« CBP Blog: Kingdom Come as Liberal Internationalism | Main | Arab response picks up pace »

January 07, 2005



Thanks for providing this summary and link. I agree that we will need more information about the methods.

The most obvious question I have would be gender and representativeness. If, for example, the sample included equal numbers of women in each subgroup (which I doubt that it did), they would probably be over-represented in at least come categories. Alternatively, I don't see a subcategory that would adequately capture the voices of the many women who do not work outside of the home or pursue higher education. While one could argue that these women don't play a terribly active role in political decision-making, it makes me very uncomfortable to talk about what "Arabs think about terrorism" without thinking about the views of the women who form a part of the social context in which terrorists - however defined - are embedded.

the aardvark

Stacy - unfortunately the Open Democracy piece doesn't say much about the methodology. Presumably he's going to release a full study at some point, but for now a lot of question marks have to be put around the findings.


For me, the most interesting figures were on Palestine. I'm a firm two state supporter, but things like (Attacks on Jewish synagogues
in Turkey --13 for Palestine and "The least disapproving of killing civilians were the Palestinian samples, especially university students") make me shudder. And it looks like the upcoming generation is going to be more radical. It's going to be a lovely state. Just lovely

Tom Scudder

I'd sort of like (and sort of dread) seeing the religious breakdown on the 67-33 split in Lebanon. Given that it's almost identical to the proportion of Muslims and Christians in the population.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad