How do rocket threats affect Israeli voting behavior?

The excellent Brendan J. Nyhan directs my attention to this forthcoming paper by Anna Getmansky and Thomas Zeitzoff (pdf):

How does the threat of becoming a victim of terrorism affect voting behavior? Localities in southern Israel have been exposed to rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip since 2001. Relying on variation across time and space in the range of rockets, we identify the effect of this threat on voting in Israeli elections. We first show that the evolution of the rockets’ range leads to exogenous variation in the threat of terrorism. We then compare voting in national elections within and outside the rockets’ range. Our results suggest that right-wing vote-share is 2 to 6 percentage points higher in localities that are within the range– a substantively significant effect. Unlike previous studies that explore the role of actual exposure to terrorism on political preferences and behavior, we show that the mere threat of an attack affects voting.

Here is a related post from Monkey Cage.

Comments

Maybe someone could randomly fire rockets into Georgetown, and then someone else could write a paper on how it affects, say, veggie burrito sales on campus.

That paper could be great blog fodder, you know.

You seem to be implying that this is a pointless thing to study, but I don't see the basis for that (whatever your opinion of the conflict).

On the Palestinian side, a similar study conducted by YouTube shows that Hamas extremists were able to enlist more fighters to their side, willing to be martyrs.

What is the equilibrium.

Yep, was going to make pretty much the same point. It seems like rocket attacks, whether terrorist or official state property with properly noted inventory numbers, are not designed to create an atmosphere of trust or negotiation.

However, one can be fairly confident that the sellers of the rockets with the properly noted inventory numbers (along with the shadier characters that file off the numbers, before or after sale) are always pleased to have a more committed foundation of support to ensure a steady growth in their bottom line.

Yep, we can always count on the left wing commentariat to show hatred for the US and Israel and support for terrorists.

Scratch a leftist, smell and antisemite.

Willi, Your categorical comments certainly make it difficult to have a reasoned discussion.

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement. Can you please explain more about this YouTube study?

Willi, YouTube study means "Obvious". It also means watching the evening news and listening to what others say. Got it.?

OK, so I wasn't as far off as I thought I was. You're not basing your belief that "we are creating more terrorists than we are killing" on any rigorous analysis of reliable data. You are basing it on "what people say," and those "people" include people who hate Israel, love the Palestinians, or those who hate any kind of conflict regardless of the cause. There is no factual support for the belief.

So, Willi, you are defending your statement that "we can always count on the left wing commentariat to show hatred for the US"

by changing the subject

and challenging the statement that it is obvious that Palestinians react the same way as Israelis

by proceeding with the non-sequitur that since the term "people" includes "people who hate Israel", somehow undercuts the observation that the Palestinians react the same way as the Israelis.

Willi, first you incite, then you change the subject, then you define terms like "people" to include "those who hate Israel", etc.

Willi, If I said "People love their children", would you come back and say, because "people who hate Israel" is within the term people, that a statement thereby supports terrorism.

Maybe you would.

And here I was, thinking that my scorn was directed to the old fashioned merchants of death. I guess that point about the sellers of rockets wanting nothing more than to increase their profits was just a bit too subtle there. And let's be honest - making a killing in the arms business is not a euphemism, it is the business plan for the sellers, and the direct intent of the buyers.

Which probably proves I'm a self-hating Jew or something equally profound.

You forgot Rule of Acquisition 35.

It's easy to confuse that with 34.

Don't worry, there's plenty on the right too

OK, Bill, I apologize. I completely misinderstood what you were saying. I got lost in the YouTube metaphor and I didn'grasp your meaning the second time around. I think I got your meaning now. You are saying the reaction functions are fairly predictable.

I mention below that the novelty is measuring the response of a shift in the median voter.

Pardon me while I extract my head from my ass.

Accepted. We can be friends and disagree or agree.

The obvious answer is for Israel to abolish its borders, that way Palestinians would not have to fire rockets.

The Israeli settlers who go into Palestinian territory to create new settlements have done just that with some success.

Those Islamofascist Palestinians refuse to recognize people's natural right of mobility.

Big Bird will be shouting "Death to Mexicans" next season.

Since when is it OK to launch rockets at people because they are the same race as the people who are moving onto your land?

The Israeli settlers who go into Palestinian territory to create new settlements have done just that with some success.

For the 20th time already: anyone repeating this tired trope should be asked to name a "new settlement" established within the past 5 years.

But you can't. Because there aren't any.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Settlers-build-two-new-West-Bank-outposts-in-response-to-teen-deaths-361118

Please shut up now?

Oh, and:
http://rt.com/news/155700-israel-settlements-record-palestine/

"Israel approved record 14,000 settlements during peace talks with Palestine" is among the myriad Google results for "settlement Israel approved."

All during peace time. This is where zionist scumbags call me an anti-Semite for pointing out these settlers - and the Israeli government - are a pack of landgrabbing vermin.

“Israel approved record 14,000 settlements during peace talks with Palestine” is among the myriad Google results for “settlement Israel approved.”

If you can possibly believe this, then you have an extremely limited awareness of the situation. There are not 14000 towns in Israel and West Bank combined. There are fewer than 200 settlements in the West Bank. The vast majority of "settlers" live in Maale Adumim and Ariel - which are essentially suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv respectively (Lefty organizations also count people who live in Jerusalem as "settlers").

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Settlers-build-two-new-West-Bank-outposts-in-response-to-teen-deaths-361118

An "outpost" is a few extremist families that set up some mobile homes next to a cellphone antenna or on a hilltop. They do not make one iota of difference to the general situation. The IDF forces these people away from time-to time.

Please shut up now?

Please get a clue now.

“Israel approved record 14,000 settlements during peace talks with Palestine” is among the myriad Google results for “settlement Israel approved.”

The conventional enumeration of Jews resident on the other side of the 1949 armisitice lines is about 350,000 as we speak. So, it's your contention that the average 'settlement' has about 25 residents or about 9 households. Or fewer, given that you fancy the additional 14,000 'settlements' were constructed during peace talks with 'Palestine' and not before or after.

This is where zionist scumbags call me an anti-Semite for pointing out these settlers – and the Israeli government – are a pack of landgrabbing vermin.

"vermin" ! hmm ... this guy no doubt considers himself a liberal. I wonder if there is any other conflict in the world where he would use terms of dehumanization like "vermin" against one side. And what he have done to these "vermin" if he could? I wonder...

With rocket attacks unlikely to stop so long as the policy of allowing Israeli citizens to "settle" in the Occupied Territories persists, this does not look like a stable equilibrium.

"Occupied Territories" being code for land Israel has claim to that you don't agree with if not someone should call the U.N.

I guess the Senkaku Islands fall into that same category. That belongs to China because China has a claim to it.

International law is stupid, I guess.

Yes, it is stupid. But please show me the international law that says the West Bank and Gaza are occupied territories?

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, but people better versed than you and I say so.

"The International Court of Justice,[2] the UN General Assembly[3] and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power".[5] UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel’s occupation “an affront to international law.”[6] The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation".[7] According to Talia Sasson, the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than 4 decades that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law.[8]
...
Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980 (see Jerusalem Law) and the Golan Heights in 1981 (see Golan Heights Law) has not been recognised by any other country.[11] United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared the annexation of Jerusalem "null and void" and required that it be rescinded. United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 also declared the annexation of the Golan "null and void".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories

Yeah, now's when you call into doubt the validity of Wikipedia.

Lots of people say it violates international law, few can explain how

Even fewer can say how those settlements are legal.

It's called adverse possession.

lol @ "international law"

For many values of "occupied land," Israel fully admits that the land isn't theirs. It's not that they say they own it, but if they don't occupy it some level, they claim it becomes used as a launching ground for rocket attacks, and so they occupy several miles near the border. The other side claims that they launch rocket attacks because of the occupied land.

Even if some Israelis are illegally settling on Palestinian land, how does this justify shooting rockets randomly at other people who are the same race?

It doesn't but don't ignore that they are moving into others land and making it more, not less, difficult to arrive at a peaceful resolution.

