Following poll on Israeli support for apartheid, Gideon Levy says ‘making peace would be an almost anti-democratic act’

Israel/Palestine
on 53 Comments
haaretzpoll
 Results of a poll carried out by Dialog in September, 2012, based on a sample of 503 Jewish Israeli interviewees. For more on the poll, see here. (Image: Haaretz)

Gideon Levy says, “Meet the Israelis“:

Nice to make your acquaintance, we’re racist and pro-apartheid. The poll whose results were published in Haaretz on Tuesday, conducted by Dialog and commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund, proved what we always knew, if not so bluntly. It’s important to recognize the truth that has been thrown in our faces and those of the world (where the survey is making waves ). But it’s even more important to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

Given the current reality, making peace would be an almost anti-democratic act: Most Israelis don’t want it. A just, egalitarian society would also violate the wishes of most Israelis: That, too, is something they don’t want. They’re satisfied with the racism, comfortable with the occupation, pleased with the apartheid; things are very good for them in this country. That’s what they told the pollsters.

Until a courageous leadership arises here, the kind that appears only rarely in history, and tries to change this nationalist, racist mood, there’s no point in hoping for change to come from below. It won’t come; indeed, it can’t come, because it is contrary to the desires of most Israelis. This fact must be recognized.

The world must also recognize this. Those who long to reach an agreement and draw up periodic peace plans must finally recognize that Israelis are plainly telling them, “No thanks, we’re not interested.” The Arab world must similarly recognize that this survey (and others like it ) is Israel’s real Bar-Ilan speech.

Levy goes on to say these levels of racism are perfectly understandable given the segregation in Israeli society and “years of brainwashing; the demonization and dehumanization of Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular,” but that this doesn’t absolve Israelis of responsibility.

Read the entire article here.

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

53 Responses

  1. jimbowski
    October 25, 2012, 11:48 am

    A very inconvenient truth! Incredible that such an opinion could never get published here in the United States of Denial.

    • Boston
      October 26, 2012, 7:41 am

      Not so easily published in Israel either.

      “Gideon Levy is the most hated man in Israel – and perhaps the most heroic. This “good Tel Aviv boy” – a sober, serious child of the Jewish state – has been shot at repeatedly by the Israeli Defence Force, been threatened with being “beaten to a pulp” on the country’s streets, and faced demands from government ministers that he be tightly monitored as “a security risk.””

  2. Mndwss
    October 25, 2012, 12:44 pm

    “No thanks, we’re not interested.”

    They even have apartheid in the prisons:

    “The Israel Prison Service (IPS) allows standard conjugal visits to non-Palestinian inmates who are married or are in a common-law relationship, and have been on good behavior.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugal_visits#Israel

    What is a non-Palestinian prisoner in Israel?

    A Spring of Life?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

    “The word is about, there’s something evolving,
    whatever may come, the world keeps revolving
    They say the next big thing is here,
    that the revolution’s near,
    but to me it seems quite clear
    that it’s all just a little bit of history repeating

    The newspapers shout a new style is growing,
    but it don’t know if it’s coming or going,
    there is fashion, there is fad
    some is good, some is bad
    and the joke is rather sad,
    that its all just a little bit of history repeating

    – and I’ve seen it before
    – and I’ll see it again
    – yes I’ve seen it before
    – just little bits of history repeating”

  3. Klaus Bloemker
    October 25, 2012, 1:20 pm

    How about the same questions put to the Palestiniens?

    For instance:
    – “Do you support the transfer of some Israeli Jews back to where they came from?”

    • talknic
      October 25, 2012, 11:41 pm

      Klaus Bloemker October 25, 2012 at 1:20 pm

      “How about the same questions put to the Palestiniens?”

      The Palestinians aren’t occupying any Israeli territory, haven’t voiced any intention of annexing any Israeli territory and don’t have any Palestinians only roads in Israel. The West Bank is in Palestine, not Israel.

      The survey questions are based on the false premise that Israeli citizens have a right to be in the West Bank. They don’t.

    • Inanna
      October 26, 2012, 1:47 am

      So we need to legitimize the theft of Palestinian, land, property and resources so that we are not labelled anti-semitic? There’s something obvious missing in your argument if in order to avoid one injustice, you have to accept the existence of another.

  4. hophmi
    October 25, 2012, 1:57 pm

    I think these views are shallow, much like a good deal of the antisemitism amongst Palestinians.

    It’s somewhat unfair, Adam, to conclude, based on Israeli support for separate roads in the West Bank, that Israelis support apartheid. There are not separate roads within Israel itself, and the separate road system became prevalent after a lot of drive-by shootings. This didn’t happen in a vacuum.

    I know people in New York who won’t drive on certain roads near the projects because they are afraid of what might happen. Should Israelis simply accept being shot at? Isn’t it fair to say that if there wasn’t a risk, there would be no need for separate roads?

    • yourstruly
      October 25, 2012, 3:25 pm

      and were israel to annex the west bank, the 69% of israelis who would then deny Palestinians the right to vote, does this not indicative of a pro-apartheid mentality among israelis?

      • hophmi
        October 26, 2012, 10:43 am

        “and were israel to annex the west bank, the 69% of israelis who would then deny Palestinians the right to vote, does this not indicative of a pro-apartheid mentality among israelis?”

        I told you that I believed the views were shallow, not that they were non-existent. I’m also not inclined to take seriously a hypothetical here. If America occupied Iraq, do you think most Americans would favor allowing Iraqis to vote in American elections? The answer is no and also that it doesn’t matter, because it’s not happening anytime soon.

        “Isn’t it fair to say that if there was no occupation and colonization of Palestine, there would be no need for separate roads through Palestine?”

        I’m not sure about that. Most versions of the Palestinian state involve removing the settlers. In the absence of an organized Jewish presence, doesn’t it amount to the same thing?

        “No, they should get the hell out of Palestine.”

        They’re being shot at in Sderot, within the Green Line. Should they leave there too? And the drive-bys targeted civilians, not the army.

        “How do you explain the large percentage of Israelis who find “population transfer” acceptable?”

        Easily enough. There has been nasty rhetoric and suicide bombing emanating from the territories for about 20 years now. The rhetoric has been adopted by some fanatics in Israel. Why would Jewish Israelis want to live amongst people who wish them dead and support those who kill them?

        “You are basing your entire argument on one of 7 questions posed. Nice example of cherry picking.0”

        Not really. Only 38% support WB annexation. The sole question suggesting an apartheid mentality is the roads question.

        “I take it you favor building roads in New York which people who live in projects are banned from driving on. ”

        You asked about an apartheid mentality. Whether people choose to drive on NYC roads or not, the choice not to do so reflects an apartheid mentality. Israelis have nothing against Palestinians or Muslims per se. They just do not want to be shot at.

        “You do know that apartheid means separate?”

        Yes. A separate road does not alone make an apartheid, particularly when it was built after years of terrorism.

    • eljay
      October 25, 2012, 3:29 pm

      >> Isn’t it fair to say that if there wasn’t a risk, there would be no need for separate roads?

      Isn’t it fair to say that if there was no occupation and colonization of Palestine, there would be no need for separate roads through Palestine?

      Hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists sure do love to gloss over the most basic facts.

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 25, 2012, 3:36 pm

      “I think these views are shallow…”

      LMAO. Of course you do, because the reality disagrees with your (bigoted) fantasy of the israeli as the good man in a bad situation, forced against his will to adopt evil ways, to the pain of his pure, pure heart… The typical cry-and-shoot nonsense.

      Wake up and smell the racism, hoppy. When 2/3 of them say that even if israel annexes the West Bank, the people who are there should not be given any say — they should be voteless peasants — there’s no way to soft pedal that basic, fundamental bigotry that is running amuck in that society.

      “Should Israelis simply accept being shot at?”

      No, they should get the hell out of Palestine.

    • freespeechlover
      October 25, 2012, 3:37 pm

      How do you explain the large percentage of Israelis who find “population transfer” acceptable? Also, why wouldn’t the Palestinians be rebelling, including violently, if they don’t have the same rights as Israeli Jews–i.e. the right to self-determination? I think you’re confusing cause and effect–the violence toward Israelis civilians is an effect of the occupation.

    • seafoid
      October 25, 2012, 4:48 pm

      You make me laugh.

      There are separate legal systems in the West Bank, hophmi. Palestinians are jailed for crimes that Jews get away with. The state spends money on one group and denies money to the other one. Water is rationed according to religion. Palestinians have homes demolished and Jews get building permits. And “this didn’t happen in a vacuum”. It is systematic. The system is rotten.

      Which New York project is similar ?

    • Donald
      October 25, 2012, 4:53 pm

      “Should Israelis simply accept being shot at? ”

      Sure, if they’re going to set up an apartheid system.

      Look, seriously, read what you wrote. The Israelis have settlements on the West Bank, the Palestinians don’t have the same right to move inside the 67 lines, and the Israelis built a separate road system after shootings. (I’ll take your word for that.) That’s apartheid or something pretty close to it, and the shootings, while not the right way to fight it, are a reaction. Then the Israelis further the apartheid system by saying in effect “Here we are, minding our own business and those nasty Palestinians are shooting at us. We need our own roads.” It’d be funny if it weren’t deadly serious.

      The whole conflict strikes me that way–as a sort of ridiculous TV skit about some self-absorbed person who tramples on others and then reacts with hurt and outrage when subjected to insults or criticism for it. Except of course in real life people’s lives are ruined or ended.

    • pabelmont
      October 25, 2012, 5:50 pm

      Drive-by shootings against the army which is entitled by law to be there? Or against settlers who are present (and extremely damaging to Palestinians’ lives) illegally?

      Truly, the roads are aiding and abetting an already illegal act. The land taken to build the roads (and to clear the road-sides of “cover” for Palestinian shooters) is land illegally taken by Israel for reasons NOT of military necessity.

    • justicewillprevail
      October 25, 2012, 6:30 pm

      It’s nothing to do with risk, and everything to do with harassment, constraint of freedom and punitive actions against the people who suffer the consequences of having lived there, owned and farmed the land for many hundreds of years. Entirely typical of the deliberate and consistent policies of making life for ordinary people intolerable. Except, of course, if you are a Jewish immigrant when you are afforded every subsidy and service you care to request.

    • Dan Crowther
      October 25, 2012, 6:52 pm

      “It’s somewhat unfair, Adam, to conclude, based on Israeli support for separate roads in the West Bank, that Israelis support apartheid”
      ——————-
      No, that’s exactly the conclusion. And we all know the roads are only the tip of the Iceberg.

    • tripledobe
      October 25, 2012, 7:12 pm

      Meybe they should illiminate those features of appartheid that have been implemented for a long time and see if that stops the shooting? It’s a long list.

    • Shingo
      October 25, 2012, 7:39 pm

      Lame Hop.

      You are basing your entire argument on one of 7 questions posed. Nice example of cherry picking.0

    • talknic
      October 25, 2012, 11:32 pm

      hophmi October 25, 2012 at 1:57 pm

      “.. the separate road system became prevalent after a lot of drive-by shootings. This didn’t happen in a vacuum”

      That’s right. It didn’t happen in a vacuum and that’s why the GC’s prohibit the civilians of the Occupying Power from settling in “territories occupied”. For their safety.

      Israel however, purposefully endangers its own citizens by assisting and encouraging them to settle in occupied Palestinian territory. The ‘vacuum’ seems to be in the heads of people who support illegal policies of consecutive Israeli Governments, none of which have been legally elected BTW, under a constitution.

      “Should Israelis simply accept being shot at?”

      Illegally settling and traveling in “territories occupied” they should accept that it might happen and it would have been best to have adhered to the GC’s to ensure their safety

      “Isn’t it fair to say that if there wasn’t a risk, there would be no need for separate roads?”

      But there is a risk in “territories occupied”. That’s why GC IV exists. No illegal settlers or illegal travelers in “territories occupied” far less risk. Isn’t it fair to grant the Palestinians their LEGITIMATE LEGAL RIGHTS under the Laws and UN Charter Israel AGREED to uphold?

    • lyn117
      October 26, 2012, 2:37 am

      @hopmi, I take it you favor building roads in New York which people who live in projects are banned from driving on. While you’re at it, why not deny people who live in projects citizenship, permit other New Yorkers to take their property to build upscale homes, deny them adequate water, access to jobs, hospitals and churches in the upscale areas, and allow any other New Yorker to shoot project people with impunity or burn down their apartments?

      • Mooser
        October 26, 2012, 6:48 pm

        “@hopmi, I take it you favor building roads in New York which people who live in projects are banned from driving on.”

        I’m sure Hophmi would be in favor of anything which made Israel and America partners-in-crime.

    • Koshiro
      October 26, 2012, 6:14 am

      This didn’t happen in a vacuum.
      Translation: Our Apartheid regime is necessary to defend ourselves against people who resist our Apartheid regime.

      Should Israelis simply accept being shot at?
      Israelis should get their settler-colonialist asses out of the West Bank.

    • Boston
      October 26, 2012, 7:46 am

      “It’s somewhat unfair, Adam, to conclude, based on Israeli support for separate roads in the West Bank, that Israelis support apartheid”.

      You do know that apartheid means separate?

      So just because Israelis support separatiion it is unfair to conclude they support seapration?

      • Mooser
        October 26, 2012, 6:24 pm

        Wow, what a bunch of hard cases you guys are. I was reduced to tears by Hophmi’s portrayal of those poor, persecuted Israelis, with those mean Palestinians trying to force them off the roads and all. And Israelis are so plucky, too. Pluck you, Israelis!

    • piotr
      October 26, 2012, 7:13 pm

      Israel would become as bad as NYC! That would not do.

  5. yourstruly
    October 25, 2012, 2:55 pm

    If Israel can’t be changed from within, it’ll have to be from without. But how? By turning the public against the Zionist entity through BDS, BDS, BDS plus exposing Israel firsters for the traitors that they are, thereby souring the public on the U.S.-Israel special relationship, without which the Zionist entity will no longer be sustainable.

    • Mooser
      October 26, 2012, 6:32 pm

      “without which the Zionist entity will no longer be sustainable.”

      Oh, don’t be so particular. I think Israel could go a long way in the “failed state” class. It’s not everybody in Israel has an apartment in NYC or LA to go back to, even if their pre-Aliyah homes were closer.

  6. David Doppler
    October 25, 2012, 3:19 pm

    John Adams, who put “declaration of independency” on his checklist of tasks to be accomplished at the Second Continental Congress, told Jefferson that his draft had taken what Adams had regarded as an act between British colonists and the British crown, and turned it into a universal statement of human rights. Those rights:

    that all men are created equal
    that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights
    that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
    that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and
    that when governments become destructive of those rights, the people are entitled and obligated to overthrow it and replace it with such form of government as best suits them.

    The poll results demonstrate that the people of Israel endorse none of these universal rights, as applied to the Palestinians. What is de-legitimizing Israel is the inconsistency of its actions toward the Palestinians with the universal rights of man, and no amount of “noise” seeking to divert and disguise this fact, to blame the victims and everyone else, to invoke history and divine land grant, will change that fact. Efforts to lead or push or manipulate America to act against its core values will ultimately fail badly. They represent poor policy, and will lead to disastrous results.

    The Likud-Beiteinyu coalition needs to be dumped in the next election, and American Jews need to forcefully communicate this fact to Israel, now.

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 25, 2012, 3:47 pm

      “John Adams, who put “declaration of independency” on his checklist of tasks to be accomplished at the Second Continental Congress, told Jefferson that his draft had taken what Adams had regarded as an act between British colonists and the British crown, and turned it into a universal statement of human rights.

      “The poll results demonstrate that the people of Israel endorse none of these universal rights…”

      Well, in fairness, the Americans didn’t believe them, either. Jefferson’s work was a con-job (Jefferson being, of course, the consumate con man), as his slave holding and that of most of the Congress would attest.

      • David Doppler
        October 26, 2012, 11:54 am

        Yes, and the Constitution counted a slave as 3/5th a person for purposes of population count to allocate Congressional seats. Slavery was America’s original sin. In the midst of that sin, and in a struggle to throw off an oppressive non-representative government, Jefferson articulated universalist ideals, inspiring his own countrymen and millions of others, despite his own sins, and 85 years later, the Civil War began, in which over 500K Americans were killed, in what became the first big down payment in America’s atonement for that sin. 150 years later, we have an African-American president, although people every day still pay for that sin. Part of the strength of America is its ability to self-correct and self-improve. Don’t dismiss the power of the motivating ideals, just because people daily fail to live up to them. America is all about those ideals, and those who work against them work against one of the best and most powerful and most successful motivating forces in history.

      • Mooser
        October 26, 2012, 6:27 pm

        “In the midst of that sin, and in a struggle to throw off an oppressive non-representative government”

        Yes, the Crown would sometimes support the rights of Native Americans over the colonists. This was insupportable, especially for men like George Washington, who made his living as a surveyor and land speculator.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 31, 2012, 11:57 am

        “Yes, and the Constitution counted a slave as 3/5th a person for purposes of population count to allocate Congressional seats.”

        Yes, they shouldn’t have been counted at all.

        “in a struggle to throw off an oppressive non-representative government,”

        LOL. The British crown was not exceptionally oppressive in its governing of its colonies, nor was the American colonies any different, vis-a-vis representation, than any other British colony. The American revolution was about one group of rich, entitled white men getting upset that another group of rich, entitled white men were treating the first group of rich, entitled white men in a manner which the first group of rich, entitled white men believed was to be reserved for non-rich, non-entitled, non-whites and non-men. Nothing more.

        And, indeed, it is telling that these same oh-so-oppressed American revolutionaries, once they obtained power, made sure that the non-rich, non-entitled, non-whites and non-men under their domination received the same taxation without representation that was supposedly the cause of their revolution.

        “Jefferson articulated universalist ideals”

        Did he? For many, many years after he wrote them, it was understood that “men” in that universalist statement was to be read: “white men.” And that reading is, in fact, the only harmoneous one when looking at the facts of Jefferson’s life. One could only be a schizophrenic to write what he wrote in the Declaration as a universalist ideal and, at the same time, hold as many men, women and children as he did as property. (Especailly given the example to him set by some during that generation who actually did believe the “liberty” rhetoric and propaganda of the founding generation and freed their slaves.)

        WE can read into it “universalist ideals,” but it is foolish or naive to think that Jefferson or the other slave owners intended the words to be universalist ideals.

        “in which over 500K Americans were killed, in what became the first big down payment in America’s atonement for that sin”

        Over 500K?? Half of those who died did so trying to defend the system of slavery. To say that their deaths constitutes any kind of down payment on atonement is to buy into the “both sides were honorable” horseshit that surrounds that conflict and the eradication of that evil system in North America. That the CSA is not seen by everyone (especially people in the South today) as an evil not equalled in Western Civilization until the rise of the Nazi Party is a travesty.

        Can you imagine the justified outrage if a highway outside of Berlin was named, today, after Hienrich Himmler?? Or schools named after Adolf Hitler existed all over Germany?? Yet the world doesn’t even blink at the fact that there is a Robert E. Lee highway outside Washington and schools all over the South are named for the bastard Jefferson Davis. Why? Because people don’t face the truth about the Civil War and Reconstruction Eras and, instead, believe lies about “the Lost Cause” (on the one hand) and the “downpayment on atonement for sin” (on the other).

        What kind of “downpayment” was it when Reconstruction consisted of an easy occupation for a few years followed by an abandonment of the African-Americans right back into the hands of their tormentors for another hundred years???

        “Part of the strength of America is its ability to self-correct and self-improve.”

        50 years ago, Americans rounded up people simply because they were Japanese; 11 years ago they rounded up people simply because they were Arabs. There’s nothign special about America. To the extent that we correct and improve, we do so as part of the greater corrections and improvements in Western Culture, and more often than not we are bringing up the rear when we’re not struggling to go backwards.

