Arutz Sheva poll: One-third of secular Israelis see plane rescue as ‘divine providence’

A new Arutz Sheva poll reveals significant differences between secular, traditional, religious, and Haredi Jews in how they perceive the rescue of passengers during the incident involving the flight from Dubai.

The findings also reveal a striking distinction between two ways of expressing belief in Divine Providence, with respondents from different religious backgrounds showing clear preferences for one formulation over the other.

The survey was conducted by the Mesaker-Rovadim Research Institute for Arutz Sheva as part of the Israel Barometer.

In the question concerning perceptions of the plane rescue, respondents were presented with several options, including two attributing the rescue to Divine Providence and one attributing it to human actions and a combination of circumstances.

The survey findings show that nearly all Haredi and religious respondents chose an answer expressing belief in Divine Providence: 100% and 94%, respectively.

A large majority of traditional respondents, 84%, also attributed the rescue to Divine Providence.

Among secular respondents, the percentage was lower but far from negligible: Approximately one-third attributed the rescue to Divine Providence.

However, a closer examination of the two responses expressing belief in Divine Providence reveals an interesting difference in the wording respondents preferred.

The first option was: “Divine Providence, acting through people and unique circumstances.”

The second was: “A combination of human actions and unique circumstances with Divine Providence.”

Both options acknowledge Divine Providence and the role of people and circumstances, but they place these elements differently in describing the rescue.

The distinction between them may appear quite subtle, but the survey findings clearly demonstrate that it is highly significant.

Among secular, traditional, and liberal religious respondents, the answer emphasizing a combination of human actions and Divine Providence was more common.

Among secular respondents, 21% chose this option, compared with 11% who selected the answer placing Divine Providence at the center of the explanation.

Among traditional respondents, the figures were 50% and 34%, respectively, with very similar results among liberal religious respondents – 53% and 32%, respectively.

In other words, among respondents in these three groups who regarded Divine Providence as a central factor in the rescue, most preferred the wording emphasizing a combination of human actions and Divine Providence.

By contrast, among mainstream religious, Torah-oriented religious, and Haredi respondents, the pattern was reversed.

Among mainstream religious respondents, a slightly larger proportion, 51%, chose the description of Divine Providence acting through people and circumstances, compared with 44% who preferred the wording emphasizing a combination of factors.

Among Torah-oriented religious respondents, the gap was considerably wider, with 75% choosing the first option and 25% the second.

Among Haredi respondents, the preference was overwhelming: 93% selected the first answer, while only approximately 7% chose the second.

Importantly, all the trends described in the comparisons between the groups appeared among both men and women.

The ranking of the groups according to the proportion attributing the rescue to Divine Providence remained consistent, as did the preference for the combined explanation among secular and traditional respondents and the wording emphasizing Divine Providence among religious and Haredi respondents.

The difference between the two formulations reflects a significant theological distinction.

The response describing the rescue as the result of “Divine Providence, acting through people and unique circumstances” places God’s Providence at the center, with people’s choices serving as instruments of Divine Providence.

By contrast, the response emphasizing a combination of factors assigns a more central role to human actions.

Although the distinction may appear minor at first glance, the consistent differences between religious groups, among both men and women, suggest that the wording reflects meaningful differences in how respondents understand the relationship between Divine Providence and human action.

The survey was conducted last Wednesday and Thursday among 1,130 respondents, whose answers were analyzed by the Mesaker-Rovadim Research Institute.