by Shimon Cohen
Data from the survey for the Commanders for Israeli’s Security were manipulated in order to present conclusions that were contrary to the reality. Kalman Liebskind investigated and got results.
In an
article for Ma’ariv, Kalman Liebskind tells of the investigation he did of the
survey data presented by the Commanders for Israel’s Security, claiming that
the Jewish majority opposes the application of Israeli law in Judea and
Samaria.
Below are a
few key excerpts from Liebskind’s important article that show how the movement
manipulated the data, to show the exact opposite of reality in order to arrive
at results more in keeping with their members’ leftist positions.
Liebskind then
confronts the head of the movement, Maj. Gen. (res.) and former minister Matan
Vilnai, with the true data and receives elusive answers. Kalman Liebskind
writes:
I seek to
present here only the misinformation campaign that many of us have been exposed
to. The publication of this survey was accompanied by interviews with the
media. Maj. Gen. (res.) Matan Vilnai, chairman of the Commanders for Israel’s
Security, was interviewed by Yinon Magal and Ben Kaspit on FM-103 radio. “The
survey says that the public is very pragmatic, very prudent, it understands
that they are selling it a cat in a sack. And in general, 60%, without even
knowing the details of annexation, already oppose it”. Remember this figure, we
will need it later.
“This
survey is very well-based and serious”, continued Vilnai, “it was conducted by
Kamil Fox and the key conclusion, which is very encouraging to me, is that the
public is very realistic”.
I admit
that I also was taken in. When the survey was published and following the
movement’s announcement, I interviewed Brig. Gen. (res.) Rachel Dolev, formerly
the chief censor and is currently active in the Commanders for Israel’s
Security.
“The survey
found that an overwhelming majority of Jews opposes annexation and prefers
other solutions”, she said. “Only 6% of Blue and White supporters favor
annexation and only 33% of the Likud is in favor of annexation. In other words,
three quarters of the Jewish public is against annexation”.
In
publications on the internet as well, she delivered the same message from the
survey: “Only 26% support unilateral annexation, 74% support other
alternatives”. Even before we come to the true data, we must make another
important comment here. The Commanders for Israel’s Security have found a
method to confuse and mislead the public. This method exploits the
misunderstanding of the definition of “annexation” and uses it to the nth
degree. Brig. Gen. Dolev, for example, like Vilnai, explains that after
annexation “we will have another two million citizens without rights, for whom we
will have to provide swabs, ventilators, National Insurance and unemployment
benefits”. When she speaks of annexation, she is talking about bringing
millions of Palestinians into the State of Israel and turning Jenin into a
major Israeli city, like Kfar Saba. This manipulation is not honorable, because
on the Right, there is no one (okay, there are very few) that supports such a
plan.
Now let’s
dig into the results. I repeat, this survey was not done by an unbiased or
objective body, assuming that there is such a thing. These are the results of a
survey commissioned by the leftist movement, Commanders for Israel’s Security,
which was responsible for choosing the topics and wording the questions.
“Which
policy choice would you prefer?”, the people surveyed were asked. 17% chose
“full annexation”, 10%, partial annexation” and 25%, “President Trump’s plan”.
In total, 52% support annexation/application of sovereignty over the various issues.
If we temporarily disregard the 10% who prefer the existing situation, we are
left with the remaining 38% who want
“two states for two peoples” or “unilateral disengagement from the
Palestinians”. How does this correspond with the stories that the movement presented
to the news media and the “key findings” that were worded along with the
survey? How does it relate to the data that Vilnai disseminated, that 60% of
the Jews oppose annexation? How does this correspond with the statement by
Brig. Gen. (res.) Dolev that three quarters of the Jews oppose annexation? Well,
actually, it does not correspond at all.
Onward. Remember
the claim by Brig. Gen (res.) Dolev that “only 6% of Blue and White supporters
favor annexation, and only 33% of the Likud is in favor of annexation? Well,
she is right. Almost. Dolev indeed remembered that only 5% of Blue and White
voters support full annexation, but forgot to note that another 5% of them
support partial annexation and another 27% of them support the Trump plan,
which includes the application of sovereignty over the Jewish communities. In
other words, it is not 6% of Blue and White supporters who are in favor of some
sort of annexation, but 37%.
One moment,
we’re not done. Remember that Dolev claimed that among Likud people support is
33%? She is right. She only forgot to note that besides them, there are another
29% who want the Trump plan. Want to read something else interesting? 24% of
leftist voters – according to the part of Commanders for Israel’s Security
survey which received less coverage – want some sort of annexation (full,
partial or the Trump plan). Again, that’s 24% of leftist voters.
And here is
another interesting question: “Is it a good idea to annex all of the Jewish communities
in the framework of the Trump plan?” The answer: 54% answered “yes”. 23%
answered “no”.
Wait,
there’s more. The movement conducts surveys of this sort once every few months,
and then compares the results that were received now with results that were
received a year and a half ago, in November 2018, in order to identify the
trend. What did it find, you ask? That along with a 15% drop in support for a “permanent
arrangement” and along with a drop of 21% in the idea of separation, there is a
rise of 62% in support of annexation. Amazing, right?