One doesn't justify the other, either way.

The rocket attacks are coming from an area that was cleared of Israeli settlements, and launched by an organization whose declared intent is to destroy all of Israel.

The rocket attacks are coming from an area that was cleared of Israeli settlements, and launched by an organization whose declared intent is to destroy all of Israel.

Indeed, but the people arguing here aren't concerned about things like that.

Can I sum this up as: Obvious effect is obvious?

Sure the effect is obvious, but don't you think the magnitude matters?

Also, don't you think this will have an effect on the non-conservative parties? Might not the effect be larger if they didnt move their ice cream cart on the beach to the right?

Liberals in the US contend George W. Bush "lied" us into war by trumping up the threat. If the contention is true, Democrats in Congress who voted for the war were either completely fooled, shared the belief, or lacked the spine to oppose the war in light of popular support. If the contention is not true, then actual or perceived threats caused the same result.

Isn't this interesting to political economy? Does it have implications for the terrorists, Egypt, or the Palestinians? Do they want a more conservative government in Israel?

"If the contention is true, Democrats in Congress who voted for the war were either completely fooled..."
You can stop right there. Remember Colin Powell?

"Isn’t this interesting to political economy?" Maybe but does the content in that snippet surprise you even remotely?
"Does it have implications for the terrorists, Egypt, or the Palestinians?" Terrorists are unswayed by whatever political party is in power of target nations.
"Do they want a more conservative government in Israel?" Is there anyone to the right of Netanyahu? I doubt it.

I'm gratified you have a complete opinion formed in almost total ignorance. "Remembering" Colin Powell provides no information of merit.

The question isnt whether there is anyone to the right of Netanyahu. In the Knesset, it matters how much support his ruling coalition has. Do you always answer questions with pointless questions?

Since you are apparently too feeble-minded to draw the kind of a conclusion an average fourth-grader would be expected to make, since I have to state the obvious:

Your question started with:
"Liberals in the US contend George W. Bush “lied” us into war by trumping up the threat. If the contention is true, Democrats in Congress who voted for the war were either completely fooled, shared the belief, or lacked the spine to oppose the war in light of popular support."

My response is - look no further than your first guess: that Democrats in Congress who voted for the war were completely fooled. By Colin Powell. When he went in front of Congress with his pictures and flowcharts and statistics and reports 'proving' the existence of WMDs. Do you remember any of that, dingus? If your mental age reflects your actual age, I suppose you can be excused for a lack of awareness of history that you're not old enough to have lived through.

Re: the Knesset - are you really sure that matters?

Read this:

http://wsau.com/news/articles/2014/jul/17/israeli-pm-orders-ground-offensive-in-gaza-official-statement/

"JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday instructed the military to begin a ground offensive in Gaza, an official statement from his office said.

Reuters witnesses and Gaza residents reported heavy artillery and naval shelling and helicopter fire along the Gaza border.

"The prime minister and defence minister have instructed the IDF to begin a ground operation tonight in order to hit the terror tunnels from Gaza into Israel," the statement said."

I don't think the Knesset has any bearing whatsoever in matters of war. Netanyahoo (sic) doesn't need a coalition.

Any other dumb points you'd like to try to make, or is that all you got?

First of all, knobgobbler, my point had absolutely nothing to do with which of those alternatives was correct. That is irreleveant.

The POINT, you sanctimonious twit, is that the Democrats moved to the political right, in favor of war, when the electorate did. And the electorate moved because of a perception of threat.

Mossad could be firing these rockets into Israel. Russia or North Korea could be doing it. Or, there are no missiles at all and it is a mass hallucination from drugs mixed in drinking water. IT DOES NOT MATTER.

What matters, mouth breather, is that nationalist parties do well when there are external threats, and the research shows the magnitude of that change.

Even after we rolled through all of Iraq and found no WMD, the electorate still reelected Bush. Again, the issue of interest, you pus oozing herpes scab, is NOT whether you or I believe Bush or Kerry did or should have won the election, but rather how voters responded to information about security threats.

You knuckledraggers see Bush and Iraq in the same sentence, and you think it's time to climb on your propaganda soapbox the way Bubba mounted you in San Quentin.

But as long as you're greased up, let me remind you that all the intelligence related to WMD and terrorism was available to Congress for their scrutiny. The information set wasn't only what you heard Colin Powell say on TV, you dope smoking scumgargler.The intel was contained in Top Secret intelligence briefs at the Capitol. If Congress was "fooled," it was either because they wanted to be fooled or they didn't take the time to examine the evidence and make an informed decision.

It is also rather unbelievable that Bush, Powell, Rice, etc, would make false statements that they knew would be discovered as untrue the moment we got there. The only explanation that survives scrutiny is that most of DC actually believed Iraq still had WMD. Given that Iraq never proved it destroyed WMD as required by agreement, that belief was not unreasonable.

I don't think that Colin Powell purposefully presented false data. It's clear that he was deeply embarrassed at his role in hindsight - he was a great salesman and he mistakenly believed in his product.

You think Bush was elected a second term with some kind of overwhelming support? And that that overwhelming support was due to Iraq? You might want to look at the election returns again.

You also need to read this:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/iraq-election-2004

which pretty much refutes everything you're claiming:

"Were it not for the war in Iraq, political junkies could have gone to bed early on election night, because by all other indications, President Bush should have been re-elected in a walk. While Democrats point accusatory fingers at those supposedly responsible for their defeat, Republicans should be breathing a huge sigh of relief and pondering the political implications of foreign policy in the Bush administration’s second term."

And so on. So, there are actual differences between a real threat at your doorstep vs some faraway bogeyman who can't reach you much less hurt you, and after the electorate had a change to digest the facts and realize what a complete and utter misadventure Iraq would be, they nearly voted George Buffoon out of office. You do realize there is typically a huge incumbent's advantage, yes? That's likely the only reason GWB enjoyed 4 extra years of messing up this country irreparably.

And thus my initial point: if Mexico or Canada had groups of rebels shelling San Diego or Portland (Oregon, Maine, you pick), I'd not be surprised one iota if Rs saw an uptick in voting. Nobody with a brain would.

Apparently you would.

The question of the hour, literally, is how do Ukrainian rocket threats affect international air travelers voting behavior, when they vote with their money to fly? They vote with their feet, pardon the pun! Or they avoid flying over Ukraine.

This is the second time in a few decades that a passenger jumbo jet has been shot down over Ukraine, recall the 2001 incident. "2001 Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 On 4 October 2001, Tu-154 crashed over the Black Sea. The plane may have been hit by S-200 surface to air missile, fired from the Crimea peninsula during an exercise of Ukrainian military. All on board (66 passengers and 12 crew) were killed."

I just wish other countries in the area would have something that resembles voting, or Democracy (or even leadership) so we can compare magnitudes.

Egypt's anti-democratic coup actually seems to have stabilized their situation. I was told the generals contacted the Coptic patriarch and other major religious leaders in advance of the coup.

There's a lot of phenomena happening in places that aren't Israel that seem pretty instructive on things like democracy, multiculturalism, propositional states open borders, etc.. That's probably why Tyler is doing backflips to avoid them.

Scientific support for the old canard that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged? Or in this case, rocketed? It's almost as if people are more altruistic and ideological when it's someone else's ass on the line, and more concrete and selfish when it's theirs.

I'd like to do a study to test the hypothesis that people who watch CNN and read the Washington Post will tend to believe that Israelis should just soak up Palestinian rocket fire.

Wagers not the readers, but the people who produce their editorial matter.

Right picture. Wrong story.

More extreme/dedicated/nationalist/call it what you want Israelis place themselves in harm's way as a part of patriotic and even religious duty to a) be tough, b) be ready to stand to claim the land, c) other similar factors.

God's chosen people know that God will protect them if they go in range of those missiles, and anyways if they died, it was so the Chosen People, who are better than everyone else, can eventually claim dominion over some historically ancestral land, even if it involves forcible removal of their inferior Arab brethren.

Tell me it's not true.

Then make it so.

Comments for this post are closed