he Survey Data were Distorted – What do Israelis really think about Sovereignty?
Data from the survey for the Commanders for Israeli’s Security were manipulated in order to present conclusions contrary to reality.
Kalman Liebskind investigated and returned with 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 being sold 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 it 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”.
In the beginning of his article, Liebskind related to the composition of the Commanders for Israel’s Security, writing the following 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, that 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”.
Click here to read the original article in Maariv: https://www.maariv.co.il/journalists/Article-766973