes to War,” American Journal of Political Science 38, no. 2 (1994): 362-380.

14. K. Haynes, “Diversionary Conflict: Demonizing Enemies or Demonstrating Competence?” Conflict Management and Peace Science 34, no. 4 (2017): 337-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894215593723

15. J. Tir, and J. Jasinski, “Domestic-level Diversionary Theory of War,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 52, no. 5 (2008): 641-64.

16. Ibid, 647.

17. Ibid, 652.

18. G.R. Klein, and E. Tokdemir, “Domestic Diversion: Selective Targeting of Minority Out-groups,” Conflict Management and Peace Science 36, no. 1 (2019): 20-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894216658675

19. At the time of this writing, the most recent review articles of Butcher (2021), Hagan (2018), and Fordham (2018) were followed. Although qualitative historical studies are also considered abundant, such as those conducted by Lebow (1985) and Oakes (2012), who examined the Falklands conflict in Argentina as a case study. This study, which emphasizes reproducibility and law establishment, will deal only with quantitative empirical studies.

20. A. Oakes, Diversionary War: Domestic Unrest and International Conflict (Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012).

21. Hagan, “Diversionary Theory of War,” 391-416.

22. M.P. Jasinski, Social Trust, Anarchy, and International Conflict (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2011), 25.

23. Butcher (2021) argues that leaders have an incentive to conceal their motives for diversion.

24. Fordham, “More than Mixed Results,” 550.

25. Jasinski, Social Trust, 21; Segev et al., (2022) argues that the reason for the inconsistent findings of observational studies is due to unobservable confounding factors arising from strategic interactions.

26. Fordham, “More than Mixed Results,” 550.

27. S. Boddery, and G.R. Klein, “Presidential Use of Diversionary Drone Force and Public Support,” Research and Politics 8, no. 2 (2021): 205316802110199; E. Segev, A. Tago, and K. Watanabe, “Could Leaders Deflect from Political Scandals? Cross-national Experiments on Diversionary Action in Israel and Japan,” International Interactions 48, no. 5 (2022): 1056-69.

28. Schanzer, Gaza Conflict, 13-16.

29. Fordham, “More than Mixed Results,” 549-64.

30. Hermann and Anabi, “Israelis Assess Operation”

31. The theory originated in the arguments of Mueller (1970, 1973).

32. Another theory was developed by Brody (1991) in criticism of Mueller’s argument.

33. M. Hetherington, and M. Nelson, “Anatomy of a Rally Effect: George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism,” PS: Political Science and Politics 36, no. 1 (2003): 37-42.

34. The theory of voting behavior represented by the Michigan model and the performance evaluation of political leaders are also models in which covariates, such as ideology and feeling thermometer of the leader, precede judgments such as voting decisions and evaluations in time.

35. H. Moseson, E. Treleaven, C. Gerdts, and N. Diamond-Smith, “The List Experiment for Measuring Abortion: What We Know and What We Need,” Studies in Family Planning 48, no. 4 (2017): 397-405.

36. G. Blai, C. Winston, and K. Imai, “List Experiments with Measurement Error,” Political Analysis 27, no. 4 (2019), 455-80.

37. K. Imai, B. Park, and K.F. Greene, “Using the predicted responses from list experiments as explanatory variables in regression models,” Political Analysis 23, no. 2 (2015): 180-96. doi:10.1093/pan/mpu017

38. Only responses from Jewish citizens were used from survey data collected by IDI’s Viterbi Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research between May 19 and 20, 2021 (Code number U0076). The dependent variable is the government’s assessment of its leadership in carrying out Operation Guardian of the Walls (Q2), and the independent variable is the attitude toward or against the claim that Operation Guardian of the Walls was intended to extend the tenure of the prime minister (Q6). The two variables were measured on a Likert scale, but attitudes for and against the claim of tenure extension were binary. The dataset was downloaded by accessing Data Israel.

39. The wartime Netanyahu ratings used as independent variables were measured on an 11-point scale. Of these, 6 through 10 were considered positive ratings, and the percentage of positive ratings relative to the total was calculated.

40. P.D. Feaver, and C. Gelpi C, Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005); S.S. Gartner and G.M. Segura, Costly Calculations: A Theory of War, Casualties, and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021); C. Gelpi, P.D. Feaver, and J. Reifler Paying the Human Costs of War: American Public Opinion & Casualties in Military Conflicts (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).

41. The proposition of the opinion leadership school that opposition leaders, journalists, and commentators refrain from criticizing political leaders during the war may apply, but owing to word count limitations, we will not discuss this further (see Brody, 1991).

42. Fordham, “More than Mixed Results,” 549-64.

43. Segev et al., “Could Leaders Deflect from Political Scandals,” 1056-69.

44. Hoffman. G. “Benett Backs Down from Anti-Netanyahu Gov’t as Jewish-Arab Riots Grow,” The Jerusalem Post, May 13, 2021. https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/bennett-change-coalition-is-out-of-the-question-now-668117 (Accessed on February 27, 2024).

45. Downs and Rocke, “Conflict, Agency, and Gambling for Resurrection,” 362-380; Haynes, “Diversionary Conflict,” 337-58.

46. Boddery and Klein, “Presidential Use of Diversionary Drone Force,” 205316802110199.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS KAKENHI) [Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research] [grant number 19KK0033].