        “Don’t dismiss the power of the motivating ideals, just because people daily fail to live up to them.”

        Don’t mistake propaganda for ideals.

        “America is all about those ideals, and those who work against them work against one of the best and most powerful and most successful motivating forces in history.”

        Oh, absolute nonsense. America has never been about these supposed ideals; all you have to do is look to see how America responded everytime it had the opportunity to put those ideals in effect. It fails to do it. (See, e.g., slavery, the destruction of the Native Americans, imperialism overseas, the oppression of minorities in the US.) Individual Americans may like the ideals, but few enough actually put them into practice. And it’s say that America, itself, is all about them is delusion.

      • piotr
        October 26, 2012, 7:19 pm

        It is possible that the Founding Fathers really did not grasp the contradiction. Mark Twain described in nicely in “Huckelberry Finn”. A discussion on a boiler accident on a river boat:

        “Anyone hurt?” asks Aunt Sally. ” No’m. Killed a nigger.” ” Well it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt.”

  7. Donald
    October 25, 2012, 4:58 pm

    Someone at “Open Zion” was complaining that Levy had exaggerated the findings, but looking at the results it looks like apartheid attitudes to me. There are some small bits of good news–more people oppose annexation of the WB than support it. But then if the land is annexed they oppose giving Palestinians there the right to vote.

  8. lobewyper
    October 25, 2012, 9:13 pm

    David wrote:

    “Efforts to lead or push or manipulate America to act against its core values will ultimately fail badly. They represent poor policy, and will lead to disastrous results.”

    Well, such efforts have succeeded pretty well with massive support from the American taxpayer for what is now decades. I see little (though some) evidence that this state of affairs is going to change significantly for the better anytime soon. The US of A is very capable of acting contrary to the core values of respect for international law and social justice whenever it sees fit to do so. The USA has acted ultimately in accordance with what it perceives to be (or to have been) its key “interests,” not its core values IMHO. Unfortunately…

  9. Mayhem
    October 25, 2012, 9:36 pm

    Gideon Levy’s wrong and biased interpretation of the survey is exposed for what it really is at http://honestreporting.com/haaretz-creates-non-existent-apartheid-state/.
    Even the commissioners of the survey have disassociated themselves from the false findings.

    • talknic
      October 25, 2012, 11:50 pm

      Mayhem October 25, 2012 at 9:36 pm

      Uh? Honest reporting is dishonest in not showing all the graphs and in presuming Israeli citizens have a right to be in “territories occupied” in the first place. The 4th graph used is clearly Israelis in support of Israel’s ILLEGAL activities in “territories occupied”

      They’re also dishonest in claiming Gideon Levy regularly allies himself with those who wish to see the very destruction of Israel.

    • Shingo
      October 25, 2012, 11:58 pm

      Gideon Levy’s wrong and biased interpretation of the survey is exposed for what it really is…

      The only thing being exposed is your desperation and the sheer hypocrisy of your Hasbra web site referring to itself as “honest”.

      honestreporting.com’s entire argument rests on the finding that the poll shows the public os opposed to annexing the settlements, but this is not only irrelevant, it is a fait accompli. The attitude to apartheid remains the same regardless. Unless those settlements are handed back to the Palestinians and Israel ends the occupation, the outcome will be an annexation.

      Secondly, Levy did not carry out the poll, so contrary to what this absurd web site is trying to suggest, Levy not set put to create it in order to bash Israel.

      Lastly, your hasbra website does not even suggest the findings are false – it rests it’s entire spin on the argument that the annexation has not happened yet, so it doesn’t even support your own claim that the findings are false.

      Truly pathetic.

    • thankgodimatheist
      October 27, 2012, 11:32 pm

      “honestreporting.com”
      You must be joking, right? T

      • thankgodimatheist
        October 28, 2012, 12:18 am

        Not sure what happened to the rest of my comment!!!

  10. hophmi
    October 26, 2012, 11:11 am
    • Mndwss
      October 26, 2012, 12:22 pm

      I like the first comment on the article in timesofisrael:

      “This is an absurdly ‘shoot the messenger’ response to the most profoundly depressing survey I have ever seen.

      I couldn’t give a hoot about Gideon Levy or his interpretation of the survey’s results, but if part of your argument is that he is in need of a good editor, you would do better to spell his name consistently rather than intermittently refer to him as “Gidon” or “Levi” and moan on about his “extraordinary feet [sic] of deductive logic”.

      In declaring Levy’s piece to be an incitement against Israel, you are willfully ignoring the shocking truths the survey’s results tell us about Israelis. Harp on all you like about Levy’s politics and it still doesn’t change the truth about how damaged we Israelis have made ourselves through occupation.

    • Bumblebye
      October 26, 2012, 1:25 pm

      “Haaretz, Gideon Levy and the Israeli Apartheid Canard”
      Sorry Hop.
      If it walks like a canard, quacks like a canard, etc.
      Even the Israeli term ‘hafrada’ means apartheid.

    • Shingo
      October 26, 2012, 4:28 pm

      This piece eviscerates Levy’s argument.

      No it doesn’t – it uses the same desperate logic that Mayhem’d link does. It sounds even more desperate.

      Whether Israelis support annexing the settlements or not is completely irrelevant – they are already Israeli territory as far as the Israeli government is concerned. It’s now just a formality.

      This nut job of a writer refers to the occupation as Islamic incitement incitement against Israel. He also justifies the other major conclusion – that the majority of Israeli Jews still believe they deserve preferential treatment to Israeli Arabs – by suggesting the survey was rigged to produce these results. According to him, thus is This is actually a badge of honor for the average Israeli..

      After all, if the results were decided beforehand, why does he bother to address any if the conclusions at all?

      Unbelievable.

      He then makes the even more absurd claim that Historically, Israel has had only one party that supported a population transfer while somehow ignoring the obvious fact that every party has exercised population transfer since 1948 continuously – albeit one family and neighborhood at a time.

      It’s obvious that this poll has got you hasbrats in a bind. After years of going to great lengths drying Israel is an apartheid state, you can no longer hide it and you are clearly desperate.

      • Shingo
        October 26, 2012, 4:34 pm

        One more thing hop, the writer tries pooh pooh the poll by dismissing the likelyhood that Israelis would elect a party running on an apartheid platform.

        The sad reality is that 10 years ago, no one would have believed Avigdor Lieberman and Shas would have won an election but they did.

        10 years ago, no one would have believed that a PM would be elected campaigning on a platform opposed to a 2ss, but Bibbi won.

  11. talknic
    October 26, 2012, 11:27 am

    Arguing about Levi is ignoring the elephant in the room … again. The occupation must end and the Palestinians be granted their right to self determination in their own territory.

  12. seafoid
    October 26, 2012, 12:16 pm

    Come off it, Hoph. The link included this gem

    “Currently, there isn’t a single political party in Israel that supports apartheid.”

    Call it hafrada if you want. It’s all the same immoral swamp.

    • hophmi
      October 26, 2012, 2:02 pm

      There isn’t, outside of a couple tiny ones. I hate to burst your bubble, but it’s exactly as I said.

      • seafoid
        October 27, 2012, 4:55 am

        Hoph

        The choice is between 2states and apartheid. Israel has threatened Abbas with severe consequences if he goes to the UN for non state status. Are you still trying to sell negotiations ? Why are you all coy about apartheid anyway? Isn’t it all Jewish land , Erez Israel?

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2012, 1:52 pm

        “Isn’t it all Jewish land , Erez Israel?”

        Maybe Hophmi believes a wonder-worker like Sabati Levi will come and levitate all the settlers peacefully out of eretz Israel?

    • yourstruly
      October 27, 2012, 2:49 am

      What is it when a political party doesn’t admit to supporting apartheid but promotes/practices apartheid policies? Denial? Lying? Hypocrisy? All the above?

  13. mcohen
    October 27, 2012, 12:20 am

    Anyone remember

    “vote yes for meaningful change”

Leave a Reply