Trending Topics:

Shavit called Gideon Levy an ‘enemy of the Jewish people’ for wanting secular, democratic state

Israel/Palestine
on 134 Comments

Ari Shavit is a well-known and acclaimed Israeli journalist, who is now touring the United States promoting his new book, My Promised Land:  The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel. He is  being portrayed by the Israel-friendly U.S. press as a  sensitive liberal who is brilliant, fair-minded and a seeker of peace. We have covered the Shavit phenomenon here and here, and noted that Shavit is probably perceived by Thomas Friedman, Terry Gross, David Remnick and Jeffrey Goldberg, all Shavit cheerleaders, as an effective antidote to the recent critical commentary in Max Blumenthal’s book and Ian Lustick’s New York Times op-ed.

The irony is that Shavit is not a liberal Zionist, even by the admittedly low Israeli standard.  A sense of this can be gleaned from reading his hectoring and war- threatening op-ed in the New York Times, The Bomb and the Bomber, from May 2012.  His disturbing outlook in support of the aggressive Iran policy of his self-proclaimed friend, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was again featured on the Times editorial page two days ago.

If you want a  glimpse of what Shavit thinks of the Palestinians, view his remarkably insensitive and inflammatory directive to them (begin at minute 6:42) to forget the expulsion of 25 – 35 thousand Arab residents of Lydda in 1948 because their sense of victimhood is an impediment to the current peace process!

Shavit, of course, knows that his “liberal and sensitive side” are what many of his American connections are selling and he does a reasonable, although far from impeccable, job of supplying that in interviews and appearances.  But in Israel he is not thusly constrained.

What follows is a video and transcript of a 2009  Israeli television appearance where Shavit’s not-so-liberal ideas and the not-so-reasonable side of his personality are on full display.  Gideon Levy (wearing the red shirt) is one of the most outspoken  and eloquent voices for Palestinian rights and against the occupation, in Israeli journalism.   Despite the fact that both Shavit and Levy work for the same newspaper, Ha’aretz, Shavit (wearing the black shirt) assaults Levy with a tirade of hyperbolic and outrageous insults.

What did Levy say that triggered Shavit’s extreme ire?  First he asked the question, “Would you allow the Palestinians of Nablus to live in Tel Aviv?” Then Levy made the statement that the Jews came to a land occupied by another people.  

Look at Shavit’s eyes and his gestures.  Is this the man of peace and reason that is being sold in the U.S. market?

 

Dan Margalit (host): If two peoples seriously intend to live in peace, the Palestinians shouldn’t have a problem with Ofra or Ariel staying where they are. Let’s say that we stole the land. Let’s say that we’ll pay for the land. We’re a people that pays for land – ever since the days of the Cave of Machpelah [i.e. the time of Abraham -trans.]…. That’s not the point. The point is your rejection of the very idea – not yours, maybe, Abu Mazen’s, Yasser Arafat’s – of the very idea that a Jewish community [Heb. “yishuv”] can exist in the heart of Palestine.

Gideon Levy: Why? Would you allow the Arabs of Nablus to live in Tel Aviv?

Margalit: What’s the connection?

Levy: Ah, suddenly. What’s the connection?

Shavit: You’re a total demagogue. They don’t recognise the state of the Jewish people. They don’t recognize the Jewish people and its right. That’s the issue. That’s what you’re ignoring. You always take this extreme part.

Levy: You are the extreme right. I have nothing to discuss with you. You are a spokesman of the extreme right, masquerading.

Shavit: Gideon, You want a secular, democratic state. You’re worse than the extremists among the Palestinians.

Levy: Terrific. OK. Perfect. Anti-Semite.

Shavit: And this is a kind of anti-Semitism, an unwillingness to recognize the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.

Levy: [Just] say Nazi.

Shavit: No, this is an extreme anti-Israeli approach that you spread like poison around the world. And then you call it demagoguery. This is demagoguery of the worst kind, your demagoguery.

Levy: I’m a little tired of Ari Shavit. Who tries to have it all. It is … I want to refresh people’s memory, once and for all. We came to a country inhabited by another people.

Margalit: Oh, delegitimizing of Israel. We understand.

Shavit: Then let’s leave. That’s why you’re not worried about Iran, because you agree with Ahmedinejad. You think we should go back to Austria. That’s what you’re saying.

Levy: [Just say] Adolf Hitler.

Shavit: When you talk like this, when you don’t recognize the right of the Jewish people, when you don’t want a national home for the Jewish people, you are a partner of the enemies of Israel [also “the Jewish people” – trans.].

Thanks to Shmuel Sermoneta-Gertel for providing this translation.

Ira Glunts
About Ira Glunts

Ira Glunts is a retired college librarian who lives in Madison, NY. His twitter handle is @abushalom

Other posts by .


Posted In:

134 Responses

  1. seafoid
    seafoid
    November 22, 2013, 10:09 am

    I am not really au fait with the Jewish festivals but say tisha b Av means you take out the letters AV from every surname.

    Sh AV it.
    Sh it.

    It looks right.

  2. ah
    ah
    November 22, 2013, 10:27 am

    Glunts: If you want a glimpse of what Shavit thinks of the Palestinians, view his remarkably insensitive and inflammatory directive to them (begin at minute 6:42) to forget the expulsion of 25 – 35 thousand Arab residents of Lydda in 1948 because their sense of victimhood is an impediment to the current peace process! Thank you so much for pointing this out. I watched the video a few times and became more irrate after this statement each time. Is he kidding? Is all I could think.

  3. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    November 22, 2013, 10:28 am

    Gideon Levy would eat brainwashed Ari anyday.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      November 22, 2013, 3:42 pm

      Levy: Terrific. OK. Perfect. Anti-Semite.
      Levy: [Just] say Nazi.
      Levy: [Just say] Adolf Hitler.

      Elf Mabrouk ya Gideon

  4. seafoid
    seafoid
    November 22, 2013, 10:38 am

    Shavit reminds me of Beinart. He can write well but he won’t acknowledge the system. And nothing can change without breaking the system.

    Levy is far more honest and far more clearsighted about what has happened and what it means.

    2004

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-israelis-victory-1.120347

    “By the time this article goes to print, there may have been another terror attack. By the time it reaches the homes of the readers, Hamas could have carried out a sensational act of revenge. And in spite of this, in April 2004, we can already say out loud what we have been observing since the beginning of the year: There is a reasonable chance that after 1,300 days of war, a new strategic reality is beginning to take shape around us – a reality of an Israeli victory.

    We must be cautious; the outcome has yet to be determined; peace and quiet are still far off; Palestinian terror has not been eradicated; it will continue to stalk Israel for a long time. Moreover, Palestinian society has yet to undergo the revolution in awareness that is the only thing that will make it possible to put an end to the conflict. However, after three and a half years of a cruel existential struggle, we can now state that the attempt by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to destroy the Jewish homeland by force has failed. As the smoke of battle begins to dissipate, it appears that Israel has gained the upper hand. What has brought about a relative Israeli victory at this stage of the war is a multidimensional national accomplishment. In terms of security, Israel has achieved clear military superiority vis-a-vis the Palestinian fighting force. The sharp decline in the number of casualties, the sharp increase in the number of attacks prevented, and the almost fictional manner in which Hamas leaders Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi were assassinated are testimony to the fact that the balance of power between Israel and terrorism has changed dramatically in the past two years. The achievement is also impressive in economic terms: Before our very eyes, Israel is now leaping forward from a depressing wartime recession to the accelerated growth of a society that is beginning once again to believe in itself. Israel’s free market and economic vitality are proving during this frenetic spring that they have withstood the threat of the years of terror and have prevailed.

    On the diplomatic plane, the achievement is even more impressive. The American decision to shut out the option of the Palestinian right of return and to abolish the sanctity of the Green Line gave Israel, on April 14, its greatest diplomatic success since the peace treaty with Egypt. By defining the final status agreement that will end the present war as an agreement that will in effect be based on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, Bush’s declaration rejected the Palestinian attempt to undermine the Israeli nation-state. It turned Arafat’s great attack of the early 21st century into a monumental failure that is increasingly reminiscent of the failed Arab revolt of the 1930s. However, the main Israeli victory achieved in the years 2000-2004 is not the victory over the Palestinians. It’s the victory of the Israelis over themselves, a victory of the Israelis over the insanity that befell them immediately after the Six-Day War in 1967, a victory of the Israelis over the messianism, the delusion and the arrogance that have ruled them for two generations. Because what is becoming increasingly clear these days, with the disengagement plan becoming a generally accepted national platform, is that Israel is in fact beginning to return to itself – to return to its border, to return to its sanity, to return to the rational and moral basis of its existence. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon deserves quite a lot of credit for the victory that is in the offing. He is the one who conducted the military campaign patiently, wisely and calmly. He is the one who conducted the diplomatic campaign with impressive talent. He is the one who enabled Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bring about an economic turnaround here, at a time when he himself was bringing about a far-reaching ideological turnaround. However, in the final analysis, the limited Israeli victory is not the victory of Sharon. It’s the victory of the Israeli individuals who have withstood the supreme test in recent years. It’s the victory of Israeli civil society, which knew how to maintain a sense of proportion and a sense of reality even in times of terror. It’s the victory of the Israeli public that confronted Islamic fanaticism at the same time as it rid itself of Jewish fanaticism.”

    That last bit is particularly deluded.

    2005

    http://www.haaretz.com/so-mature-this-new-israeli-majority-1.167097

    “The conflict is about the very existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. The conflict is about the very existence of a free non-Arab society in any part of the Holy Land. The conflict is about Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish democratic state.

    Since 2000, a new Israeli majority, large and silent, has formed around this basic insight. This majority understands that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not end in the foreseeable future. This majority understands that the occupation is a danger to Israel morally, demographically and politically. However, this majority also understands that the end of the occupation, along with continuation of the conflict, is problematic. It is liable to foment tidal waves of violence that will rock Israel and jeopardize its existence. Therefore, the new Israeli majority expects its national leadership to take action in order to end the occupation gradually, cautiously and without burdening Israel with existential risks. The new Israeli majority does not yet have a party. It is not yet represented in the Knesset. But its quiet pressure is what induced Ariel Sharon to build the separation fence. Its quiet pressure is what made Ariel Sharon adopt the disengagement plan. Thus, in a peculiar manner, the new Israeli majority today finds its political expression through Sharon. Sharon’s singular personality on the one hand, combined with the silent determination of the Israeli majority, have become the most important – and the most realistic – agents of change in the Middle East arena. Sharon did not want the fence. Sharon did not want to evacuate settlements. However, at the end of a lengthy maturation process, he found himself actualizing the deep Israeli insight that emerged as a result of the collapse of the peace process and as a result of the great war of terror: it is precisely in the absence of peace that Israel needs a border. It is precisely because the conflict will continue that Israel needs dividing. Until the Israelis and the Palestinians learn to make love again, they need a lengthy period of separation. Only the creation of a line separating the Israeli space from the Palestinian space will liberate Israel from the colonial syndrome and liberate the Palestinians from the victimization syndrome. Only the creation of a buffer between the two peoples will end the symbiotic relationship between them and lead both of them toward true mutual recognition.This is the historic importance of August 2005. It is not just about the liberation of 1.4 million Palestinians from the yoke of the Israeli occupation. It is not just about the evacuation of a third of the occupied Palestinian territory. It is about the beginning of the implementation of the project of dividing the land. “

  5. MahaneYehude1
    MahaneYehude1
    November 22, 2013, 11:05 am

    Gideon Levy: Why? Would you allow the Arabs of Nablus to live in Tel Aviv?

    Woman: He allows the Arabs of Nazareth, He allows the Arabs of Jaffa…



    Shavit: No, this is an extreme anti-Israeli approach that you spread like poison around the world. And then you call it demagoguery. This is demagoguery of the worst kind, your demagoguery.

    Levy: I’m a little tired of Ari Shavit…Who tries to have it all. It is …

    Woman: Gideon, you support one state for the Palestinians and one state for the Jews and Arabs. That’s what you want, two states but one state only for Arabs and one state for Jews and Arabs, it is an intolerable situation…can’t be.


    • seafoid
      seafoid
      November 22, 2013, 12:30 pm

      http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/30/070730fa_fact_remnick

      “Politically, he is left of center, but, in the view of some to his left, he has seemed apocalyptic of late, warning darkly of the “existential” threats against Israel. In the preface to the interview, Shavit declared himself “outraged” by Burg’s book: “I saw it as one-dimensional and an unempathetic attack on the Israeli experience.”The Israeli political world is unfailingly intimate. Shavit, who is forty-nine, and Burg, who is fifty-two, met twenty-five years ago, when they were both protesting against Israel’s first war in Lebanon. After the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians by Israel’s allies among the Christian Phalangists in 1982, Burg gave a powerful speech before four hundred thousand people at an anti-war demonstration in Tel Aviv—the biggest rally in the history of Israel. This was his entrance into public life. “Because Avrum was a lefty and a religious Jew who wore a kippa, he really stood out among the left-wing speakers,” Shavit told me. “That gave him a very specific role in our society, and he played it extremely well.” Whatever remained of the relationship between Burg and Shavit frayed badly when they met for their interview. After Burg described Israel as a perpetually “frightened society,” the discussion quickly grew tense:

      SHAVIT: You are patronizing and supercilious, Avrum. You have no empathy for Israelis. You treat the Israeli Jew as a paranoid. But, as the cliché goes, some paranoids really are persecuted. On the day we are speaking, Ahmadinejad is saying that our days are numbered. He promises to eradicate us. No, he is not Hitler. But he is also not a mirage. He is a true threat. He is the real world—a world you ignore.

      BURG: I say that as of this moment Israel is a state of trauma in nearly every one of its dimensions. And it’s not just a theoretical question. Would our ability to cope with Iran not be much better if we renewed in Israel the ability to trust the world? Would it not be more right if we didn’t deal with the problem on our own but, rather, as part of a world alignment beginning with the Christian churches, going on to the governments and finally the armies? Instead, we say we do not trust the world, they will abandon us, and here’s Chamberlain returning from Munich with the black umbrella and we will bomb them alone. ”

      Burg was right

    • talknic
      talknic
      November 22, 2013, 12:54 pm

      @ MahaneYehude1 “Woman: Gideon, you support one state for the Palestinians and one state for the Jews and Arabs. That’s what you want, two states but one state only for Arabs and one state for Jews and Arabs, it is an intolerable situation…can’t be.”

      ” one state for Jews and Arabs” Israel’s choice. However. Are you so naive as to believe that Jewish leaders who wrote the Declaration in which they asked Arabs to stay, really didn’t know that at the same time Jewish forces were busy dispossessing non Jews, razing villages and homes both within the territory allotted the Jewish state and outside the territory they eventually proclaimed as the State of Israel? ( http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf )

      ” one state only for Arabs” A choice yet to be made by the Palestinian state

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 22, 2013, 1:50 pm

        @talknic:

        I only provided translation of the words of the woman sitting near Shavit, not my personal opinions.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 23, 2013, 6:51 am

        I only provided translation of the words of the woman sitting near Shavit, not my personal opinions.

        You did it because you agree with her and Shavit.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        November 23, 2013, 9:56 am

        @Shingo:

        What about “I assume” before your assumption? I did it because I think readers should hear the complete discussion, although she didn’t speak a lot like the men in the panel.

        In case I agree with person’s opinions, I have no problem to express it. You know me better than others here and you know my opinions were expressed by me countless of times in this site. Let’s leave the stage to Shavit, Levy and the others participants in the panel.

      • piotr
        piotr
        November 25, 2013, 10:03 pm

        I think that we should thank Mahane for the translation even if we do not agree with it, and indeed, the precise views of Mahane may be different.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      November 23, 2013, 6:49 am

      Woman: Gideon, you support one state for the Palestinians and one state for the Jews and Arabs. That’s what you want, two states but one state only for Arabs and one state for Jews and Arabs, it is an intolerable situation…can’t be.

      The woman is clearly lying. The Arabs of Israel are there because Israel decided to allow them to remain. On the other hand, Israel has already forced the illegal settlements onto Palestinian land. The point is that Palestinians were never asked permission.

      Why does Shavit only demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but refuse to recognize Palestine as a Palestinian state?

  6. RobertB
    RobertB
    November 22, 2013, 11:30 am

    In the Real Tally of Violence, Palestinians Have it Much Worse

    There is no Palestinian without a personal and familial history of injustice that was caused by, and is still caused by Israel.

    By Amira Hass

    November 22, 2013

    “There is no Palestinian whose score with the State of Israel is settled – whether he lives in forced exile or whether he lives within the borders of Israel, or in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. There is no Palestinian without a personal and familial history of injustice that was caused by, and is still caused by Israel. Just because the Israeli media does not report on all the injustices Israel causes day in and day out – even if only because they so numerous – does not mean they go away and neither does the anger they cause.”

    Click on link below for the rest of the story:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36936.htm

  7. miriam6
    miriam6
    November 22, 2013, 12:40 pm

    Gideon Levy is a proven liar.

    Last year Haaretz was forced to publish this clarification of Gideon Levy’s blatant distortion of the findings of a Dialog poll of Israeli public opinion.

    CLARIFICATION: The original headline for this piece, ‘Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,’ did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll. The question to which most respondents answered in the negative did not relate to the current situation, but to a hypothetical situation in the future: ‘If Israel annexes territories in Judea and Samaria, should 2.5 million…

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-wouldn-t-give-palestinians-vote-if-west-bank-was-annexed.premium-1.471644

    ‘Apartheid’ poll: Errors that traveled round the world.

    A well-constructed public opinion survey in terms of the Israeli public’s attitudes on racism and of the corrosive effects of 45 years of ruling another people could do much to advance a mature discussion of the problem. The recent Dialog survey, and Gideon Levy’s poor reading of it, gave us neither.

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/apartheid-poll-errors-that-traveled-round-the-world.premium-1.472989

    See also the Times of Israel on Gideon Levy’s dishonest interpretation of that Dialog poll.
    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-gideon-levy-and-the-israel-apartheid-canard/

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-changes-tack-on-major-story-that-alleged-widespread-apartheid-attitudes-in-israel/

    Gideon Levy’s willingness to distort the true of opinions of Israeli citizenry just proves his views cannot be taken seriously.

    • amigo
      amigo
      November 22, 2013, 1:18 pm

      “Gideon Levy is a proven liar.” miriam 6

      Very funny coming from a hasbarist.

      ALL hasbarists are liars.It goes with the job.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 22, 2013, 2:42 pm

        [email protected]:

        Stop trying to fudge the issue. The big difference is that I am an ordinary person with my own opinions – the veracity of which others on this site can judge for themselves and argue with.

        Meanwhile by complete contrast – Gideon Levy is a PROFESSIONAL journalist with a set of journalistic ethics and standards of maintaining objectivity to adhere to.

        Unlike the shifty Gideon Levy – Haaretz quickly accepted THEIR ethical responsibilities to present the news consuming public with the objective truth about the true findings of the Dialog poll.

        Why don’t you try dealing with the proven fact of Gideon Levy’s distortion of those Dialog poll findings as laid bare by both Haaretz and the Times of Israel?
        Why don’t you try addressing the fact that Haaretz published a clarification to correct Gideon Levy’s biased propagandist distortion of the Dialog poll?
        The fact is that Levy was caught red – handed in his attempt to mislead the public about the meaning of Dialog poll findings.

        Doesn’t the integrity and honesty needed for accurate news media reporting of conflicts matter to you at all?
        Evidently you are quite happy that Levy lied about the poll findings because it suits YOUR ideological bias.

        Apparently you care not one whit that some journalists set out to deliberately mislead their readers.

        Shame on you.

      • talknic
        talknic
        November 22, 2013, 3:37 pm

        miriam6 “Evidently you are quite happy that Levy lied about the poll”

        Lied or was mistaken? There’s a vast difference. What did the Haaretz clarification actually say? Verbatim if you will …. thx

        “Apparently you care not one whit that some journalists set out to deliberately mislead their readers”

        A) See above

        B) Apparently you care not that successive Israeli Governments have lied to Israeli citizens for 65 years about Israel not having defined borders http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf . 65 years of duping them into believe they have a right to settle in territory that is not yet Israeli. Purposefully encouraging them to break GC IV. A convention adopted to protect ALL civilians including those of the Occupying Power from the possible violent consequences of occupying another people and their territory, thereby endangering them and their families. Selling them land in territories that quite simply do not belong to the State of Israel.

        Apparently you care not that Netanyahu lied at the UN, in front of the world http://talknic.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/netanyahus-speech-at-the-un-general-assembly-24th-september-2009-full-text/

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 22, 2013, 3:53 pm

        “Apparently you care not one whit that some journalists set out to deliberately mislead their readers.”

        Nonsense. Levy took an otherwise useless poll and used it to show what israeli Jewish society is really like, to hold a mirror up to let them see themselves in all their reactionary racism, and when they didn’t like it, they turned on the messenger and broke the mirror.

      • Donald
        Donald
        November 22, 2013, 4:05 pm

        I may get around to reading the Ha’aretz link later–whether Gideon Levy was dishonest about this poll isn’t high on my list of concerns. If he wasn’t, he wasn’t–it doesn’t change anything about the I/P conflict.

        I did glance through the other link from the Times of Israel and saw this–

        “Jewish Israelis are faced with a barrage of Islamic incitement; and yet, most are not opposed to having an Arab neighbor, and support the political rights of the Arabs, even according to the results of this distorted survey.

        This is actually a badge of honor for the average Israeli.”

        The person who wrote that is an idiot.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 22, 2013, 4:55 pm

        [email protected];

        whether Gideon Levy was dishonest about this poll isn’t high on my list of concerns. If he wasn’t, he wasn’t–it doesn’t change anything about the I/P conflict.

        So on the one hand when it SUITS Donald he claims Gideon Levy’s honesty or lack of honesty does not matter nor does it change anything about the I/P conflict.

        But hold on a minute !

        Moments earlier on the same thread and the SAME subject – Donald held a quite different view of the relevance and importance of the honesty issue!

        In this comment by Donald suddenly honesty as it pertains to the I /P conflict was held to be all important by Donald!

        “Shavit : Gideon, You want a secular, democratic state. You’re worse than the extremists among the Palestinians.” Donald; Yeah, that does say it all. We’re still not at a point in the mainstream US press where people can discuss this in an honest way. So much for Shavit the great “progressive” champion of a progressive Zionism

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614273

        How utterly two – faced and illogical of you Donald!

        So which of those two contradictory stances do you really believe in Donald ? Does honesty matter in the arena of public discussion of the I/P conflict or does it not in fact matter at all?

        Or do you just make up your wishy – washy opinions as you go along – with no great sense of conviction behind them at all?

        I strongly suspect the latter to be true of you..

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 22, 2013, 5:19 pm

        [email protected];

        Nonsense. Levy took an otherwise useless poll and used it to show what israeli Jewish society is really like, to hold a mirror up to let them see themselves in all their reactionary racism, and when they didn’t like it, they turned on the messenger and broke the mirror.

        So in other words Woody – you are admitting and are quite happy that Gideon Levy allowed his prejudiced racist view that most Israelis must be racists influence his deliberate distortion of those Dialog poll findings.

        And just as Levy manipulated the poll findings to fit his all ready foregone conclusion about Israelis – you also claim that most – if not all Israelis – are reactionary racists without any real evidence to back up your claim – just as the dishonest Gideon Levy did.

        Why should anyone care about or allow little moral issues such as journalistic integrity / honesty / ethics and the facts to get in the way – when the greater propagandist ‘Truth’ that all Israelis are brutish racists must take precedence and be the case – simply because YOU believe it to be so?

        Certainly you appear unbothered about the importance of honest reporting..

        It does not occur to you either that your lumping together of most if not all Israelis as a bunch of racists – rather than seeing Israelis as a collection of individuals – is in itself deeply racist and dehumanising of Israelis..

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 22, 2013, 5:36 pm

        “Stop trying to fudge the issue. The big difference is that I am an ordinary person with my own opinions – the veracity of which others on this site can judge for themselves and argue with.”miriam 6

        Glad to see you admitting you are a liar.Thats a good start to being healed.

        As to Gideon Levy, I believe he is far closer to the truth more often than some of the liars and propagandists you peddle incessantly.One has only to look at who Israel,s Jews choose to lead them.Polls are not necessary to get a true picture of just how racist and oppressive Israel has become.

        You ought to deal with that while you can before it,s too late and your beloved zionist entity is history.

        I am on the side of justice and equality.

        You support oppression,land theft and ethnic cleansing.The shame belongs to you.

      • Donald
        Donald
        November 22, 2013, 6:06 pm

        If Gideon Levy is dishonest then it means he can’t be trusted when he makes claims, Miriam. Since I’ve not relied on him, it won’t make much difference to me whether he’s a liar or not. It shouldn’t matter much to anyone–the claim that Israel is an apartheid state is based on their actions, not on what Levy wrote on some poll.

        Shavit’s opinions are equally unimportant in that regard–I don’t rely on Shavit for knowledge about the Nakba or the I/P conflict. Shavit has some momentary importance because he’s being lionized by segments of the American press, for a mixture of good and bad reasons. So it’s worth pointing out that he’s not quite the liberal that Remnick and others proclaim him to be. But he’ll soon fade into the background (or so I imagine–I could be wrong) and then he won’t matter.

        Really, miriam, you might try once in a while to be logical. Even from the point of view of being a troll or a hasbara hack, logic can occasionally come in handy. There are some real fissures in the pro-Palestinian mini-community here that you could exploit in some cynical fashion if you chose, but instead you just waste time.

      • talknic
        talknic
        November 22, 2013, 7:19 pm

        @ miriam6 Does fail so well

        http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/errors-and-omissions-excepted.premium-1.472852

        Like all Hasbarristers they point to everything around the hole as though it’s whole

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 22, 2013, 7:38 pm

        [email protected];

        @ miriam6 Does fail so well

        talknic your link is of no blooming use to me!

        The entire article is behind the wretched Haaretz pay wall !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        So what use is your link to me or anyone else?

        If you have access to the full Haaretz article you linked to – could you put it on your website please?

        Be a good Aussie sport!!!

        And where is your and tree and Donald’s response to the Times of Israel articles about Levy’s distortion of the Dialog poll?

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 22, 2013, 7:47 pm

        [email protected];

        I said: “Stop trying to fudge the issue. The big difference is that I am an ordinary person with my own opinions – the veracity of which others on this site can judge for themselves and argue with.

        Nothing whatsoever in there about my being a liar. That is your unwarranted slur on me.

        As to Gideon Levy, I believe he is far closer to the truth more often than some of the liars and propagandists you peddle incessantly.

        Some of the so – called by you –liars and propagandists – I have peddled – according to you that is – have been the likes of Noam Chomsky / Mouin Rabbani / Stephen Zunes /George Galloway / Jonathan Kuttab and Karl Sharro.

        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/miriam6

        They are hardly Zionists!

        Evidently you are deeply threatened by the fact that I am NOT some card board cut-out ‘Zionist’!

        Polls are not necessary to get a true picture of just how racist and oppressive Israel has become.

        Tell that to username ‘tree’ and ‘Woody’ who believe those very same polls.

        Also see my comment here about the importance of objective reporting of the I/P conflict ;

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614302

        I am on the side of justice and equality.

        No – you are on the side of the likes of Gideon Levy – a proven liar who distorted the results of an opinion poll.

        Haaretz who I linked to in an earlier comment were forced to publish a clarification to correct Levy’s biased and misleading interpretation of the Dialog poll.

        You support oppression,land theft and ethnic cleansing.The shame belongs to you.

        Yet another baseless unproven slur against me.

        Apparently you are unable to argue with me on the basis of facts – instead your prefer one ad hominem attack on me after another.

      • talknic
        talknic
        November 22, 2013, 11:08 pm

        miriam6 “The entire article is behind the wretched Haaretz pay wall !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

        I didn’t think you were a Scot .. http://www.rampantscotland.com/humour/blhumbawbees.htm

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 22, 2013, 11:35 pm

        [email protected]

        I didn’t think you were a Scot ..

        LOL!!!!!!!

        You DO have a sense of humour after all!

        They say that a “True Scot” in North America is one whose ancestors came from Scotland – but who were born in North America to save the fare…

        Your link is pretty similar to the sort of funny/ ironic / politically incorrect links my auntie sends me by e-mail!

        Thanks for the laugh! It is past 4.21am here.. I need a good laugh at this unearthly hour..( even if it is at my own expense..)

        BTW – we Britons have dug pretty deep into our pockets to raise £55 million for the relief effort to help the people in the Philippines.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511214/Kind-hearted-Britons-donate-55million-Philippines-crisis-appeal.html

        I am sure other nations have raised similarly generous amounts of cash too.

        Restores one’s faith in humanity really.

        The Beckhams have donated 20 boxes of designer clothes and 100 pairs of designer high heel shoes from Victoria B ( probably usually worn by David himself – to match his sarongs I suspect ) which are being sold off to raise funds for the victims of Typhoon Haiyan

        Donations from the British public and the government in the aftermath of the typhoon have topped £100m.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25037495

      • Donald
        Donald
        November 23, 2013, 12:22 am

        I read your links. I think Levy was a little sloppy and should be criticized for it. Other than that, it’s not much of a story–the hysterical reaction to it is more interesting. The facts of Israel’s behavior speak for themselves. Israel’s defenders care more about Israel’s image than Israel’s behavior.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 23, 2013, 2:18 am

        [email protected]:

        For some reason I imagine you look like Nic Roeg – must be the shared Nic – name.

        On the other hand your fellow Ozzie MW commenter Shingo keeps putting a mental picture of Sir Les Patterson in my head – poor dental work and all that..

        Roeg made this movie there – down under – here! ;

        Which made me weep the first time I saw it on the telly.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 23, 2013, 4:55 am

        (delete)

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 23, 2013, 6:54 am

        The entire article is behind the wretched Haaretz pay wall !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        False. You can receive at least articles for free so long as you register.

        Stop being lazy.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 23, 2013, 6:58 am

        Evidently you are deeply threatened by the fact that I am NOT some card board cut-out ‘Zionist’!

        But the sad thing is that you are.

        Haaretz who I linked to in an earlier comment were forced to publish a clarification to correct Levy’s biased and misleading interpretation of the Dialog poll.

        If he’d been niased and misleading they would have printed a retraction, not a clarification. It turns out the clarification changes nothing.

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 23, 2013, 8:39 am

        “Stop trying to fudge the issue. The big difference is that I am an ordinary person with my own opinions – the veracity of which others on this site can judge for themselves and argue with.” miriam 6

        We do base our opinion of you from your opinions and I venture to say , that based on the responses posted here, the consensus is , you are a liar and a propagandist.Nothing ordinary about that.

        “Polls are not necessary to get a true picture of just how racist and oppressive Israel has become.”miriam.

        They are not.Do we need a poll to confirm that 1+1 =2.

        Oh, almost forgot the “Haaretz Separation Wall”that is keeping you from possible facts.

        What price truth eh, miriam.

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 23, 2013, 8:52 am

        “Some of the so – called by you -liars and propagandists – I have peddled – according to you that is – have been the likes of Noam Chomsky / Mouin Rabbani / Stephen Zunes /George Galloway / Jonathan Kuttab and Karl Sharro.”miriam 6

        I ran a quick search using “Miriam6 /George Galloway and Professor Chomsky but came up empty.I gave up and did not try the others you claim you quoted.

        Be a good “Limey sport” and provide the evidence.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        November 23, 2013, 12:01 pm

        Question: Do you know how copper wire was invented?

        Answer: By two Scotsmen fighting over a penny.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 23, 2013, 3:06 pm

        [email protected];

        I have had all the help I need to get behind the dreaded pay – wall – without having to pay a penny! Thanks to Talknic.

        Also Haaretz would have no need to print a clarification of Levy’s reading of the Dialog poll unless Levy’s reading of the poll had in fact been faulty in the first place.
        Haaretz also published a further two articles clarifying and criticising Levy’s biased reading of the poll in question.

        Also you evidently did not bother to read the two Times of Israel articles linked to here in my first comment on this thread;

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614227

        As for the rest of your abusive comments – this overly ripe slice of Ozzie manhood – Sir Les Patterson – has more gentlemanly grace and diplomatic finesse in his gnarly little fingernail than you have in your whole body..

        Here is Sir Les – Australia’s Ambassador – at – large and Chairman of the Australian Cheese Board – presenting a speech before the UN General Assembly.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 23, 2013, 3:08 pm
      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        November 23, 2013, 4:31 pm

        Fascinating links Miriam6. It shows a different side of you.

        I do wish you would attempt to control your aggressive impulses a bit (“Gideon Levy is a proven liar”). You end up bringing out the worst in some of our better commentators which frequently causes an otherwise thoughtful and useful thread to degenerate into a morass of ad hominem invective. I know, you don’t always start it, but you don’t always have to react in kind. If I could be permitted to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, “We should avoid wrestling with pigs because we get dirty, and besides, the pigs love it.” Not that anyone on MW is a pig; I’d say mostly pearls.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 23, 2013, 4:36 pm

        My comment above was supposed to read;

        Also Haaretz would have no need to print a clarification of Levy’s reading of the Dialog poll unless Levy’s reading of the poll had in fact NOT been faulty in the first place.

        I think I have got it right here.. just to clarify the Haaretz clarification situation – Haaretz published the clarification because Levy got it wrong.

        They would not have had to publish the clarification if Levy had got it right initially – so Shingo is wrong on that point.

        And by the way I do not buy the notion that the mistake was only the fault of the Copy Editor – clearly Levy misread the actual poll results too.

        My comment here puts me in mind of a Spike Milligan joke told whilst Milligan was impersonating a TV continuity announcer

        We are interrupting this interruption to bring you this interruption!

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 23, 2013, 7:20 pm

        On the other hand your fellow Ozzie MW commenter Shingo keeps putting a mental picture of Sir Les Patterson in my head – poor dental work and all that..

        That’s clearly a case of insecurity on your part Miriam, seeing as the British are notorious for having the west dental hygiene in the West.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 23, 2013, 7:56 pm

        I think I have got it right here..

        No you haven’t, in spite of the fact you have completely stepped back from your original claim that Levy is a liar or lied what your own links described as as a MINOR clarification, not a retraction and not even a correction.

        So you are wrong.

        One of the reasons for the clarification was the headline, which they created, not Levy and as Levy admits, he made a small mistake.

        And by the way I do not buy the notion that the mistake was only the fault of the Copy Editor

        Even though the Copy Editor admitted responsibility?

        Levy misread the poll results either.

        So as usual Miriam, this is yet another example of you making a fool of yourself on this forum and demonstrating your blatant dishonesty.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 23, 2013, 8:26 pm

        I have had all the help I need to get behind the dreaded pay – wall – without having to pay a penny!

        You never would have needed help had you bothered to read the instructions that Haaretz displays very prominently.

        Also Haaretz would have no need to print a clarification of Levy’s reading of the Dialog poll unless Levy’s reading of the poll had in fact been faulty in the first place.

        On the contrary. Had Levy’s reading of the poll had in fact been faulty, they would have printed a correction or retraction, as opposed to a clarification.

        So you are wrong there.

        Haaretz also published a further two articles clarifying and criticising Levy’s biased reading of the poll in question.

        No they did not. So So you are wrong there AGAIN. They printed an article from another reporter with Haaretz, who makes a dishonest and misleading attack on Levy. Haaretz is known for hiring reporters with very different POVs.

        Also you evidently did not bother to read the two Times of Israel articles linked to here in my first comment on this thread;

        Actually I did and those pieces are pathetic to say the least. In short, they are both exercise in damage control for Israeli PR than a refutation of the poll results or Levy’s analysis.

        Shany Mor’s piece is so lame he spends half of it discussing the Holocaust – apparently he couldn’t write a substantive argument against Levy so had to pad it with hyperbole and hysteria. Another 25% of it is spend making ad homimens, and when he eventually does get down to arguing his point, the best he can come up with is that it is not clear all respondents understand the meaning of apartheid.

        Lame to the nth degree.

        Ben-Dror Yemini’s piece is even more unhinged. He accuses Haaretz of pulling off an extraordinary feat of deductive logic, stating that most Israelis support apartheid. It’s like a survey indicating that most Israelis are opposed to violence — but that if they were to be attacked by a mugger, they would react violently – breeding a report with the title “Most Israelis support violence.” This is the story of the Haaretz headline. It’s based on a purely hypothetical, or, more precisely, manipulative situation.

        In other words, Yemini believes that if and when Israel does annex the West Bank (which it already has in effect) then that would constitute an act of violence by the Palestinians against Israel, which would demand an apartheid response.

        The guy is as derranged as Shavit.

        But more importantly, the ugly fact that Yemini and Mor are trying so desperately to bury is that fact that the reason the majority of Israelis don’t want to annex the West Bank is not because it would be immoral, illegal etc., but because it would force Israel to remove any veneer of deniability and openly become an apartheid state. Of course, this is grossly dishonest because Israel already controls the West Bank and has imposed apartheid.

        And the reason apartheid would become inevitable is because the majority of Israelis would chose apartheid over democracy. What they want to avoid of course, is to be forced to make this choice before the eyes of the world.

        So Levy is entirely correct in his assessment.

        As for the rest of your abusive comments – this overly ripe slice of Ozzie manhood – Sir Les Patterson – has more gentlemanly grace and diplomatic finesse in his gnarly little fingernail than you have in your whole body..

        I continue to be bemused by your insistence on referring to an Ozzy comedian who had you fooled into believing that one fo his comedy acts was a legitimate politician.

        I would counter your infantile slur that Croline “bombs away” Glick has more lady like grace and diplomatic finesse than you, but then you did chose Pam Gellar as your alter ego didn’t you?

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 23, 2013, 8:57 pm

        That’s clearly a case of insecurity on your part Miriam, seeing as the British are notorious for having the west? dental hygiene in the West.

        What ever can you be talking about Shingo ?

        Admittedly in the past – we Brits were generally deeply ashamed of our teeth – it is true. We preferred to kept our mouths tightly shut whenever possible rather than reveal the awful state of our teeth.

        But now – thanks to the recent wondrous and miraculous advances in cosmetic dentistry – we Brits have collectively attained the very heights of dental perfection with the gleaming white gnashers to rival with any modern day Hollywood stars and starlets.

        Just take a look at this glamorous couple pictured here laughing away so happily. .

        No wonder they smile – their perfect white teeth give them the confidence!

        Just look at their TEETH!!! Look !!!!!

        http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/15/article-2342099-1A5187D3000005DC-366_634x350.jpg

        Putting the ‘Great’ back into Great Britain using only their smiles!

        Nowadays we Brits all look exactly like the happy young couple pictured above!

        Another photo of a famous Brit with great teeth!

        http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/15/article-2342099-1A548CCD000005DC-946_306x423.jpg

        And this too !!

        ( be warned before viewing this photo though – we Brits are of the unanimous opinion that this man has taken things just a bit too far in his quest for the whitest teeth possible )

        http://i1.cdnds.net/13/37/618×481/rylan-clark_1.jpg

        Please moderate THIS comment and delete the other one at 8.19 pm that only has the links in it Thanks.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 23, 2013, 10:30 pm

        miriam6 :

        I think I have got it right here..

        Finally.

        just to clarify the Haaretz clarification situation – Haaretz published the clarification because Levy got it wrong.

        Levy didn’t get “it” wrong. He made some minor errors, but got “it” fundamentally right.

        In any case, its good to see you’ve reduced the charges against Levy. No longer a “proven liar”, he is now charged only with having made some small errors which were promptly corrected (leaving the bulk and essence of the article intact.)

        Of course, we can’t fault you for not getting to that conclusion sooner, given the difficulty of the Haaretz paywall etc., and we shouldn’t assume your attacks on Levy amounted to intentional distortion.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 24, 2013, 12:19 am

        miriam6:

        Also you evidently did not bother to read the two Times of Israel articles linked to here in my first comment on this thread.

        The Times of Israel hatchet-job relies heavily on CAMERA’s report for substantiation. Putting aside the issue of the corrected headline and the unintentional mistakes Levy acknowledged and corrected, let’s look at some of the details of CAMERA’s charges against Levy.

        Example 1:

        [CAMERA:] Levy’s striking misrepresentations included the following:

        A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter – 24 percent – believe separate roads are “a good situation” and 50 percent believe they are “a necessary situation.”

        Levy conveniently omitted the original question and answers from the survey. They were:

        17. In the territories, there are some roads where travel is permitted only to Israelis and others where travel is permitted only to Palestinians.

        Which of the following opinions are closest to your own: A. It is a good situation. B. It is not a good situation, but what can you do? C. It is not a good situation and it needs to be stopped.

        24% – it is a good situation.
        50% – it is not a good situation, but there is nothing that can be done.
        17% – it is not a good situation and it needs to be stopped

        If the answers are divided according to those who see it as “good” and those who see it as “not good,” then 67% see it as a bad situation. But Levy did not bother to inform reader that the 50% of those who saw separate roads as “necessary” saw it as an undesirable situation.

        Where is the “striking misrprestentation”??? Levy accurately relates the results of the poll. CAMERA complaint seems to be that Levy did not spin the results in a pro-Israeli direction as they would have. The fact remains that 74% of the respondents were okay with the apartheid separate road system and Levy emphasized that point.

        —————
        Example 2:

        [CAMERA:]Levy devoted much of his fiery wrath to the alleged racism of Israeli Jews toward Israeli Arabs, but here too he distorted the results in order to make his case. Already in the third sentence of the article, he wrote:

        A majority of Israeli Jews also explicitly favors discrimination against the state’s Arab citizens…

        Levy misled his readers. There are five questions in the survey relating to discrimination against Arabs.

        Below are the questions and results:

        4. In your opinion, is it desirable or undesirable for Jews to receive priority over Arabs in government hiring?
        59% – desirable; 34% undesirable

        5. In your opinion, is it desirable to enact a law that prevents Israeli Arabs from voting in the Knesset?
        33% – desirable; 59% undesirable

        7. Do you agree or disagree with the argument that the state needs to care more for its Jewish citizens than its Arab citizens?
        49% – agree; 49% – disagree

        8. Would it bother you if in your place of abode, for example in your apartment building, an Arab family also lived there?
        42% – it would bother me; 53% – it would not bother me

        9. Would it bother you if in one of your children’s classrooms at school, there were also Arab children?
        42% – it would bother me; 49% – it would not bother me

        Does the overall picture obtained from these results support Levy’s characterization of most Israeli Jews favoring discrimination against Israeli-Arabs? On the contrary. Most people reading these results would perceive just the opposite, that a majority of Israelis do not support discrimination against Arabs.

        Here again, Levy’s is only guilty of failing to spin the results in the way CAMERA would have liked to– not engaging in any kind of blatant distortion, as charged.

        Levy’s assertion–

        A majority of Israeli Jews also explicitly favors discrimination against the state’s Arab citizens…

        –is proved true by the results of the first question:

        4. In your opinion, is it desirable or undesirable for Jews to receive priority over Arabs in government hiring? 59% – desirable; 34% undesirable

        59% of the respondents favor discrimination against Arabs in government hiring. Full stop. No more evidence than that is needed to back Levy’s assertion. The fact that somewhat fewer—but still a highly disturbing number–of respondents thought discrimination against Arabs was desirable in other situations doesn’t negate the truth value of the original claim at all.

        —————
        Example 3:

        [CAMERA:]Levy began the article by stating:
        Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.
        It is an emphatic conclusion, but not what was asked in the survey. The only question addressing annexation of the territories was Question 16:

        16. If Israel annexes the territories of Judea and Samaria, in your opinion, is it necessary to give 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote in the Knesset?