A few days
ago, I phoned Vilnai, a person whom I respect and appreciate, and asked him for
an explanation. “You have tricked us”, I told him. “You wrote in the summary of
your research that only a quarter of Israelis support annexation. You wrote
that the position of most Israelis is contrary to that of Netanyahu, Benny
Gantz and the Trump plan, and this is not correct. The results that you
received are the complete opposite. 54% of the public, according to your
survey, think that annexation of all the Jewish communities within the
framework of the Trump deal is a good idea. Only 23% think that it’s not. This
is the survey that you ordered”.
“I don’t
remember that”, Vilnai answered, “I don’t remember such a line”. This is only
one example, I clarified, “the entire summary that you wrote is the opposite of
the results that emerge from the survey”. “I will have to examine the numbers
that you gave me again”, answered Vilnai, “I need to look at tit again”. “And
who wrote the summary claiming that the Jewish citizens of Israel hold an
opinion other than that held by Netanyahu, Gantz and Trump?”, I asked.
“We didn’t
do the summarization, it was Kamil Fox”, he answered.
I called
Prof. Kamil Fox. “This is not a survey that I did”, he explained to me, “I also
did not write the summarizations and the main findings”.
“So what
was your part?”, I asked.
“I only did
the analysis, and was especially involved in comparing this survey with
previous surveys that were done”.
“And what
did you find in this comparison?”, I continued.
“That there
is a rise in support for annexation”, he answered, “A big rise in support for
annexation, compared with previous surveys. This is that part that I focused
on”.
After
returning to Vilnai again and asking for explanations, he referred me to Prof.
Gilad Hirschberger, who conducted the survey. Although Hirschberger admitted
that the survey found a drop in support for a “permanent arrangement” with the
Palestinians and a rise in support for annexation, he claimed that it was
impossible to relate to the Trump plan as an annexation plan, even if it does include
the application of Israeli sovereignty over all of the Jewish communities.
“Why?”, I
asked.
“Because
sovereignty means unilateral annexation, while the Trump plan speaks of
annexation as part of an agreement with the Palestinians”, he answered.
“No”, I
corrected him, “the application of sovereignty for Trump does not entail any
Palestinian agreement. But despite that, according to your survey, there is
still a high percentage that supports it, the opposite of what the Commander
for Israel’s Security presented”.
“There is
no indication that the public understands the Trump deal as unilateral
annexation”, he explained. After all of this, there remained only one point for
me to clarify. Who is responsible for the analysis presented in the announcement
made by the Commanders for Israel’s Security that says “most Israelis do not
support annexation, despite the Prime Minister’s support for annexation, the
assumed support of his coalition partner and the Trump plan that includes
annexation of all the Jewish settlements”. Since Vilnai told me that it was not
the members of his movement who worded this sentence, but Prof. Kamil Fox, and
since Fuchs told me that he was not involved in it either, I asked Prof.
Hirschberger if this wording was done by him.
“No, he
answered, it was the movement’s people”.
“Agree with
me that this wording is antithetical to the results of your survey”, I said.
Prof.
Hirschberger thought that the word “antithetical” was too severe. He preferred
to make do with “the wording is not accurate”.
“We note
that in the beginning of his article, he Liebskind related to the composition
of the Commanders for Israel’s Security, writing about it: “This is a list that
from time to time changes names, but remains with similar messages. Once they
were called “The Council for Peace and Security”. After that they were a
collection of senior officers who signed manifestos and declarations from time
to time in the newspapers. Today, as noted, their name is Commanders for
Israel’s Security”.
Such groups
of senior professionals, history informs us, have collapsed time after time
along with their predictions. They promised us that the Oslo Accord would
reduce terror, a moment before this agreement brought upon us rivers of blood.
They stated that “withdrawing from the Golan would be good for security”, and
it seems that there are not many among us who are distraught that we did not
listen to them. They declared, according to “our professional opinion”, that “the
disengagement from Gaza would be good for security, and when the missiles began
flying into Gush Dan, and the residents of Tel Aviv ran to the shelters, they
did not think for a moment to look in the mirror before accusing Benjamin
Netanyahu, because during his term, “communities were attacked with more
missiles than in any other period in the history of Israel”.
By the way,
the movement is making sincere efforts to free itself from this blemish. Did we
support the Disengagement? Why, we were established nine years later. That is
true, until you go over the list of names of the officers who supported the
Disengagement at the time, and the officers who are members of the movement
today, and find more than a few of the same faces there.
They have
also had something to say about the Iranian matter and our relations with the
U.S. When Netanyahu made his famous speech in Congress, the movement held a
press conference and stated not only that this speech “would bring Iran closer
to a nuclear bomb”, it would also cause a huge rift with the U.S. and ruin the
historic alliance between the two countries. We end this part by saying that
people who run lotteries such as the Israel Lottery, build their budgets
exactly on such people, who gamble every single week – and lose every week”.
Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav
Shimon Cohen
Source: http://ribonut.co.il/BlogPostID.aspx?BlogPostId=426&lang=1
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment