This poll was conducted on Tuesday, May 31, 1994. It was conducted later in the month than usual for two reasons. First, the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, which occurred on May 21st, necessitated postponing the poll until the last week of May. Also, CPRS was hosting expert consultants from the United States who were to help develop the polling unit and needed to monitor the data collection process. The exact date was chosen, therefore, to enable all of the consultants to monitor the fieldwork and make their suggestions for improving the methodology.

The poll was conducted in the month immediately following the signing of the Palestinian-Israeli agreement concerning Gaza and Jericho in Cairo on May 4, 1994, and thus was during the first stage of the implementation for this agreement, which included the following steps:

1. Withdrawal of Israeli forces from population centers in the Gaza Strip and Jericho region, and their redeployment to agreed upon locations, including the borders of the Palestinian autonomous regions, settlements, and main roads in the Gaza Strip and Jericho region.

2. Entrance of the Palestinian police into the areas of Gaza and Jericho, who were received by the Palestinian people, regardless of political affiliation, with euphoric welcome.

3. Release of several hundred Palestinian prisoners

4. Initial preparations to establish the Palestinian administrative infrastructure to replace the Israeli Civil Administration in the autonomous regions and the initial formation of the Palestinian national authority.

5. Announcement of the names of some individuals appointed to the Palestinian national authority, including some individuals from inside the West Bank and Gaza and some from the Diaspora.

6. Numerous questions in the Palestinian community regarding the Palestinian authority and Palestinian society on issues of democracy and human rights, the rights of women and their political participation, and general civil and political rights.

The questionnaire was designed through consultations with local and international experts. A new method to validate the survey instrument with this poll was a more systematic pre-test. Fifty draft questionnaires were distributed to fieldworkers to conduct random interviews to assess the validity of the questionnaire instrument. Another twenty questionnaires were distributed to experts to evaluate the questions. The questionnaire was then revised according to the recommendations and problems encountered during the pre-test.

Polling Districts

In order to identify political positions throughout the Occupied Territories and to improve the credibility of the sample, the West Bank was divided into eight polling areas (Nablus, Tulkarm, Jenin, Jericho, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron) which were in turn divided into eighteen polling districts. During this poll, Gaza was divided into six polling areas instead of three to reflect the new method for sample selection, which was to choose locations by random and then select random samples within those chosen locations. CPRS created a list of all locations in Gaza. A random sample was selected from lists that divided the locations according to population size, type of location (city, camp, village) and degree of development.

The sample that we attained through this system of division enabled us to understand political positions and voting patterns in :

1. The Occupied Territories as a whole (West Bank and Gaza)
2. The West Bank and Gaza separately
3. Polling areas separately
4. Polling districts separately

We received 1974 questionnaires from the West Bank and Gaza, of which 1290 are from the West Bank and 684 are from Gaza. Despite the limitations of the division utilized, it promotes the random nature and representation of the sample.

(Expressed as a % of the total sample)

Area of Residence								Following the News
West Bank "including Jerusalem&qot; Gaza Strip		65.3% 34.7%	City Town Village Refugee Camps		39.2% 12.7% 20.6% 27.5			Always Often Sometimes Never		38.7% 29.5% 29.4% 02.4%
Age				Sex					Education
18-22 23-26 27-30 31-35 36-42 43-50 51+		21.2% 20.6% 18.8% 13.8% 10.7% 08.7% 06.2%		Males Females		66.2% 33.8%				Up to 9 years (elem./prep) Up to 12 years (Tawjihi) 2 year College University (BA) MA + Phd.	24.0% 38.0% 15.9% 29.4% 1.6%
Refugee Status		Marital Status			Area					Occupation
Ref. NonRef.	47.9 52.1	Single Married Divorced & Widowed		35.6% 62.7% 01.7%	Nablus Tulkarem Jenin Jericho Ramallah Hebron Bethlehem Jerusalem Gaza A Gaza B Gaza C Gaza D Gaza E Gaza F		10.3 08.3 08.2 02.0 10.5 12.3 06.6 07.0 09.1 05.3 05.4 04.0 03.6 07.4			Laborers Merchants Craftsmen Students Housewives Farmers Employees* Specialists** Unemployed Retired	13.34% 09.5% 13.7% 11.8% 14.5% 02.0% 20.9% 05.6% 08.7% 00.0%

* Employees: Schoolteacher, Government Employee, Nurse, Lower-level Company Employee, Secretary, etc.
** Specialists: University Teacher, Engineer, Doctor, Lawyer, Pharmacist, Executive, etc.
***A new question for the demographic section as an initial attempt to measure information access and basis for Palestinian opinions.
****Gaza A) Jabalyia, al-Nazla; B) Rimal; C) al-Zaytoun, Sabra; D) Deir Balah, Bureij; E) Khan Younis Area; F) Rafah.

To complete the data collection process, the choice of interview stations was based on our previous experience in the last eight polls. To ensure the representation of Palestinians in all districts, the focus was on areas that attracted villagers and refugee camp residents. Data collectors carried with them an exhaustive list of villages and refugee camps in each district. This allowed them to reach their target sample as efficiently as possible.

In the Gaza Strip, field workers visited randomly selected towns, villages, and refugee camps. Here, around 50% of the interviews were conducted in households to ensure the representation of women. The rest of the interviews were conducted in public places.

Our data collectors have participated in a number of workshops where the goals of the poll were discussed. They were also lectured on sampling techniques, survey methods, scientific research, and field work. Three special training seminars were conducted during this month, attended by a total of sixty-four fieldworkers. On Thursday, May 26, a session was held at Bir Zeit University for the Ramallah area fieldworkers, which consisted of a lecture by Dr. Mark Tessler, author of The Evaluation and Application of Survey Research in the Arab World, and a general discussion among the fieldworkers regarding methodology and specific difficulties encountered in the interviewing process. On Friday, May 27, a similar session was held in Gaza for the Gaza Strip fieldworkers. On Monday, May 30, another training session was held in Nablus, which was videotaped for use in further courses and training programs on scientific methods and public opinion polling. In addition, CPRS hosted two international experts from Canada and the United States, Fouad Mugrabi and Elia Zuraik (of Palestinian origin). They assisted in assessing problems facing polling in the West Bank and Gaza, which helped CPRS researchers to further develop the polling process.

Data collectors worked in groups supervised by qualified researchers. CPRS researchers made random visits to interview stations and discussed the research process with data collectors. During this poll, the monitors in the Nablus and Tulkarm region were accompanied by expert consultants from the United States: Dr. Mark Tessler, Dr. David Pollock, and Roz Tartaglione. More than fifty percent of our data collectors were female so as to ensure the representation of women in the sample. All interviews took place on the same day and were conducted on a face-to-face basis. Data collectors were assigned a limited number of interviews (an average of 35) to allow for careful interviewing. In general, the public forum of interviews contributed to a 10% non-response rate which was not included in the sample. A large number of non-respondents were women not accustomed to talking to strangers in public places, probably due to cultural constraints. Some non-respondents, we believe, were reluctant to state their political affiliation out of fear or ambivalence.

Researchers were instructed to refrain from the following:

1. Conducting interviews in public institutions such as trade unions, offices of political parties, women and student organizations, government offices, etc.

2. Interviewing their acquaintances and giving questionnaires to a group of acquaintances.

3. Conducting multiple interviews at the same time.

4. Interfering with the respondents' answers even if they seemed "illogical." If asked to explain a vague item, they must refer to a standard definition provided to them by CPRS. Otherwise, they must leave it up to the respondent to interpret the ambiguity.

5. Interviewing volunteers instead of following the prescribed numerical system.

6. Offering their own opinion on the issues under question to the respondents or anyone else during polling hours.

7. Changing interview stations, except in cases of interviewing drawing a crowd or circumstances in the interviewing area endangering the safety of the fieldworker (in which cases fieldworkers move to a safe location and phone CPRS or their coordinator for instructions).

