Israelis aren’t Jews. The Torah is literally against the creation of the state.
Israelis tend to be Jews, but Jews are not necessarily Israelis.
And every European Jew made the active decision not to move to Israel, despite frequent encouragement. Doesn’t get much more anti-zionist than that.
How many do have duel citizenship?
I struggle to take this question in good faith.
Being Israeli also doesn’t automatically make you a Zionist. It’s very clear who the enemy is here. It’s not your neighbour.
Not saying you came from a dangerous place intentionally, I just think this is the wrong way of going about fighting Zionism. And honestly, it’s not hard to see where those who went ahead and got Israeli citizenship came from. They can still support Palestine and be against genocide. The world is complex.
What Kind of shit Headline is this for fucks sake?
Now, im gonna drop a real hot opinion here: if Hitler were a black jewish trans catgirl, I wouldnt have had any Problem with him being killed. In Fact I wouldnt have had any Problem with him being killed regardless of any of his biological or religious traits.
Being jewish or whatever the fuck dosent make you fucking immune to being a bad guy.
True, but attacking black jewish trans catgirls because hitler was one is pretty pretty wrong.
Depends if we’re spinning this as “you should never attack a black Jewish trans catgirl, even if that person is Hitler” or “Hitler exists therefore I’ll attack anyone who shares a trait I identify with Hitler.”
This headline can be misinterpreted in many ways, first of all being what is the exact question they asked, as with any poll.
This is what you get for repeating: „All Israelis love Bibi, but everyone in Gaza hates Hamas“ over and over again.
Oh, it’s fully intentional. The Zionists need antisemitism. They are as dangerous to Jews as they are to everyone they hate.
Western media continues to do damage control for a genocidal fascist state by conflating antizionism with antisemitism.
Sure they do, Reuters.
That’s why you published both the exact wording in the question and responses and linked the survey in your article.
Oh, wait, they didn’t.
Well, all the downstream journos will, right?
Nowhere you say.
Hmm
deleted by creator
Napkin maths puts 800 people at a 95% confidence interval of ±3 percentage units. Even the lowest end of that, 12% of the population, is still massively problematic and has to be tackled. People are being killed.
deleted by creator
If you do random sampling right the total population size doesn’t really matter. If it’s ~15% of a random sample of 800 it will in all likelihood be ~15% of a random sample of 800 000 as well. With 97& confidence, that is.
There are other ways this could be flawed (I haven’t looked into it), but statistical sampling works independent of population size.
deleted by creator
There is an equal chance that all 800 were statistical outliers as there is a chance 0 were
This does not hold. Most people are not statistical outliers, so it is highly unlikely that 100% are outliers. Likewise, more than 1 in 800 are outliers, so if you had none of them in your sample it would not be representative.
As for the 1 in 20 critique: welcome to social sciences. This is why survey studies need to be pre-registered, hypotheses need to be clearly formalized before being tested, and everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt. For opinion polls, it means that we need to take error margins very seriously, and make all effort we can to ensure representative samples. And it’s still hard. We know all that. But your criticism is still nonsensical.
deleted by creator
I think everything you’ve said about this has been pretty ignorant, my dude.
this isn’t unique or special at all, you just need to do some research on this although the other guy is explaining it really well
