Burston, What are Your Numbers?

By Published On: November 17, 2011

Burston public opinion settlements.jpg

In two recent blog posts, Ha’aretz‘s Bradley Burston claims that the majority of Israelis oppose Israel’s ongoing presence over the Green Line. In shorthand, Burston referred on Friday (“Iran Wins“) to “the pro-occupation minority.”

Similarly, this week, he writes (“Come Visit Israel. Before it’s Gone“):

I want my nephew to know that most Israelis believe that settlements do little other than ruin their lives, stain their country, and block the way to peace.

Granted Israelis have never been polled about their views on settlements using the terminology that Burston provides, that they “ruin their lives, stain their country, and block the way to peace.” And the language and framing of a poll question can have a significant impact on the answers. Nevertheless, an in-depth study about Israeli public opinion on territorial withdrawals and the settlements by Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies does not support Burston’s assertions.

For instance, the study found that in 2009, only 13 percent of Israelis supported “major territorial concessions.” Another 13 percent supported “unilateral disengagement with fewer territorial concessions.” On the other hand, 29 supported a “partial agreement with fewer territorial concessions,” while 45 percent supported “neither,” meaning they opposed any territorial concessions.

In addition, when asked in 2009 “whether in the context of a permanent settlement that would terminate the conflict, Israel should be ready to return any of a list of specific areas, or continue to retain them even at the cost
of avoiding a permanent settlement,” only 46 percent supported the relinquishing of isolated settlements on the mountain ridge of east Samaria, 40.9 percent favored withdrawing from Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, 26.1 percent support withdrawal from western Samaria, 28.8 support withdrawal from Hebron, and the numbers are even less for the Jordan Valley (13.9 percent), the Temple Mount without the Western Wall (17.5 percent), and Gush Etzion (14.8 percent).

Also, in 2009, 42 percent of Israelis polled opposed the removal of settlements under any circumstances as part of a permanent agreement; 43 percent supported the removal of small and isolated settlements, and just 15 percent supported the removal of all settlements, including large blocs.

INSS posited that the Israeli public positions were influenced by a number of recent events:

The drop in support for the principle of land for peace in 2006 probably reflects the initial disappointment with the results of the withdrawal from Gaza. The further decline recorded in 2007 was probably caused by the overall disillusionment with the withdrawal from Gaza as well as the Second Lebanon War, the Hamas takeover of power in Gaza, and other events.

Hat tip: Matthew Mainen

We expose the anti-Israel lies so you don't have to. But we can't do it without your help. Join the fight -- Donate now
Tell the World – Share Now!

More from SNAPSHOTS

  • Reuters Arabic Misidentifies Dome of Rock

    June 2, 2020

    The following photo and caption appeared in the Arabic version of an article by Reuters’ Stephen Farrell, published on April 24 and dedicated to the opening Friday of Ramadan in the Old City of Jerusalem: [...]

  • When Palestinians Like Checkpoints

    April 2, 2020

    To some pundits, it goes without saying that checkpoints in the West Bank should be discussed with the bleakest of terms. The checkpoints Israel erected in the West Bank during waves of Palestinian suicide bombings [...]

  • CNN’s Amanpour Condemns “power grab” By Israel’s Prime Minister and Others

    April 1, 2020

    We’ve said it often, but it’s worth repeating: Anyone interested in reasonably unbiased information about Israel (at least) should avoid the broadcasts of CNN’s Chief International Correspondent and Anchor, Christiane Amanpour. In characterizing responses to [...]

  • Italian Artist Posts Image of Jewish Ritual Murder on Facebook Page

    March 25, 2020

    Giovanni Gasparro being interviewed on a news show in Italy at the unveiling of one of his paintings at a basilica in Italy. (YouTube screenshot) Giovanni Gasparro, a popular artist in Italy, has posted images [...]

  • NY Times Shows How Framing Slants Coverage

    March 16, 2020

    A couple of days ago, we highlighted how David Halbfinger, the New York Times bureau chief in Jerusalem, cast Israel's prime minister as a scold for, well, trying to protect vulnerable populations from a pandemic. [...]

  • Seattle Media Oblivious To Imam’s Hateful Indoctrination Condemning Jews

    January 7, 2020

    The Masjid Ar-Rahmah mosque teaching – that Allah transformed Jews into apes and pigs for disobeying him – delivered by Imam (prayer leader) Mohamad Joban – was posted online by mosque personnel. This December 2019 [...]

  • AP Distorts: Bethlehem ‘Almost Completely Surrounded’

    December 10, 2019

    Over two years after improving inaccurate language falsely citing Israel's security "barrier surrounding the biblical city" of Bethlehem, the Associated Press once again misrepresents. AP's Joseph Krauss and Mohammad Daraghmeh wrote yesterday ("Palestinians in Bethlehem [...]

  • Variety Redraws Israel’s Map

    December 10, 2019

    "Variety is the most authoritative and trusted source of entertainment business news," boasts its web site but readers should not have any expectations about the accuracy of its geopolitical coverage. A May 2019 movie review [...]

  • Again, NY Times Silent on Islamic Jihad Terror Designation

    November 13, 2019

    As we noted yesterday, the New York Times chose to remove the word “terror” from its article about fighting between Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Israel. While early versions of the story informed readers that Islamic [...]

  • Reuters Errs on Administrative Detention For ‘Anti-Israel Activity’

    November 5, 2019

    The Ofer Prison, near Ramallah (Photo by Tamar Sternthal) A Reuters article today egregiously misrepresents administrative detention, erroneously asserting that it is mainly applied to "Palestinians suspected of anti-Israeli activities," when in fact the Israeli [...]