The coding system was adjusted during this poll to prevent a loss of information that could form the basis for analysis. Ages were listed as raw data so that SPU analysts could assess the validity of their previous age category divisions and possibly reconstruct these divisions to reflect more accurately the actual difference in attitudes among age groups. Also, places of residence were entered by name rather than just by type, as was the previous practice, in order to record more information for possible later analysis. The present poll shows that respondents came from 264 villages, towns, cities, and refugee camps.

Data were processed through the use of SPSS, a computer package that is able to detect illogical answers and other inconsistencies. The margin of error for this poll is less than 3%, and the confidence level is higher than 95%.

Evaluation of the Cairo Agreement

Palestinians were asked about their evaluation of the Palestinian-Israeli Agreement signed in Cairo on May 4, 1994. A total of 39.6% said that the agreement was "excellent" or "good." Another 17.7% evaluated the agreement as "fair." In contrast, 39.2% of the Palestinians surveyed in the West Bank and Gaza felt that the agreement was "inadequate" or "bad."

In this regard, we notice a difference between the West Bank and Gaza. In the West Bank, 34.4% of respondents said that the agreement is "excellent" or "good." Another 17.1% said that it is "fair" and a total of 45.4% indicated that the agreement is "inadequate" or "bad." In the Gaza Strip, however, 27.3% placed the agreement on the negative side of the scale by describing it as "inadequate" or "bad." The results for Gaza are similar to those in Jericho where 27.5% said that the agreement is "inadequate" or "bad." This can be compared with Hebron and Nablus where 46.9% and 44.9% of the respondents respectively viewed the agreement in a negative manner.

Views of the agreement are correlated with political affiliation where the majority of the opposition sympathizers gave the agreement failing grades ("inadequate" or "bad") and the majority of Fateh and Feda sympathizers gave the agreement passing grades ("excellent" or "good"). Only 20% of Hizb al-Sha'b supporters evaluated the agreement as "excellent" or "good." A total of 30.4% of the supporters of nationalist independents felt that the agreement is "excellent" or "good, " with an additional 25.9% evaluating it as "fair." (See Table 1)

Table 1.

Evaluation of the Gaza-Jericho First Cairo Agreement by Political Affiliation

            Excellent   Good %      Fair %      Inadequate   Bad %       Not Sure   
            %                                   %                        %          
PFLP        ---         5.7         12.2        32.5         45.5        4.1        
DFLP        ---         9.4         3.1         34.4         46.9        6.2        
Hamas       4.8         7.4         14.4        26.2         46.3        0.9        
I.Jihad     3.4         17.2        13.8        24.1         37.9        3.6        
Fateh       25.2        40.4        18.1        11.5         2.4         2.4        
Feda        8.0         64.0        24.0        4.0          ---         ---        
Hizb        4.0         16.0        40.0        36.0         4.0         ---        
al-Sha'b                                                                            
I. ind.     1.1         17.2        13.8        31.0         28.7        8.2        
Nat'l ind.  9.5         20.9        25.9        30.3         10.0        3.4        
Other       9.8         13.7        23.5        27.5         17.6        7.9        
No one      5.9         17.2        17.7        29.6         22.7        6.9        

               Satisfied     Satisfied    Satisfied     Not           Don't Know    
                            with most     with a few    Satisfied                   
Less than 9   25.6          17.8          22.0          18.8          15.8          
years                                                                               
Tawjihi       18.3          21.8          25.7          21.6          13.5          
2-Year        14.1          18.5          29.9          23.8          13.7          
College                                                                             
University    10.7          20.7          28.8          31.7          8.1           
Advanced      10.0          30.0          26.7          13.3          20.0          
Degree                                                                              

It is interesting to find that while the majority of Fateh supporters are satisfied with the list of appointees to the PNA, a sizable minority (29.3%) are dissatisfied.