In an interview published on November 7 by Israel’s Globes online business magazine, Ha’aretz editorial board member Gideon Levy spoke frankly and openly about his “hatred” of Jews making their lives in Judea and Samaria.

“I have no problem being the most hated person in Israel,” Levy told Globes.  His newspaper has dedicated itself to bringing down the settlement enterprise in the biblical heartland, and consistently promotes policies which would decrease the size of Israel’s territory and empower local Arabs.

“I need another Intifada, or to write another book,” Levy told Globes.  He said it is “hard for me” when there is no upheaval in the day’s news, and said he loves action and danger.

Such is his distaste for religious Jewry in the biblical heartland, that he proudly declares his hate for Israel’s “settlers”.

“They don’t just bother me. I have feelings of hatred towards them,” Levi said. “They embarrass me, they humiliate me in the things they say and do, with their very existence.”

Levy has won several international and Israeli journalistic awards for his coverage on behalf of Palestinian rights.  He lives in Ramat Aviv with his Swedish long-time girlfriend, Catrin Ormestad.

A recent survey conducted and presented by Haaretz newspaper claimed that the majority of Jews in Israel advocates the instating of an apartheid regime, and further claimed that most Israel is believe that currently there are areas in which apartheid measures are already exercised.

The survey relied on a sample of 503 respondents, and was published in the media all over the world, allegedly revealing a series of racist views and extreme nationalist opinions among the Jewish citizens of Israel. An in-depth analysis of the survey performed by the Israeli media watch dog ‘Presspectiva’ presents a different depiction of Israeli opinion. Presspectiva was able to obtain a full copy of the survey, enabling them to take a close and accurate look at the survey’s findings.

According to their analysis, the conclusions in this survey were misrepresented by the Haaretz article, details were omitted, and Gideon Levy’s coverage of the survey was not objective and contained information that was intentionally distorted.

Presspectiva’s study provides many examples of inconsistencies between the survey’s data and the information presented by Haaretz newspaper. The first example is the question in which respondents were asked for their opinion regarding the roads permissible for Israeli use only. Parenthetically, it should be noted that these roads exist as a result of security necessities. Respondents were asked whether they think the existence of such roads is good or bad, and is there a way to stop such instances. 24% of the respondents viewed this situation as positive, while 50% said it is bad, but there’s nothing to do about it, and 17% claimed that the phenomenon must be stopped. Despite these clear details, the reporter chose to publish that 74% of respondents support the existence of such authorized roads for Israelis only – in stark contrast to the respondents’ answers.

Furthermore, respondents were asked several questions about racism and a possible preference of the Jewish sector over the Arab one. In this sequence of questions most respondents gave answers which expressed their desire to integrate the Arab sector into general society, and their support of equal rights to all. For example, 49% of the respondents stated that they would not be bothered by an Arab student in their children’s class. In addition, 60% of respondents (compared to 33%) claimed that Israeli Arabs should be allowed to vote for the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament), in contrast to what Gideon Levy wrote in his article.

Throughout the article, it seems, the text highlights negative data, ignoring the details which depict a different picture.

On the subject of apartheid, which was used as the article’s title, there were also some distortions, according to Presspectiva’s research. In the question regarding apartheid, respondents were asked about a scenario in which Israel would annex Judea and Samaria, a situation which could lead to two and a half million Palestinians voting for the Knesset. 69% of respondents said they would oppose such a reality. However, Levy decided to conclude from their reply that the respondents support the existence of apartheid in Israel, a very broad interpretation of this data.

It should be noted that in the article itself, the reporter points out that it seems that the respondents did not fully understand the term ‘apartheid’, however, it did not prevent the reporter from remarking on the respondents’ opinion on the subject, despite their lack of understanding. According to Presspectiva, it seems that the answers given by the respondents were based on the understanding of the term ‘apartheid’ as synonymous with ‘discrimination’. Another element that contributed to the confusion was the surveyors’ question whether there is “some” apartheid in Israel, or is the phenomenon prevalent. Apartheid policy is a political phenomenon and cannot be quantified.

Presspectiva published its reaction to the Haaretz article because its suspicion of the facts presented in the Haaretz article, allegedly showing extreme racism among the Israeli Jewish population. In-Depth examination of the facts presented by the survey shows that the reality is different. The results do not reflect a racially motivated society in Israel that supports apartheid, as it was presented in Haaretz newspaper.

After being attacked by several sources, Haaretz published a clarification stating that their headline and article were misleading. Gideon Levy published an apology as well. However, the article has already been published by the British Guardian, the British Independent, the Canadian Globe and Mail and tens of other sites, causing extensive damage to the image of Israel and its citizens.

It takes a time like this for the full fury of Israel’s leftists to erupt in the face of their own country and government. While it’s true that, at least for now, Israel’s anti-Hamas offensive has garnered widespread domestic support, that’s hardly been the case among the country’s left-wing elite.

Many of the Monitor’s readers may have read some of the op-ed pieces that have appeared in Haaretz since the Gaza operation began, and it’s not exactly news that the Israeli daily is a hothouse of far-left sensibilities (hence its popularity among foreign journalists and pro-Palestinian bloggers).

But to truly get an appreciation for the depths of pathology routinely exhibited by Haaretz’s opinion columnists, one needs to look at several days’ worth of their work product. Drowning out the occasional token centrist or rightist perspective are waves of anti-Israel invective of which the following is just a representative sampling. Read it and weep.

Akiva Eldar: “The question that must be asked … is how many Palestinians and Israelis must die before the Israeli public wakes up from its new-old illusion that tanks and planes can perpetuate the occupation. The answer: As long as Israelis expect Palestinians to raise white flags, a black flag will fly over their own head.”

Gideon Levy: “Israel embarked yesterday on yet another unnecessary, ill-fated war. On July 16, 2006, four days after the start of the Second Lebanon War, I wrote: ‘Every neighborhood has one, a loud-mouthed bully who shouldn’t be provoked into anger… Not that the bully’s not right – someone did harm him. But the reaction, what a reaction!’

“Two and a half years later, these words repeat themselves, to our horror, with chilling precision. Within the span of a few hours on a Saturday afternoon, the IDF sowed death and destruction on a scale that the Qassam rockets never approached in all their years, and Operation ‘Cast Lead’ is only in its infancy.

“Once again, Israel’s violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom. What began yesterday in Gaza is a war crime and the foolishness of a country….

“A hero against the weak, [the IDF] bombed dozens of targets from the air yesterday, and the pictures of blood and fire are designed to show Israelis, Arabs and the entire world that the neighborhood bully’s strength has yet to wane. When the bully is on a rampage, nobody can stop him.”

David Grossman: “We should in no way strike [Gaza] so violently, even if Hamas, for years, has made life intolerably miserable for the people of southern Israel, and even if their leaders have refused every Israeli and Egyptian attempt to reach a compromise….”

Amira Hass: “This is the time to speak of our own satisfaction and enjoyment. Satisfaction from tanks once again raising and lowering their barrels in preparation for a ground attack, satisfaction from our leaders’ threatening finger-waving at the enemy. That’s how we like our leaders – calling up reservists, sending pilots to bomb our enemies….”

Tom Segev: “All of Israel’s wars have been based on yet another assumption that has been with us from the start: that we are only defending ourselves…. It is admittedly impossible to live with daily missile fire, even if virtually no place in the world today enjoys a situation of zero terror. But Hamas is not a terrorist organization holding Gaza residents hostage: It is a religious nationalist movement, and a majority of Gaza residents believe in its path. One can certainly attack it, and with Knesset elections in the offing, this attack might even produce some kind of cease-fire.

“But there is another historical truth worth recalling in this context: Since the dawn of the Zionist presence in the Land of Israel, no military operation has ever advanced dialogue with the Palestinians.

“Most dangerous of all is the cliche that there is no one to talk to. That has never been true. There are even ways to talk with Hamas, and Israel has something to offer the organization. Ending the siege of Gaza and allowing freedom of movement between Gaza and the West Bank could rehabilitate life in the Strip.”

Jason Maoz can be reached at jmaoz@jewishpress.com