        While 69% of respondents answered no, the survey’s question addressed a hypothetical scenario that had no bearing on the current situation.

        Where’s the distortion? Levy’s assertion contains the if clause referring to a hypothetical future situation. Nowhere does Levy suggest that his assertion is about the “current situation”.

        So, 69% of respondents would want to deny Knesset voting rights to Arabs IF the West Bank were annexed. Doesn’t THAT give an important insight into the racist mindset of much of the Israeli public?

        CAMERA would have preferred that Levy spin the article to emphasize that Israeli Jews would prefer to avoid such an apartheid situation in the first place by maintaining a Jewish super-majority in Israel and not annexing territories with large numbers of Palestinians. No kidding.

        Of course, most Israeli Jews would prefer not to have to deal with the Palestinian “demographic threat” at all! But the fact that Israeli Jews would prefer to simply avoid the problem, hardly negates the existence of racist (ethno-supremacist) attitudes underlying the whole “problem” to begin with.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 24, 2013, 5:12 am

        “So in other words Woody”

        Please don’t flatter yourself into thinking you can accurately restate my position when you clearly are not up to the task.

        “And just as Levy manipulated the poll findings…”

        No, he interpreted them.

        “Why should anyone care about or allow little moral issues …”

        LOL. a zio pretending to give a damn about morality. I’ll tell you what,zio. when YOU people start caring about the immorality of stealing the Palestinians’ land, then you get to talk. until then you should shut up.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 24, 2013, 6:44 am

        [email protected];

        You said :

        The fact remains that 74% of the respondents were okay with the apartheid separate road system and Levy emphasized that point.

        However – the question asked in your first block quote was this :

        17. In the territories, there are some roads where travel is permitted only to Israelis and others where travel is permitted only to Palestinians.

        In the first instance the crucial point here that Levy fails to clarify is that this form of separation is not done on a racial basis at all but solely on the basis of who possesses Israeli citizenship.
        Gideon Levy ought to have pointed out that on those roads in the OPT designated for Israelis only – BOTH Israeli Arabs and Israelis Jews are permitted to travel on these roads.

        So how exactly does that support your thesis or Levy’s contention that the separation in the road system in the OPT constitutes racial apartheid ? Given that this form of separation is according to citizenship rather than on racial grounds how can you possibly then argue that those 74% of Israelis favour a system of racial apartheid?

        If Israeli Arabs are just as entitled as Israeli Jews to travel on those roads designated for Israeli citizens only – you cannot therefore claim the existence of racial apartheid.

        Secondly – Levy predictably fails to point out the important context here which is that any separation on the West Bank road system is designed primarily to strengthen the security of Israel and Israelis and to limit the number of attacks on Israeli citizens including settlers – and also attacks on Israeli vehicles and settlements rather than being about imposing racial apartheid.

        Thirdly – Levy failed to point out that 50% of those questioned saw the roads as an undesirable situation but a necessary one.
        So actually half of those questioned definitely did not regard it as an okay situation as you phrase it Sibiriak.

        Clearly when half of those poll respondents find a situation undesirable they are showing their unhappiness about the situation.

        You chose to belittle the true importance of this particular finding.

        Fourthly Levy omits the fact that in the West Bank road system there are roads which are still – ostensibly at least – shared by both Israeli citizens and by Palestinians.

        Further more there is this from the Times of Israel on the misreading of the Dialog poll:

        Another finding was somewhat misrepresented in the Haaretz coverage, a comparison with the original poll shows.

        The survey’s final question (Question 17) asked respondents their views about separate highways for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. Fifty percent answered that such a situation “is not good, but there’s nothing to do about it,” 24% said that “it is a good situation,” and 17% said the situation was “not good, and should be stopped.”
        In a Haaretz’s pie chart, however, 50% are said to regard separate roads as “necessary” rather than “not good, but there’s nothing to do about it.”

        And the 50% and 24% findings are bracketed together, and misleadingly summarized as showing 74% “supporting” separate roads.

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-changes-tack-on-major-story-that-alleged-widespread-apartheid-attitudes-in-israel/

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 25, 2013, 12:12 pm

        Sibiriak where is your response to my comment here?

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614664

        Chickened out have you?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 25, 2013, 9:15 pm

        miriam6:

        Sibiriak where is your response to my comment here?

        .

        Hi Miriam, I analyzed three of CAMERA’s accusations against Levy and showed that they were baseless. You conceded two of my points, via-non-response, and on the third point you went largely off topic (getting into the issue of what constitutes “apartheid”–a legitimate topic on which reasonable people can disagree but which doesn’t shed any light on whether Levy was a “proven liar” or not.)

        So, I was going to let you have the last word. However, since you would like a response I will give you one as soon as I get enough time to do it properly.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 25, 2013, 9:37 pm

        miriam6:

        Sibiriak where is your response to my comment here?

        Another reason why I was going to let you have the last word is because the Times of Israel/CAMERA argument about Israeli-Jewish attitudes toward “apartheid” had already been brilliantly disposed of by Shingo.

        Shingo writes:

        Ben-Dror Yemini’s piece is even more unhinged. He accuses Haaretz of pulling off an extraordinary feat of deductive logic, stating that most Israelis support apartheid. It’s like a survey indicating that most Israelis are opposed to violence — but that if they were to be attacked by a mugger, they would react violently – breeding a report with the title “Most Israelis support violence.” This is the story of the Haaretz headline. It’s based on a purely hypothetical, or, more precisely, manipulative situation.

        In other words, Yemini believes that if and when Israel does annex the West Bank (which it already has in effect) then that would constitute an act of violence by the Palestinians against Israel, which would demand an apartheid response.

        The guy is as derranged as Shavit.

        But more importantly, the ugly fact that Yemini and Mor are trying so desperately to bury is that fact that the reason the majority of Israelis don’t want to annex the West Bank is not because it would be immoral, illegal etc., but because it would force Israel to remove any veneer of deniability and openly become an apartheid state. Of course, this is grossly dishonest because Israel already controls the West Bank and has imposed apartheid.

        And the reason apartheid would become inevitable is because THE MAJORITY OF ISRAELIS WOULD CHOSE APARTHEID OVER DEMOCRACY. What they want to avoid of course, is to be forced to make this choice before the eyes of the world.

        So Levy is entirely correct in his assessment.

        (Emphasis added)

        Where is your response to Shingo’s cogent argument?

        The poll showed that the majority of Israelis would choose (reluctantly or not) “apartheid” over democracy –Levy’s point stands.

        In any case, I’ll add a few more points on this shortly to satisfy your desire for a response from me.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 25, 2013, 9:52 pm

        In the first instance the crucial point here that Levy fails to clarify is that this form of separation is not done on a racial basis at all but solely on the basis of who possesses Israeli citizenship.

        That’s a distinction without a difference. Israel refuses to grant citizenship to those Palestinians because it wants to impose a different set of laws (apartheid). All you have done is confirm Levy’s argument.

        Gideon Levy ought to have pointed out that on those roads in the OPT designated for Israelis only – BOTH Israeli Arabs and Israelis Jews are permitted to travel on these roads.

        That is dishonest given that Arabs constitute a tiny minority. Jews predominantly use those roads, seeing as only Jews are invited to live in Jewish only settlements.

        So yes, it is apartheid regardless.

        If Israeli Arabs are just as entitled as Israeli Jews to travel on those roads designated for Israeli citizens only – you cannot therefore claim the existence of racial apartheid.

        Of course you can, because apartheid is being imposed in the occupied territories. Remember that Israel has no legal right to build these roads, or the settlements they serve. They are a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.

        The fact that segregation is not absolute does not mean there is no segregation and no apartheid.

        Levy predictably fails to point out the important context here which is that any separation on the West Bank road system is designed primarily to strengthen the security of Israel

        That’s just a ruse to justify the land grab and the imposition of apartheid. Remember that apartheid in South Africa was also justified on the grounds of security for white people against the savaged.

        Levy failed to point out that 50% of those questioned saw the roads as an undesirable situation but a necessary one.

        I am pretty sure that many white South Africans also regarded apartheid as a an undesirable situation but a necessary one.

        You continue to ignore the elephant in the room Miriam. Those roads are only “necessary” because Israel is violating human rights and international law. Like a rapist who justifies carrying a hang gun for protection in case the families of his victims seek retribution.

        Fourthly Levy omits the fact that in the West Bank road system there are roads which are still – ostensibly at least – shared by both Israeli citizens and by Palestinians

        That’s about as meaningless and pathetic as apartheid South Africans claiming there was no apartheid because at some point, black South Africans might have been allowed to use the intentional airport for overseas travel.

        In a Haaretz’s pie chart, however, 50% are said to regard separate roads as “necessary” rather than “not good, but there’s nothing to do about it.”

        That goes to show how pathetic this apologia is. Of course there is something that can be done about it. Israel can end the occupation and dismantle settlements

        They simply chose not to.

        Epic fail as always Miriam.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 25, 2013, 11:55 pm

        [email protected];

        So, I was going to let you have the last word

        Utter BS Sibiriak.

        You had a whole 36 hours to reply to my comment here ;

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614664

        That comment dealt with the section titled Example 1 in your comment here

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614595

        As for the notion I have conceded ANY point to you – again BS!

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 26, 2013, 1:48 am

        [email protected];

        On the subject of your second block quote titled Example 2:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614595

        First of all I must say here that unlike you I absolutely agree with Camera’s assessment that

        Most people reading these results would perceive just the opposite, that a majority of Israelis do not support discrimination against Arabs.

        Unless of course you are an ardent anti – Zionist with a axe grind – no matter what the poll results actually say or the important context behind them that Levy conveniently chose to omit.

        Sibiriak – you block quoted just a few sentences of a brief Camera summary of this section of the poll. You also chose not to include this preceding summary from the Camera article for the poll results for questions 4 /5 / 7/ 8 / 9.

        When a “minority” becomes a “majority”

        Levy devoted much of his fiery wrath to the alleged racism of Israeli Jews toward Israeli Arabs, but here too he distorted the results in order to make his case. Already in the third sentence of the article, he wrote: A majority of Israeli Jews also explicitly favors discrimination against the state’s Arab citizens…Levy misled his readers.

        That When “minority” becomes a “majority” sentence refers to Levy’s sleight of hand and omission of important context as it pertains to the sharp differences of opinion that exist between religious Israeli Jews and secular Israeli Jews and the way it skewed the poll results for questions 8 and 9.

        As the Camera article makes clear;

        Moreover, there are confounding factors here that skew the numbers, making the majority a smaller one than might be expected.
        For example, the highest percentages of negative answers to the questions about Arab children sharing a class room with their children and Arab families living in the same apartment building came from the group that self-identified as ultra-Orthodox Jews.
        This community tends to insulate their families from the outside world and would be expected to just as readily answer that they would not want their children sharing a classroom with secular Jews, or that they would want all their neighbors to share their same values and strictures.
        This artificially confounds the data.
        Israeli society is certainly not perfect, but it is a far cry from Levy’s misrepresentation that most Israeli Jews openly and explicitly favor discrimination against Arabs.

        http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=55&x_article=2311

        The TRUE importance of questions 8 and 9 is that it exposes the deep divisions that exist between the Orthodox / Ultra Orthodox Jewish population and secular Israeli Jewish society.
        These are deep divisions within Israeli Jewish society that Levy would prefer to keep hidden.
        Levy chose – quite deliberately I believe – not to inform his readers of the clarifying religious versus secular context behind questions 8 and 9.
        After all – to do so would show Israeli society as diverse in direct contradiction to Levy’s anti – Zionist ideological need to portray Israel Jewish society as of a singular monolithic view.

        Most commentators, however, agreed that views about Palestinians depended greatly on a person’s religious views.

        Distaste for Palestinians is strongest among those who identified as ultra-orthodox, while those who said they were secular were least likely to support anti-Palestinian positions.
        “Israel is not the cohesive society that we used to have at the beginning of the state in the 1940s until about 1976 or 1977,” Goldblum said, adding that the right grew in power and influence after the late 1970s. “Israel has become a fragmented society.”
        Israelis debate significance of apartheid survey | World | DW.DE | 01.11.2012

        http://www.dw.de/israelis-debate-significance-of-apartheid-survey/a-16349215

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 26, 2013, 7:45 am

        miriam6 :

        You had a whole 36 hours to reply to my comment

        I’ve already responded in part, drawing your attention to the fact that that Shingo has already effectively dealt one of your key points here

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614567

        and that you have failed to respond to his cogent argument leading to this conclusion:

        [Shingo:]And the reason apartheid would become inevitable is because the majority of Israelis would chose apartheid over democracy. What they want to avoid of course, is to be forced to make this choice before the eyes of the world.

        So Levy is entirely correct in his assessment.

        I quoted Shingo and linked to him in my response to you. My post is here

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-615208

        but it appears to be still awaiting moderator approval, which I obviously have no control over.

        I’ll post a second, more detailed reply within the next few days.

        As for the notion I have conceded ANY point to you – again BS!

        To repeat: I analyzed three of CAMERA’s key accusations against Levy and showed that they were baseless.

        See:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614595

        You conceded two of my points, via-non-response.

        If you don’t wish to concede those points, by all means, respond to them.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 26, 2013, 7:47 am

        “Utter BS Sibiriak.”

        Oh, miriam, I think Sibiriak was being polite. Your response was so ridiculous that an acceptable response would be to just walk away, as you should not be flattered with a response.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 26, 2013, 10:12 am

        miriam6:

        First of all I must say here that unlike you I absolutely agree with Camera’s assessment that

        Most people reading these results would perceive just the opposite, that a majority of Israelis do not support discrimination against Arabs.

        Miriam, look at #4 in the poll:

        4. In your opinion, is it desirable or undesirable for Jews to receive priority over Arabs in government hiring?

        59% – desirable; 34% undesirable.

        59% of respondents thought discrimination against Arabs in government hiring was desirable. Full stop.

        That shows a majority of Israelis DO support discrimination against Arabs.

        59% find it desirable–how on earth can you “perceive just the opposite”?

        I rest my case and allow you the final word on that point.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 26, 2013, 10:24 am

        miriam6:

        These are deep divisions within Israeli Jewish society that Levy would prefer to keep hidden.

        Levy chose – quite deliberately I believe – not to inform his readers of the clarifying religious versus secular context behind questions 8 and 9.
        After all – to do so would show Israeli society as diverse in direct contradiction to Levy’s anti – Zionist ideological need to portray Israel Jewish society as of a singular monolithic view.

        Miriam, if you read the Levy article, you will encounter this passage:

        [Gideon Levy] The survey distinguishes among the various communities in Israeli society – secular, observant, religious, ultra-Orthodox and former Soviet immigrants.

