{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03333333333333333, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007344632768361582, 'mean_word_length': 5.311942959001782, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mangol Bayat, Iran's First Revolution: Shiʿism and the Constitutional Revolution of 1905–1909 , Studies in Middle Eastern History (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Pp. 316.

found that the dovish groups remained stable in size, while the center diminished in favor of more hawkish views. This finding helps explain the nature of growing polarization in opinion over time. The social background correlates of attitude-changers are also described. In Chapter 5 Arian summarizes his studies of voting in elections. From the surveys analyzed in this book, he develops a picture of the "wedge issues" on which "swing voters" (those who change party votes) base their decisions. The list of issues include some that are security-related (the Intifada, support for peace talks, settlement policy in the territories) as well as other problems facing the country (religious-secular relations, immigrant absorption, ecology, economic policy). Chapters 6 and 7 explore the link between the perceptions of threat facing Israeli society and religiosity. Arian's studies identify an operationalization of the "chosen-people" ideology that he terms the "people apart syndrome," a combination of reliance on God (religiosity) and a feeling of isolation in the international community that forces Israel to remain strong for its own defense. In a detailed political and psychological analysis of the link between threat and religiosity, Arian finds that Israelis who perceive higher levels of "threat" tend to be both more hawkish on security policy and more likely to favor government domestic policy that is consistent with Jewish religious law. Support for religious law holds for "high threat" respondents who are personally secular as well as for those who are observant. Finally, Chapters 8 and 9 explore the relationships among basic value priorities of Israelis and how these relate to peace and security policy preferences. The four national value priorities studied are: (1) maintaining Israel as a Jewish state; (2) achieving peace; (3) maintaining Israel as a democratic country; and (4) preserving "greater Israel" (keeping as much territory as possible). Changes in these value preferences over time, differences among social groups, and the effect of each priority change on policy are examined, followed by a more detailed exploration of the nature of Israeli democracy, rule of law, and perceptions of the effectiveness of political leaders. Arian begins and ends by stressing that although public opinion is an important source for understanding Israeli society, it is not a valid predictor of policy. "Public opinion does not make policy; policy is made by politicians" (p. 10). However, in a democracy public opinion does choose politicians (in elections). Once elected, Israeli leaders have proved themselves capable of bold decisions. Attitude research shows that major policy initiatives generate public support, even when the action is controversial (a military initiative) or departs from previous policy (a peace agreement). Also, although Israeli opinion often appears on first analysis to be equally divided and closely related to demographic (social-structural) characteristics (ethnicity, education, religiosity, etc.), resulting in potential for policy stasis and political paralysis, none of these is true on closer examination. Rather, the structure of attitudes reflects the complex and changing fabric of Israeli society. That complexity is the subject of very detailed analysis in Security Threatened.