        The ultra-Orthodox, in contrast to those who described themselves as religious or observant, hold the most extreme positions against the Palestinians. An overwhelming majority (83 percent ) of Haredim are in favor of segregated roads and 71 percent are in favor of transfer.

        The ultra-Orthodox are also the most anti-Arab group – 70 percent of them support legally barring Israeli Arabs from voting, 82 percent support preferential treatment from the state toward Jews, and 95 percent are in favor of discrimination against Arabs in admission to workplaces.

        The group classifying itself as religious is the second most anti-Arab. New immigrants from former Soviet states are closer in their views of the Palestinians to secular Israelis, and are far less radical than the religious and Haredi groups. However, the number of people who answered “don’t know” in the “Russian” community was higher than in any other.

        The Russians register the highest rate of satisfaction with life in Israel (77 percent ) and the secular Israelis the lowest – only 63 percent. On average, 69 percent of Israelis are satisfied with life in Israel.

        Secular Israelis appear to be the least racist – 68 percent of them would not mind having Arab neighbors in their apartment building, 73 percent would not mind Arab students in their children’s class and 50 percent believe Arabs should not be discriminated against in admission to workplaces.

        So, how on earth can you claim that

        Levy chose – quite deliberately I believe – not to inform his readers of the clarifying religious versus secular context.

        when Levy DID clearly inform his readers that context?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 26, 2013, 11:24 am

        Shingo, excellent rebuttal to Miriam6’s feeble apartheid-apologetics. Saved me a bit of time!

        Let me just add a more personal angle on the abominable situation in the West Bank:

        “Israeli Bypass Roads: Separate But Unequal”
        By Maysoon Zayid August 12th 201

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/12/israeli-bypass-roads-separate-but-unequal.html

        […]With the birth of the settlements came the birth of the bypass road. Israel created these roads so settlers could have access to their brand new, shiny apartments in the West Bank and so they would be able to “bypass” Palestinian neighborhoods without having to look at them. Bypass roads also conveniently create facts on the ground, and are built on confiscated land which Israel hopes to retain for all time and eternity whether it’s two states, one state, or this current state.

        The Israeli-only roads that crisscross the West Bank have come a long way since the beginning of the Second Intifada. The bypass roads are a system of exquisitely paved highways with traffic lights, street signs, and even street lights, while those designated for the Palestinian population are dark, dangerous detours that add miles to their journeys. Gas is $8.00 a gallon, so those forced to use these designated routes are wasting both time and money they don’t have.

        Originally when the villagers started using the segregated roads, they weren’t just poorly paved, they weren’t paved at all. People who had been cut off from the city dug out alternative routes over the mountains and through the woods to regain access. The dirt roads were even more dangerous than today’s permanent replacements, but not much more.

        The new Palestinian roads were built by the United States Agency for International Development. USAID facilitated Israel’s unjust system of roads by building the Palestinians an alternative route so they would not demand access to the Israeli-only roads.

        According to Israel, the point of bypass roads is to keep the illegal settlers safe from their Palestinian neighbors by keeping their roads separate, but unequal.

        The idea that these roads serve any function security-wise is bat shit crazy because the two peoples’ roads intersect at various points. This means Israeli settlers and the Palestinian locals end up driving on the same roads anyway. If Palestinians are that dangerous, then why merge the segregated roads?

        There are some Palestinians who are allowed to drive on the Israeli bypass roads even when they don’t intersect with the Palestinian routes. The chosen few are the laborers who have permits to work in Israel or the settlements and Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship, American citizenship, or citizenship in any other country Israel considers friendly.

        The presence of Palestinians on these roads that were meant to bypass them is proof that this system serves no other purpose than to inconvenience Palestinians while solidifying Israel’s stranglehold on the land meant to house the future Palestinian state, John Kerry insists is being created at this very juncture.

        The settlers and their religiously-segregated compounds are the reason why I must now drive on detour roads, which are pothole-ridden, with death-pin curves and wild boars instead of deer jumping in front of my rental car.

        The road that used to link my Deir Debwan to the city was a straight shot, the alternate route is not. And I am constantly lost. Google Maps may have recognized Palestine, but the GPS still doesn’t, so you are on your own.

        If you make a wrong turn you are likely to bump into an armed Israeli settler who doesn’t believe you have a right to exist and is very angry you actually do. Israel doesn’t provide motorists with nice, bright orange detour signs to follow either, all you have are the Star of Bethlehem and billboards to guide you. Luckily, some of the more enterprising businesses in my village put up billboards advertising their services along the detour’s route. These smart cookies included arrows on the ads that point you in the right direction. So now, when I want to go to Deir Debwan I just follow the signs for Tina’s Salon and Star Pizza. Both are written in English which is extremely helpful. They are the yellow brick road that guides me home.

        My father is buried in Deir Debwan. I live in America. I can only visit his final resting place when I come to Palestine. In my faith, we believe it brings great peace to the soul that has passed to have their loved ones sit by their graveside to read, pray or talk to them.

        My father was my very best friend in the world and I would like to go pray by his side daily, but I cannot. In my five days here, I have only gone once because I now live in Ramallah and the detour roads are simply too dangerous and too much to handle as a woman with cerebral palsy driving alone, even with Tina’s Salon and Star Pizza to guide me. Israel makes the journey so difficult that even privileged, Americans like myself forego the hassle and voluntarily stay in their cage rather than endure another checkpoint, detour or degradation.

        Fewer Palestinians on the road does not mean more security for Israel. It just means less traffic for the settlers, which will make them happy. And after all that is the entire point of the bypass roads.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 26, 2013, 11:29 am

        [email protected]:

        Actually Woody –

        Sibiriak ADMITTED right here that he had no intention of posting a reply to my comment ;

        So, I was going to let you have the last word.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-615203

        In any case Woody this argument is about the findings of the Sept. 2012 Dialog poll – a poll that you declared to be ‘useless’! .

        Only after Gideon Levy has disingenuously and erroneously manipulated the poll findings into a blunt weapon to be used to defame his fellow Israeli citizens – did Levy’s misrepresentation of the poll findings become of interest to YOU.

        Actually one important and overriding feature of Israeli society as revealed by the poll were the deep divisions and differences of opinion within in Jewish Israeli society between secular Israelis and religious Israelis.

        Thus seriously undermining Levy’s claim that Israeli society is of one singular monolithic view.

        Here YOU are Woody cheerfully stating the poll results were ‘useless’

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614281

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 26, 2013, 6:55 pm

        Miriam:

        Actually one important and overriding feature of Israeli society as revealed by the poll were the deep divisions and differences of opinion within in Jewish Israeli society between secular Israelis and religious Israelis.

        Thus seriously undermining Levy’s claim that Israeli society is of one singular monolithic view.

        Once again, you create a straw man by putting words in Levy’s mouth. Where does Levy claim that Israeli society is “of one singular monolithic view”?

        In the article on the poll, Levy clearly discusses the divisions in Israeli society.

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-wouldn-t-give-palestinians-vote-if-west-bank-was-annexed.premium-1.471644

        [Gideon Levy] The survey distinguishes among the various communities in Israeli society – secular, observant, religious, ultra-Orthodox and former Soviet immigrants.

        The ultra-Orthodox, in contrast to those who described themselves as religious or observant, hold the most extreme positions against the Palestinians.

        [snip]
        The ultra-Orthodox are also the most anti-Arab group

        [snip]
        The group classifying itself as religious is the second most anti-Arab. New immigrants from former Soviet states are closer in their views of the Palestinians to secular Israelis, and are far less radical than the religious and Haredi groups.

        [snip]

        Secular Israelis appear to be the least racist
        [snip]

        I have already given you the full quotation here:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-615347

        Why do you fail to respond to that post, and continue posting a straw man argument that has already been decisively discredited?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 26, 2013, 7:07 pm

        Miriam6:

        Here YOU are Woody cheerfully stating the poll results were ‘useless’

        Miriam, why resort to such juvenile sophistry? Woody said the poll was “otherwise useless“, not simply “useless”, and then explained how the poll actually was useful:

        Levy took an otherwise useless poll and used it to show what israeli Jewish society is really like, to hold a mirror up to let them see themselves in all their reactionary racism, and when they didn’t like it, they turned on the messenger and broke the mirror.

        Woody Tanaka is absolutely right to point to the poll’s *usefulness* in revealing the widespread reactionary racism in Israeli society.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 26, 2013, 7:34 pm

        [email protected];

        Secular Israelis appear to be the least racist…

        So says Levy GRUDGINGLY with the qualifying words ‘appear’ to be the least racist..

        Levy could be insinuating that those dastardly ‘liberal’ secular Israelis may be hiding their TRUE racist feelings from view!

        He certainly seems convinced that most Israelis are die hard racists no matter what the Dialog poll told him.

        On the subject of secular versus religious Israeli Jews – you neglected to pick up on my point as did Levy to mention that the poll results reflect deep divisions within Israeli Jewish society.

        I think that Levy chose not to comment or elaborate on the wider context and meaning as it might pertain to the poll findings of this societal fragmentation in Israeli society because it would detract and contradict from his aim of misrepresenting Israelis as uniformly racist and supportive and united behind a programme of imposing apartheid on the Palestinians.

        If it is correct that Levy mentioned the diversity of those Israelis polled – it just makes it all the more mystifying to me that Levy would go out of his way to lump all Israelis together as supposedly uniformly supportive of apartheid.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 26, 2013, 8:24 pm

        So says Levy GRUDGINGLY with the qualifying words ‘appear’ to be the least racist..

        Just like you GRUDGINGLY walked back your accusation that Levy is a liar?

        Levy could be insinuating that those dastardly ‘liberal’ secular Israelis may be hiding their TRUE racist feelings from view!

        They are and the poll confirms this.

        As I already explained, those who rejected annexing the West Bank did so not because fo moral reasons, but because they didn’t want to have to chose between democracy and apartheid.

        And you yourself have openly admitted the Israelis Jews don’t want to share their stated with non Jews.

        you neglected to pick up on my point as did Levy to mention that the poll results reflect deep divisions within Israeli Jewish society.

        There might be deep divisions within Israeli Jewish society, but the majority agree that they want a racist supremacist state and would chose apartheid over democracy if they were forced to.

        I think that Levy chose not to comment or elaborate on the wider context and meaning as it might pertain to the poll findings of this societal fragmentation in Israeli society because it would detract and contradict from his aim of misrepresenting Israelis as uniformly racist and supportive and united behind a programme of imposing apartheid on the Palestinians.

        You have no shame do you Miriam?

        What you are suggesting would be indulging in opinion and hypothetical pondering as opposed to reporting on the results of the poll. And of course if he had donethat, you would be here criticizing him for indulging in opinion as opposed to reporting the findings of the poll.

        Face is Miriam, you’ve been exposed. Your agenda is to twist and distort every outcome to try and argue it proves Israel is not an apartheid state, regardless of the poll results.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 26, 2013, 8:31 pm

        Sibiriak says:

        Shingo, excellent rebuttal to Miriam6′s feeble apartheid-apologetics. Saved me a bit of time!

        I wish it had saved you time. You have the patience of a saint. Debating Miriam is like nailing jelly to a wall.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 26, 2013, 9:19 pm

        miriam6:

        Secular Israelis appear to be the least racist…So says Levy GRUDGINGLY with the qualifying words ‘appear’ to be the least racist..Levy could be insinuating that those dastardly ‘liberal’ secular Israelis may be hiding their TRUE racist feelings from view!

        “Grudgingly”. LOL! It seems you are projecting here your own grudging admission of blatant error on this point.

        Levy uses the word “appear” only because he is discussing the results of a single survey . Naturally, it can’t be taken as the final, absolute truth on the matter!

        neglected to pick up on my point as did Levy to mention that the poll results reflect deep divisions within Israeli Jewish society.

        False. Levy DID mention those divisions. See quotes above.

        it would detract and contradict from his aim of misrepresenting Israelis as uniformly racist and supportive and united behind a programme of imposing apartheid on the Palestinians.

        Straw man. Levy has never demonstrated such an aim, and you have shown zero evidence that he does.

        If it is correct that Levy mentioned the diversity of those Israelis polled

        “If”?? For crying out loud, Miriam, just go to the article and verify it for yourself!

        … it just makes it all the more mystifying to me that Levy would go out of his way to lump all Israelis together as supposedly uniformly supportive of apartheid.

        You are either engaged in deliberate distortion and demagoguery or at best self-mystification, since Levy in fact never tries to lump all Israelis together.

        Besides the quotes I describing the religious/secular divide, Levy makes this further observation:

        [Levy:] The survey conductors say perhaps the term “apartheid” was not clear enough to some interviewees. However, the interviewees did not object strongly to describing Israel’s character as “apartheid” already today, without annexing the territories. Only 31 percent objected to calling Israel an “apartheid state” and said “there’s no apartheid at all.”

        In contrast, 39 percent believe apartheid is practiced “in a few fields”; 19 percent believe “there’s apartheid in many fields” and 11 percent do not know.

        The “Russians,” as the survey calls them, display the most objection to classifying their new country as an apartheid state.

        A third of them – 35 percent – believe Israel practices no apartheid at all, compared to 28 percent of the secular and ultra-Orthodox communities, 27 percent of the religious and 30 percent of the observant Jews who hold that view.

        Altogether, 58 percent of all the groups believe Israel practices apartheid “in a few fields” or “in many fields,” while 11 percent don’t know

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-wouldn-t-give-palestinians-vote-if-west-bank-was-annexed.premium-1.471644

        By drawing attention to those group-variations in attitudes toward alleged Israeli apartheid practices, Levy does just the OPPOSITE of “lumping all Israelis together”.

        You completely falsify Levy’s writings. Why?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 26, 2013, 9:36 pm

        Miriam:

        Sibiriak where is your response to my comment here? http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614664

        I’ve now responded to all your points.

        And just a gentle reminder: you have failed to respond to all these critical arguments:

        1)The third key argument in my analysis of the Camera article: Excerpt:

        [Sibiriak;] Where’s the distortion? Levy’s assertion contains the if clause referring to a hypothetical future situation. Nowhere does Levy suggest that his assertion is about the “current situation”.

        So, 69% of respondents would want to deny Knesset voting rights to Arabs IF the West Bank were annexed. Doesn’t THAT give an important insight into the racist mindset of much of the Israeli public?
        ETC.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614595

        2) Shingo’s incisive rebuttal to your unsubstantiated assertion that Levy is a “proven liar”.

        [Shingo;] you have completely stepped back from your original claim that Levy is a liar or lied what your own links described as as a MINOR clarification, not a retraction and not even a correction.

        So you are wrong.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614560

        And further points on that issue here:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614567

        3)Shingo’s detailed rebuttal to the two Times of Israel articles you cited. Excerpt:

        But more importantly, the ugly fact that Yemini and Mor are trying so desperately to bury is that fact that the reason the majority of Israelis don’t want to annex the West Bank is not because it would be immoral, illegal etc., but because it would force Israel to remove any veneer of deniability and openly become an apartheid state. Of course, this is grossly dishonest because Israel already controls the West Bank and has imposed apartheid.

        And the reason apartheid would become inevitable is because the majority of Israelis would chose apartheid over democracy. What they want to avoid of course, is to be forced to make this choice before the eyes of the world.

        So Levy is entirely correct in his assessment.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614567

        4)Shingo’s thorough, detailed post on the apartheid road system in the West Bank, which I concurred with. Excerpts:

        [Shingo:] That is dishonest given that Arabs constitute a tiny minority. Jews predominantly use those roads, seeing as only Jews are invited to live in Jewish only settlements. So yes, it is apartheid regardless.[…]
        Remember that Israel has no legal right to build these roads, or the settlements they serve. They are a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.

        […]
        You continue to ignore the elephant in the room Miriam. Those roads are only “necessary” because Israel is violating human rights and international law. Like a rapist who justifies carrying a hang gun for protection in case the families of his victims seek retribution.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-615210

        5)And my followup post. Excerpt:

        [Maysoon Zayid :] Bypass roads also conveniently create facts on the ground, and are built on confiscated land which Israel hopes to retain for all time and eternity whether it’s two states, one state, or this current state.

        […]According to Israel, the point of bypass roads is to keep the illegal settlers safe from their Palestinian neighbors by keeping their roads separate, but unequal.

        The idea that these roads serve any function security-wise is bat shit crazy because the two peoples’ roads intersect at various points. This means Israeli settlers and the Palestinian locals end up driving on the same roads anyway. If Palestinians are that dangerous, then why merge the segregated roads?

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-615363

        All those posts await your response. So, you have a lot of work ahead if you still want to try to defend the indefensible. Get cracking!

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      November 22, 2013, 1:35 pm

      Shavit shills for the Zionist elite
      Cast Lead couldn’t have happened without him

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/02/thetzipingpoint

      “It is indeed hard to dispute that Livni’s positive image owes more to her perceived integrity than to a clearly articulated political agenda. As Ari Shavit put it:
      “She is perceived as non-corrupt, as Mrs Clean amid a crisis of low moral standards within Israeli politics – an elegant, female figure among brutal, unworthy politicians.”

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      November 22, 2013, 1:51 pm

      “Gideon Levy is a proven liar.”

      Nope. He’s willing to tell the truth and not fall for the rather tortured distortions to hide the endemic and vile racism and pro-Apartheid feeling in the israeli populace. But given that they’ve voted for government after government to do just that, who can be surprised? Of course, the israeli pr hacks, trying to torture a “modern” “liberal” “democracy” out of such results have to lie about the poll and Levy’s interpretation of it.

      • piotr
        piotr
        November 23, 2013, 1:47 pm

        More impartially, he offered his own interpretation of the poll, spin if you will, without any lies about actual results. Interpretation are not lies.

        Interpretation of polls is not an exact science, but to the degree it is, the full argument would be tedious and require some footnotes. Take 52% of Israelis who would not mind Arabs as neighbors. [I guess this is only Jewish Israelis, usually pollsters do not bother with getting the opionions of Arab citizens.] It is known that a certain percentage of responders does not reveal true opinion, in this case, some people who do not wish Arab neighbors would pretend that they do not mind, and vice versa. One could theorize that some percentage of supporters of “liberal parties” (or liberal strain in Likud, now largely exterminated) could be privately intolerant but not admitting it to pollsters. It becomes an ontological issue what “an opinion” is. In political practice, this means that some part of the public is ambivalent and would not object policies enacted to please those who are passionate. This is extremely important if you want to use opinion polls in Israel to make predictions of political decisions.

        For example, what percentage of Jewish Israelis object policies that aim to decrease the number of “Arab neighbors”, like prohibition on residence permits to some categories of spouses and revocation of Jerusalem residence permits?

    • tree
      tree
      November 22, 2013, 6:33 pm

      Last year Haaretz was forced to publish this clarification of Gideon Levy’s blatant distortion of the findings of a Dialog poll of Israeli public opinion.

      In reality, the clarification that Haaretz published had to do with the headline of the article, not the article itself, so your comment is a distortion of the facts, Miriam. My understanding is that newspaper headlines are usually written by the editors and not by the journalists that write the story, and Haaretz issued no”clarification” of the story. In any case, here is the complete Haaretz clarification, which for some reason you truncated in your comment.

      CLARIFICATION: The original headline for this piece, ‘Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,’ did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll. The question to which most respondents answered in the negative did not relate to the current situation, but to a hypothetical situation in the future: ‘If Israel annexes territories in Judea and Samaria, should 2.5 million Palestinians be given the right to vote for the Knesset?’

      (the words in bold are the ones miriam chose to leave off of her comment) I’ll leave it to others to cogitate on why miriam left off those ten crucial words necessary to the understanding the meaning of the clarification.

      And here are the first two paragraphs of Levy’s piece, unchanged from the original as far as I know:

      Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.

      A majority also explicitly favors discrimination against the state’s Arab citizens, a survey shows.

      The first paragraph by Levy says the very same thing that the new headline says.

      BTW, the percentage of those who would deny the vote to Palestinians if the West Bank were annexed is 69%! With only 19% in favor of giving them the vote and 12% undecided.

      Furthermore, according to their answers to the poll, the majority of Jewish Israelis (58%) believe that Israel already practices apartheid at least in some areas.

      The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don’t want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don’t want their children in the same class with Arab children.

      A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.

      A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter – 24 percent – believe separate roads are “a good situation” and 50 percent believe they are “a necessary situation.”

      Almost half – 47 percent – want part of Israel’s Arab population to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority and 36 percent support transferring some of the Arab towns from Israel to the PA, in exchange for keeping some of the West Bank settlements.

      Although the territories have not been annexed, most of the Jewish public (58 percent ) already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs. Only 31 percent think such a system is not in force here. Over a third (38 percent ) of the Jewish public wants Israel to annex the territories with settlements on them, while 48 percent object.

      Given the overall poll results, the original headline, “Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel”, seems pretty reasonable, hardly a “proven lie”or “blatant distortion”.

      Meanwhile, rather than make further attempts to divert the subject, maybe you, miriam, can answer a question. Do you oppose a secular democratic state in Israel? You’ve already said that you consider it unnecessary for Israel to adopt laws protecting minorities there. But would you actively oppose Israel treating all its citizens as equals before the law and government? And how would you answer those poll questions?

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 22, 2013, 7:16 pm

        [email protected];

        (the words in bold are the ones miriam chose to leave off of her comment) I’ll leave it to others to cogitate on why miriam left off those ten crucial words necessary to the understanding the meaning of the clarification.

        There was no sinister reason why I left those supposedly ten crucial words off my block quote.

        The rest of the Haaretz clarification was behind the infamous Haaretz paywall. That is why I could not block quote those final ten words.

        I am not interested in paying out my hard earned cash to support a hack -rag like Haaretz which publishes articles one day only to have to ‘clarify’ them the very next day.

        As for the rest of your comment I shall address it later. It is well after midnight here in the UK.

      • Djinn
        Djinn
        November 22, 2013, 8:51 pm

        Yahoo search – title of article – cached. No need to pay for anything.

        Whatever the clock says you had time to come up with a piss poor excuse but not to admit that you totally distorted the clarification of a headline, not written or approved by the journalist, into “proof” that Levy is a liar.

        Utterly disengenuous.

      • talknic
        talknic
        November 22, 2013, 10:57 pm

        @miriam6 Keep digging… LOL

        here

        And

        here

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 23, 2013, 12:30 am

        @miriam6 Keep digging… LOL

        You are just teasing me now with previously forbidden but now non – pay wall – available cached goodies!

        Anyway Donald has finally admitted that – and I quote;

        I read your links. I think Levy was a little sloppy and should be criticized for it.

        !

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614367

        !!

        At least someone around here is able to concede a point to me once in a while..( mentioning no other names and all..)

      • tree
        tree
        November 23, 2013, 5:58 am

        There was no sinister reason why I left those supposedly ten crucial words off my block quote.

        The rest of the Haaretz clarification was behind the infamous Haaretz paywall. That is why I could not block quote those final ten words.

        So let me get this straight. You never read the article by Gideon Levy, and you didn’t read the clarification of the headline in full because it was behind a “paywall”. So you engaged in all this huffing and puffing because you uncritically read an opinion piece about it somewhere else, and didn’t think it was important enough to check on the veracity of the piece you were quoting from. Pretty shoddy work, miriam.

        I don’t think you even understand what you are talking about. Clearly there was no “blatant distortion” of the poll in Levy’s news article about it. No one other than you alleges that there was. The mostly contrived controversy was over Levy’s opinion piece that he wrote separate from the news article. There he admitted that he erred by overstating the figures in one sentence.From Levy:

        The article itself, which I wrote, did not contain any mistakes. It provided a precise and detailed description of the survey results. In my analysis of the survey, which appeared as a separate article, there was a single sentence that did not accurately represent the poll results and contradicted what I had written in the news piece a short time beforehand. My sin was to write: “The majority doesn’t want Arabs to vote for the Knesset, Arab neighbors at home or Arab students at school.”

        The truth, as I wrote in the news piece, is different: “Just” 33 percent of the respondents said they don’t want Arabs to vote in parliamentary elections, “just” 42 percent wouldn’t want an Arab neighbor, and about the same proportion said it would bother them if there were an Arab student in their child’s class. Not a majority – just a (large ) portion of Israelis espouse these frightening views. Cold comfort.

        Imagine a similar survey in France: A third of the French don’t want Jews to be eligible to vote and nearly half don’t want a Jewish neighbor or a Jewish student in their child’s class. The right-wing propagandists who are currently causing a ruckus about my mistake would be among the first to shout “anti-Semitism.” But for us, the Jews, it’s allowed.

        And then there’s this from you.

        As for the rest of your comment I shall address it later. It is well after midnight here in the UK.

        Yes, and it was even later when you posted two more huff and puff comments to other posters here, and didn’t bother to answer my question to you about whether you agree with Shavit or not. You’ve tried this dishonesty before. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer from you.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 23, 2013, 7:00 am

        The rest of the Haaretz clarification was behind the infamous Haaretz paywall.

        Stop lying Miriam. I pay nothing to Haaretz and am able to access it. Furthermore, Talknic provided another link to the article.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 23, 2013, 7:03 am

        Nicely put Tree,

        You exposed Miriam – YET AGAIN – as the lying, Zionist, propagandist that she is.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 23, 2013, 11:05 am

        [email protected];

        Imagine a similar survey in France: A third of the French don’t want Jews to be eligible to vote and nearly half don’t want a Jewish neighbor or a Jewish student in their child’s class. The right-wing propagandists who are currently causing a ruckus about my mistake would be among the first to shout “anti-Semitism.” But for us, the Jews, it’s allowed.

        Actually a far better and useful way to take the measure of – and to place in a wider context the supposedly high levels of racism in Israel would be to compare the levels of prejudice and racism suffered by religious / ethnic minorities in Europe as referred to in the Times of Israel article I linked to in my comment right here

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614354

        Click on the link to Amnesty International’s study “Choice and Prejudice – Discrimination against Muslims in Europe” in the ToI article I linked to in my earlier comment to see how Europe compares badly with Israel in terms of discrimination against minorities.

        Comparing racism in Israel against that of other countries against THEIR ethnic minorities makes far greater sense than Gideon Levy’s attempt to portray Israeli society as somehow ‘uniquely’ racist.

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 23, 2013, 11:48 am

        “Anyway Donald has finally admitted that – and I quote;

        I read your links. I think Levy was a little sloppy and should be criticized for it.”m6

        That,s a long way from?.

        “Levy is a proven liar.”m6

        Getting desperate Miriam.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 23, 2013, 12:17 pm

        miriam6:

        Anyway Donald has finally admitted that – and I quote;

        I read your links. I think Levy was a little sloppy and should be criticized for it.

        […]At least someone around here is able to concede a point to me once in a while..( mentioning no other names and all..)

        Miriam, being “a little sloppy” is a far cry from being a “proven liar”, wouldn’t you agree?

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 22, 2013, 9:57 pm

        [email protected];

        You are terribly anxious to depict and stereotype Israel as a society overcome with racism – a somehow uniquely racist society – but actually Israel compares well when contrasted by the higher levels of racism present in Europe.

        Racial prejudice in Europe has manifested prominently against the Romani Gypsies. The City of Copenhagen deported up to 400 Roma and Swedish police expelled Roma in breach of its own and EU laws. In Belgium a caravan of 700 Roma was chased out of Flanders. Italy and Germany have evicted thousands.

        Prejudice against Muslims, Blacks and Jews is rife. According to a Pew poll published in July 2010, 82% in France, 71% in Germany and 62% in Britain are in favor of prohibiting the Burqua. The poll conducted from April 7 to May 8, interviewed 24,790 people in 22 countries.

        An Amnesty International study published in 2012 titled “Choice and prejudice – discrimination against Muslims in Europe” reported that opinion polls in several European countries reflect fear, suspicion and negative opinions of Muslims combined with racist attitudes. It documents discriminatory experiences faced by Muslim pupils and students stemming from laws or policies forbidding the wearing of religious symbols or dress. Belgium and France for example, have introduced a general ban on religious symbols in public schools. In Spain individual schools have at times enforced internal regulations prohibiting headwear, which resulted in the exclusion from class of Muslim pupils wearing the headscarf.

        In Spain (Catalonia), local authorities have denied authorization to open new Muslim prayer rooms merely because local inhabitants opposed the establishment of a mosque in their neighborhood.

        http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-flip-side-of-the-israel-apartheid-poll/

        If you plan to get a sense of the wider perspective on racism as it affects other nations or educate yourself any time soon – you better click on the link to Amnesty International’s study “Choice and Prejudice – Discrimination against Muslims in Europe” that can be found in the ToI article comparing Israeli attitudes to non-Jews with those of European attitudes towards ethnic/religious minorities in Europe.

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 23, 2013, 11:26 am

        “Maurice Ostroff is a founder member of the international Coalition of Hasbara Volunteers, “Who could possibly believe this source.

        Is this the best you can do Miriam.

        Thanks for the laugh.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 23, 2013, 11:55 am

        [email protected];

        Have you even bothered to read the link included in Ostroff’s piece on the findings of Amnesty International’s study “Choice and Prejudice – Discrimination against Muslims in Europe”?

        Perhaps it contains information about racism and prejudice against ethnic /religious minorities in Ireland that you prefer to remain unaware of as you harshly and hypocritically judge Israelis for a phenomena ( racism) which does indeed exist outside Israel.

        Even in Ireland..

        See also this link about how Gideon Levy has once again failed to meet the ethical standards expected by those in his profession.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614382

        Care to comment on yrn’s comment amigo?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 23, 2013, 1:49 pm

        miriam6:

        If you plan to get a sense of the wider perspective on racism as it affects other nations or educate yourself any time soon – you better click on the link to Amnesty International’s study “Choice and Prejudice – Discrimination against Muslims in Europe”

        Miriam, do you think there might be some points of similarity between European and Jewish-Israeli anti-Muslim bigotry?

      • amigo
        amigo
        November 23, 2013, 4:05 pm

        “Have you even bothered to read the link included in Ostroff’s piece on the findings of Amnesty International’s study “Choice and Prejudice – Discrimination against Muslims in Europe”?

        Perhaps it contains information about racism and prejudice against ethnic /religious minorities in Ireland that you prefer to remain unaware of as you harshly and hypocritically judge Israelis for a phenomena ( racism) which does indeed exist outside Israel.”

        Even in Ireland..miriam 6..

        Racism exists everywhere but??.

        Where in Ireland /Europe are soldiers demolishing the homes of their minorities to create squats for Catholics/Protestants/Atheists/Jews/Hindus etc etc.

        Where in Ireland /Europe are there “Roads for non Jews only).

        Where in Ireland /Europe can a religious figure get away with telling his flock to not rent properties to Jews.

        I could continue but even you should get the message.Israel was born in racism and terrorism.

        BTW , care to discuss some of the racism we Irish experienced at the hands or our neighbors . your place of residence.

        You are as I said miriam , a hasbarist and ergo a liar.Nothing / no one can change that, except you but we are not holding our breath.

        here is your Israel for you???.

        “It is beautiful… not a single Arab to be seen'”

        “http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012513125011309135.html”

      • tree
        tree
        November 23, 2013, 11:48 pm

        You are terribly anxious to depict and stereotype Israel as a society overcome with racism – a somehow uniquely racist society – but actually Israel compares well when contrasted by the higher levels of racism present in Europe.

        No, miriam. I’m not “anxious” about anything. I just find your bombastic diversions both pathetic and tedious. You didn’t bother to read the source when you falsely claimed that Levy was a liar, you still don’t understand the difference between the news article and the opinion piece, and yet you insisted that only you knew the truth about something about which you proved to be distinctly under-informed.

        And you still haven’t answered my question about Shavit, nor will you I suspect. You seem to have forgotten that YOU were the one who brought up the Goldblum poll in the first place, as a distraction from the topic of the post, because you thought you could beat Levy over the head with it. But now you don’t want to talk about the poll because it reveals some ugly attitudes on the part of many Israeli Jews. I find the most telling part of the poll is that a majority(58%) of Israelis admit that Israel is apartheid, at least in part, and that the majority favor government discrimination against non-Jews. So now you engage in “whataboutery”, as if that excuses racism and apartheid in Israel, and point to a Times of Israel poll that distorts other poll numbers itself. You drag the poll into the discussion and then object to any acknowledgement of the polls findings. Your actions really do fit the modus operandi of a troll.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 24, 2013, 12:19 am

        Superbly done once again Tree.

        Miriam’s diversionary tactics and “whataboutery” has become tedious and predictable, not to mention her blatant dishonesty.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 24, 2013, 3:36 am

        Shingo:

        Miriam’s diversionary tactics and “whataboutery” has become tedious and predictable…

        Yes, “whataboutery” is the default retreat position when the primary attack strategy and any subsequent diversionary tactics inevitably fail. Utterly predictable.

    • Ecru
      Ecru
      November 23, 2013, 1:40 am

      @ Miriam6

      Actually you’re the one lying here M6 because as most people know – reporters/journalists do not usually write their own headlines that’s the job of Copy Editors.

      Further you don’t seem able to make up your mind – did Levy misrepresent the Poll or was the Poll flawed in the first place. Take a stand and stick to it please, you’re over-balancing here is amusing but that’s about it.

    • Walid
      Walid
      November 23, 2013, 1:41 am

      Miriam, whether a distortation or a lie, is there another occurrence of a similar situation by Levy you can point to? If so, it would greatly enhance your argument.

      • yrn
        yrn
        November 23, 2013, 3:36 am

        Walid

        Just 9 days ago the Tribunal of the Press Council reprimanded Haaretz ‘Gideon Levy in a different case.
        Following the publication Israeli police filed a complaint against Levy and against the “country” to the Press Council. Ethics Tribunal of the Press Council rejected the claims of “land” and Levi that the article was an expression of opinion is legitimate, and ruled that Levi violated sections of the rules of ethics that require fact-checking, objectivity and loyalty to truth, and a clause prohibiting specify the characteristics of origin, ethnicity and social status of people, “unless they are relevant to the subject of advertising. “The Court also criticized the newspaper’s editors, non cared to examine the facts and ensuring expression. ”
        http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/education/1.2165208

        That’s not new and I am not surprised, in the battle between newspapers, a scandal makers as Levi is good for business and people know his views, take him in proportion as the local “weirdo” as his views are known and predicted, you just know what his articles will look like (reminds me of Mondowiess).
        Second I am proud that in my Israeli society there are people with variety of opinions and it’s open and discussed.
        Hope this was the situation on the other side, so we would be have the ability to read the debate on the other side which dose not exists, as freedom of the press is not an issue in our neighbor country’s.

        So now I guess you are satisfied, as you mentioned it now greatly enhance Miriam argument that Levi is a Liar.

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 23, 2013, 11:52 am

        Miriam, thanks for answering and for being honest about it. You’re an honest barracuda, but a barracuda nonetheless and you can take that as a compliment.

        Yrn, thanks for the story on Gideon Levy and the killer, Alon. I gathered that Levy may have gone into a bit of an overstetch on that one having based his assumption on the killer having served in the border police for only one year and that was 18 years ago as having picked up the “Israeli killing habit” that resulted in the murder of 4 people and Alon’s suicide. David Gross wrote an essay on PTSD and said that all it takes for a soldier’s mind to snap is 60 consecutive days in a war situation, so Alon having served only one year in the border police could have most easily fallen to that disorder that ultimately caused him to kill the 4 people and himself 18 years later. It should be noted that Levy is appealing the decision against him, so we should sit back on that one until the appeal is heard.

        In a way, Levy can’t be blamed for having come to this conclusion. We have all been reading about the abuse by Israel’s police and military that are taught to make sport of abusing and even killing Palestinians and migrant workers. If you’d Google Israel’s problem with PTS Disorder, you’d get tons of articles written about it. PTSD is written practically on every Israeli life since almost everyone there goes through military service. Our friend Shmuel here just mentioned here today or yesterday that had he known what military life would have been like, he would’nt have served.

        Just about the time Levy wrote about the multiple killings by a former decorated military man (May 2013), Bradley Burston also wrote about the sick mentality that prevails all over Israel’. The only difference between Burston and Levy is that Burston didn’t point the finger at the military; here’s part of it:

        “A gun massacre in Israel: If an entire nation had PTSD, would it feel like this?

        Israel is a place where wars don’t end. A place where, literally, if not knowingly, we bring the war home.

        By Bradley Burston | May 21, 2013

        … Still, what would it feel like if an entire nation suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder? It might just feel like this.

        A place where wars don’t end. A place where, literally if not knowingly, we bring the war home.

        Like many people here, I don’t know much about PTSD, and have long avoided learning about it. It was the headlines about the bank shooting that, at long last, caused me to finally begin to look at PTSD. And do a self-test.

        The headlines spoke of a decorated former army officer who had lost his job, had been violent with his parents and neighbors, became reclusive, “a promising youth turned into a killing machine.”

        I began to read about the signs. Irritability and outbursts of anger, a constant sense of being on “red alert,” the sense of an emotional roller coaster, feeling like other people are in charge of your life, gaps in memory, feelings of mistrust or betrayal, feelings of avoidance, of distancing ourselves …

        We push it down. But not really. With a grumble and a shrug, or with a swear word and seemingly unrelated road rage. We may take refuge in a forwarding address, a way to redirect what may be a wake-up call intended for us.

        We push it down. We don’t want it to be true. We have a sense that healing it might be worse than having it. Or that it can’t be healed.

        Just like this country.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/a-gun-massacre-in-israel-if-an-entire-nation-had-ptsd-would-it-feel-like-this.premium-1.525185

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        November 23, 2013, 5:17 am

        I need 10 examples of where Levy lied. He seems to have very coherent arguments generally. Shavit seems to be far more mendacious.

      • yrn
        yrn
        November 23, 2013, 6:51 am

        seafoid

        I guess you get this information from Hostage Satellite pictures……….

      • yrn
        yrn
        November 23, 2013, 6:53 am

        “I need 10 examples of where Levy lied. ”
        In your personal life you need your partner to Cheat you 10 times in order to know who he/she is ?

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        November 23, 2013, 12:11 pm

        yrn

        Zionists lie 24/7. That hasbara is shot through with mendacity.
        But women still marry Sabras. It’s a funny altneuland.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 23, 2013, 12:25 pm

        yrn says:

        “I need 10 examples of where Levy lied. ”
        In your personal life you need your partner to Cheat you 10 times in order to know who he/she is ?

        I still need ONE case when Levy lied– “lied” meaning: asserted a falsehood with the intention to deceive.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      November 23, 2013, 5:08 am

      miriam6: Gideon Levy is a proven liar. …

      Gideon Levy’s willingness to distort the true of opinions of Israeli citizenry just proves his views cannot be taken seriously.

      This is what Gideon Levy has to say about propagandist like you, miriam6:

      The messenger stumbles? Let’s slander him, and to hell with everything else described in his article, even discounting the mistake. This is what propagandists always do. … Instead of anger being directed toward the findings of the survey – which is what should have caused a scandal – many readers and commentators focused on the unfortunate mistakes that were made. Those errors did not change the survey results even one iota, but they did divert the public’s attention from the important to the trivial.

      This deviation from the important issue, this incitement against the mistakes, was done deliberately. It was intended to obscure the truth revealed by the survey, which justifiably has garnered harsh responses around the world. It was the final means of propaganda available to those who seek to blur the true image of Israeli society and paint an unrealistic, imaginary portrait instead.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 23, 2013, 12:49 pm

        [email protected];

        The messenger stumbles? Let’s slander him, and to hell with everything else described in his article, even discounting the mistake

        So Gideon Levy boasts – wishing to dress himself up in the attire of (self ) righteous victimhood rather than doing the decent thing and just apologising for his mistakes.

        Talkback – I expect you are now busily fashioning a crown of thorns for this latest would – be ( false ) Jewish Messiah Gideon L to stick on his head.

        Meanwhile – out there in the real world of journalistic ethical standards and accountability – the honesty and veracity of Gideon Levy’s journalism has once again been called into question.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/wanting-secular-democratic.html/comment-page-1#comment-614382

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 24, 2013, 7:29 am

        So Gideon Levy boasts – wishing to dress himself up in the attire of (self ) righteous victimhood rather than doing the decent thing and just apologising for his mistakes.

        WOW! Not only the fact that you could allready read him saying in the pay version of the article:

        This article is meant to fix a few mistakes. They shouldn’t have happened; we must acknowledge them, apologize for them and fix them. They were not made intentionally, but as a result of neglect due to time pressure. Now is the time to make things right.

        But also the fact, that you’re reply came about 15 minutes later after you replied to Talknic who provided you with the cached article.

        Talkback – I expect you are now busily fashioning a crown of thorns for this latest would – be ( false ) Jewish Messiah Gideon L to stick on his head.

        I expect you to continue to be dishonest and after spreading lies about Levy and that he is “a proven liar” and his “willingness to distort the true of opinions of Israeli citizen” you are now starting to spread lies about me.

        Meanwhile – out there in the real world of journalistic ethical standards and accountability –

        This is rich.

        … the honesty and veracity of Gideon Levy’s journalism has once again been called into question.

        Yes, good luck in denying his assertion that some in Israel can kill innocent people without being punished.

        And Greetings to Captain R., who was promoted to the rank of major and received compensation for his defense expenditures after emptying his rifle into the body of a Palestinian 13- years old girl who was allready heading away from the army post. 17 bullets, three of them into her head. His apology? He would have done the same even if the girl was a 3-year-old.

        Back to Levy, who is the real Israeli criminal, right?

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 24, 2013, 8:20 am

        [email protected];

        Calm down for goodness sake!

        Talkback – I expect you are now busily fashioning a crown of thorns for this latest would – be ( false ) Jewish Messiah Gideon L to stick on his head.
        I expect you to continue to be dishonest and after spreading lies about Levy and that he is “a proven liar” and his “willingness to distort the true of opinions of Israeli citizen” you are now starting to spread lies about me.

        Talkback – you really must face the fact that Haaretz stirred up a lot of anger by choosing to select a controversial character like Levy to ‘interpret’ the findings of the Dialog poll.

        And evidently in selecting Levy the opportunists at Haaretz got the full – on world wide publicity generating coverage of the story and of Haaretz itself that they must surely have anticipated would flow from Levy’s ‘take’ on the Dialog poll findings in the first place.

        Never mind that Gideon Levy and Haaretz’s distortion of the poll findings falsely demonised their fellow Israelis as being racist and set up the false notion that Israelis support an apartheid system.

        As such I judge those at Haaretz to hold the greatest responsibility for the whole damaging fiasco.

        Virtually all of my comment was aimed at ridiculing Gideon Levy and his evident sense of victimhood – which clearly outweighs any sense of responsibility he feels towards the ethical demands of his profession.

        The Levy quote in your comment was a perfect illustration of Levy’s sense that he is the victim in the controversy over his misreading of the Dialog poll – and also Levy quite laughably really – evidently fancies himself as something of a prophet.

        I simply brought in the ‘crown of thorns’ reference to tease you. Does teasing a thin skinned person like you now amount to me ‘spreading lies about you?’ Come off it!

        Your apparent acceptance of Saint Gideon’s self righteous claim to victimhood amused me – that’s all.

        Meanwhile – out there in the real world of journalistic ethical standards and accountability –
        … the honesty and veracity of Gideon Levy’s journalism has once again been called into question.

        I am right about that.

        The story of the Dialog poll as told by Haaretz was a story that went right around the world media – and if the journalistic standards of those involved in the story are found to fall short – IT MATTERS.

        By contrast our little arguments and comments here on MW really do not amount to a hill of beans.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 25, 2013, 11:39 am

        miriam, oh miriam.

        The scope of evidence, logic, time and space defying, compulsory lies of some Jewish Zionists – especially those addicted to character assissination – has made me become cold as a Type 1 superconductor when dealing with them. You are lucky, that I try to observe Mondoweiss’ comment policy and this is not a live conversation in my native language. Otherwise by this time, I would have allready, metaphorically speaking, sliced you up with a cotton ball regardless of the consequences on your lifelong psychological stability.

        And Levy is lucky, not being an Arab writing for an Arab newspaper calling for a secular, democratic state for all. Your “Jewish democracy” – you know why you can’t only call it a democracy, cause it isn’t – would have allready improsed him, if not worse, and shut down the office in the blink of an eye like they did in the past.

        Cause what Israel and you illustrate is not only the fascist like attitude when dealing with controversy. It illustrates your righteous claim to victimhood and your need of demonizing others, to distract from the shocking and horrifying racism documented in the poll.

        Gideon Levy: Imagine a similar survey in France: A third of the French don’t want Jews to be eligible to vote and nearly half don’t want a Jewish neighbor or a Jewish student in their child’s class. The right-wing propagandists who are currently causing a ruckus about my mistake would be among the first to shout “anti-Semitism.” But for us, the Jews, it’s allowed.

        I don’t know why he picked France, I would have picked Germany, cause that’s the only language people like you understand: Imagine Jews being the victims of fascist racism.

        Btw. that’s just my way of teasing thick headed persons. I am positive that you find it as amusing as I do.

  8. LeaNder
    LeaNder
    November 22, 2013, 1:22 pm

    thanks Shmuel, great you allow us see this Israeli discussion. Crazy, really crazy.

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      November 22, 2013, 3:03 pm

      Thank Ira. I just lent a hand.

    • LeaNder
      LeaNder
      November 22, 2013, 6:37 pm

      thanks Ira ;)

      So Ira understands Hebrew too, simply not as good as you?

      • Ira Glunts
        Ira Glunts
        November 22, 2013, 7:43 pm

        @LeaNder You are very welcome and the answer to your question is yes. Shmuel understands Hebrew much better than I do.

        Thanks again Shmuel for doing this so well and so quickly.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        November 23, 2013, 8:21 am

        Hi, Ira. I should have probably assumed you do, really. Great job, and it is always a pleasure to see your name up there.

        Strictly my thank you to Shmuel instead to you had, which clearly it should have been, had an underlying reason. I hope you’ll forgive me. ;)

        An exchange with him helped me a lot to understand that AntiGerman scholar and “anti-antisemitic hitman” Clemens Heni targets some scholars in field of antisemitism, here is only the trace of one such attack, I respect a lot. I was aware of his campaign against the former head of the Center for the study of antisemitism in Berlin. But while I was aware he has quite a bit of support in the US and Israel, I wasn’t aware of his specific target lists so far. Hopefully they have as much support as Max.

        I guess I have to go back and read all his articles for Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. Maybe I first read all the articles about them here on MW.

        In other words, I will have to shut up for a while and stop babbling. But I will always follow your contributions, even if not visibly. Take care Ira, and be well. ;)

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 23, 2013, 1:50 pm

        LeaNder,

        I’ve been looking through your links on Heni, JSA, SPME etc. Although off-topic here, I thought I’d cite a passage I read today in Butler’s Parting Ways (Heni doesn’t seem to like her – or Klug or Judaken, for that matter), which I think offers some insight both into the “criticism of Israel = anti-Semitism” approach and into the constant use of terms like “destruction” and “annihilation” regarding the democratisation of the Israel polity:

        But since 1948, as Idith Zertal and other historians have shown, the narrative links have been forged time and again such that any “reasonable” person now believes that the Nazi genocide against the Jews mandated the founding of the State of Israel–and the founding of the State of Israel on those principles of Jewish sovereignty espoused by David Ben-Gurion, involving a militarized implementation of settler colonialism, a founding that was simultaneous with the Naqba, the catastrophic destruction of home, land, and belonging for the Palestinian peoples.

        Because the founding of the state on that basis is understood as a historical necessity for protecting the Jewish people, many now assume that any criticism of Israel contributes to the deligitimation of the state and so seeks to reverse the historical causality and to open the Jewish people to a new destruction, figured as the Nazi genocide time and again. But if it is historically and politically incumbent to understand that history as a founding catastrophe, and to locate the sites of its contingent emergence as that particular state formation and not some others, we might be able to begin to think outside this narrative lockdown.

        On second thought, it is not off-topic at all, as it lies at the heart of the extreme panic-laden responses of Ari Shavit and Dan Margalit to the historical and political truths presented and represented by Gideon Levy.

        See also Shavit’s attitude e.g. to the war crimes committed at Lydda — as a historical necessity. In fact the exchange with Levy here, seen through this lens, is perfectly consistent with the ostensibly “moderate” views he has expressed of late.

  9. MRW
    MRW
    November 22, 2013, 2:14 pm

    Jesus, don’t this say it all.

    Shavit : Gideon, You want a secular, democratic state. You’re worse than the extremists among the Palestinians.

    • Donald
      Donald
      November 22, 2013, 3:28 pm

      “Shavit : Gideon, You want a secular, democratic state. You’re worse than the extremists among the Palestinians.”

      Yeah, that does say it all. We’re still not at a point in the mainstream US press where people can discuss this in an honest way. So much for Shavit the great “progressive” champion of a progressive Zionism.

    • American
      American
      November 22, 2013, 4:15 pm

      MRW says:
      November 22, 2013 at 2:14 pm

      Jesus, don’t this say it all.>>>>

      Yes it does. …about him at least.

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      November 23, 2013, 12:43 pm

      Jesus, don’t this say it all …

      This is pretty eloquent too (although stated by the less sophisticated Margalit, rather than by Shavit himself):

      Levy: … We came to a country inhabited by another people.
      Margalit: Oh, delegitimizing of Israel. We understand.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        November 23, 2013, 1:03 pm

        Shmuel:

        This is pretty eloquent too (although stated by the less sophisticated Margalit, rather than by Shavit himself):

        Levy: … We came to a country inhabited by another people.
        Margalit: Oh, delegitimizing of Israel. We understand.

        Yes, that statement really struck me. History should be falsified in order to bolster Israel’s “legitimacy’?

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 24, 2013, 8:07 am

        I don’t think this is about falsifying history. It’s about double standards: You are allowed to deligitimize the claims of (most) of the people who inhabited the country, but not the claims of (most of) those who came to it.

  10. eljay
    eljay
    November 22, 2013, 2:24 pm

    >> Shavit: … They don’t recognise the state of the Jewish people.

    The “Jewish people” don’t have a right to an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”.

    >> Shavit: Gideon, You want a secular, democratic state. You’re worse than the extremists among the Palestinians.

    Hateful and immoral Zio-supremacism in a nutshell: Secular and democratic is bad, but religion-supremacist and Jewish is good.

    >> Shavit: And this is a kind of anti-Semitism, an unwillingness to recognize the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.

    Self-determination does not give the “Jewish people” or anyone else the right to create an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state. It certainly does not give them the right to mass-migrate to a geographic region and use terrorism and ethnic cleansing to realize such a state.

  11. seafoid
    seafoid
    November 22, 2013, 2:46 pm

    Shavit is a poor man’s Tom Friedman

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/is-a-crushed-israel-in-america-s-best-interest-1.279227

    “The answer is unequivocal: no. Already, Israel’s public humiliation is hurting America. It is making even moderate Arabs unwilling to contribute anything to advancing the diplomatic process. And without a significant Arab contribution, there will be no diplomatic process. But a continued tough love policy toward Israel is liable to do damage that is far more serious – and irreversible. Without a strong Israel, a Middle East peace can neither be established nor survive. Without a strong Israel, the Middle East will go up in flames. Therefore, instead of playing games taken out of a basic training manual, Americans and Israelis must work in harmony. They must think outside the box and come up with a creative solution, based on listening to each other and mutual respect. They must jointly advance a genuine regional peace. “

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      November 23, 2013, 8:41 am

      “They must jointly advance a genuine regional peace. “

      What a dishonest fraud he is. How can you have a genuine regional peace without justice and observation of intentional law?

      Shavit doesn’t want a genuine regional peace, he wants a genuine regional hegemonic alliance.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      November 23, 2013, 12:35 pm

      Shavit:

      But the question the White House ought to be asking itself is whether riding roughshod over Israel serves its goals – whether a crushed Israel is an American interest.

      The answer is unequivocal: no.

      “Riding roughshod over Israel”??– we could only wish!

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        November 23, 2013, 1:04 pm

        Israel is like those fish that swim with sharks and clean the bits between their teeth.

        Whether a crushed small fish is a shark interest- like it matters to the shark LOLZ

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        November 23, 2013, 1:17 pm

        [email protected];

        Israel is like those fish that swim with sharks and clean the bits between their teeth. Whether a crushed small fish is a shark interest- like it matters to the shark LOLZ

        You did not complete your analogy.

        Israel is one of America’s ‘client states’ in the Mid East.

        Therefore Israel the small fish is servicing the needs of America – the super predator shark!

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/undermine-democracy-military.html/comment-page-1#comment-613734

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        November 23, 2013, 1:33 pm

        Yeah Miriam

        Like having zealots in the haram al sharif is in the interests of Dayton Ohio.
        Pull the other one

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 23, 2013, 1:37 pm

        “Therefore Israel the small fish is servicing the needs of America…”

        You’re describing either the hooker or the parasite; which is it?

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      November 23, 2013, 12:45 pm

      Shavit:

      It is making even moderate Arabs unwilling to contribute anything to advancing the diplomatic process.

      What “diplomatic process”? There is no “diplomatic process”– other than a complete sham used as cover for further Zionist expansionism.

  12. Erasmus
    Erasmus
    November 23, 2013, 7:51 am

    Haaretz promotes Shavit and his interpretation of things Israel – by an email offer dated 20. November 2013 for a Haaretz digital subscription:

    Get a free e-book
    Dear Haaretz reader,
    the first round of nuclear talks between Iran and the powers in Geneva ended without agreement.
    In his e–book “Does that mean war?” Ari Shavit explains why the Israelis are so concerned about an Iranian bomb.
    Subscribe Now.
    we will be giving thise-book for free toall our new subscribers in the next few days as the bookwillbe available to download between 20-24 November.

    Hurry,hurry if you have not got the free e-book yet……….
    alternatively you may just not!

    • LeaNder
      LeaNder
      November 23, 2013, 8:58 am

      Erasmus, I was just wondering if that special offer was written by Ari Shavit. I just tried to google it. I know I have registered some hesitation concerning Shavit, but in this context I wasn’t sure.

      Incidentally I responded by writing them that this was not really a good idea. Asking, if they really thought they would get many subscribers based on that offer. It would be interesting how well it worked out though. ;)

  13. Sibiriak
    Sibiriak
    November 26, 2013, 12:18 am

    talknic:

    miriam6 “Evidently you are quite happy that Levy lied about the poll”

    Lied or was mistaken? There’s a vast difference. What did the Haaretz clarification actually say?

    Here, for the record, is the entire Haaretz clarification, issued Oct.29, 2012:

    [Gideon Levy:] Errors and omissions excepted
    The headline of a news article last week was misleading. Most Israelis do support an apartheid regime, but only if the occupied territories are annexed; however, most Israelis oppose such annexation.

    —–

    This article is meant to fix a few mistakes. They shouldn’t have happened; we must acknowledge them, apologize for them and fix them. They were not made intentionally, but as a result of neglect due to time pressure. Now is the time to make things right.

    The Dialog poll commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund, whose results were published in Haaretz last week, unearthed extremely serious and disturbing findings. It sketched a troubling portrait of a nationalistic and racist Israeli society. This isn’t the first survey to demonstrate such a trend and, unfortunately, it won’t be the last. The Hebrew headline of the news article describing the survey results (“Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel” ) was misleading. Most Israelis do support apartheid, but only if the occupied territories are annexed; and most Israelis oppose such annexation. Haaretz explained this in a clarification published in the Hebrew edition on Sunday.

    The article itself, which I wrote, did not contain any mistakes. It provided a precise and detailed description of the survey results.

    In my analysis of the survey, which appeared as a separate article, there was a single sentence that did not accurately represent the poll results and contradicted what I had written in the news piece a short time beforehand. My sin was to write: “The majority doesn’t want Arabs to vote for the Knesset, Arab neighbors at home or Arab students at school.”

    The truth, as I wrote in the news piece, is different: “Just” 33 percent of the respondents said they don’t want Arabs to vote in parliamentary elections, “just” 42 percent wouldn’t want an Arab neighbor, and about the same proportion said it would bother them if there were an Arab student in their child’s class. Not a majority – just a (large ) portion of Israelis espouse these frightening views. Cold comfort.

    Imagine a similar survey in France: A third of the French don’t want Jews to be eligible to vote and nearly half don’t want a Jewish neighbor or a Jewish student in their child’s class. The right-wing propagandists who are currently causing a ruckus about my mistake would be among the first to shout “anti-Semitism.” But for us, the Jews, it’s allowed.

    The routine excoriation took off. The mirror reflects an unsightly image? Let’s smash it. The messenger stumbles? Let’s slander him, and to hell with everything else described in his article, even discounting the mistake. This is what propagandists always do. One particularly pathetic one has built an entire career out of ridiculously rummaging through negligible errors. Instead of anger being directed toward the findings of the survey – which is what should have caused a scandal – many readers and commentators focused on the unfortunate mistakes that were made. Those errors did not change the survey results even one iota, but they did divert the public’s attention from the important to the trivial.

    This deviation from the important issue, this incitement against the mistakes, was done deliberately. It was intended to obscure the truth revealed by the survey, which justifiably has garnered harsh responses around the world. It was the final means of propaganda available to those who seek to blur the true image of Israeli society and paint an unrealistic, imaginary portrait instead.

    The most important thing was, and remains, that a significant portion of Israel’s Jewish society advocates positions that can only be described as nationalistic and racist. Nearly half of the respondents don’t want an Arab neighbor or an Arab student in their child’s class; a third don’t want Arabs to vote; nearly half want to discriminate against Arabs living in the country. Isn’t that enough to scare anyone who fears for the future of this country?

    But the right wing and its mouthpieces aren’t interested in any of that. They are interested solely in an unfortunate mistake that barely changed anything.

    HEREIN LIES A CHALLENGE for those who are not bothered by the results of the survey but are horrified by the errors made in reporting it: Bring us another reliable poll that proves Israeli society is not as racist and nationalistic as depicted in this survey. That would really make things right. [emphasis added]

    Perhaps Miriam6 will take up that challenge.

Leave a Reply