Showing posts with label Israeli Democracy Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israeli Democracy Institute. Show all posts

23 January 2020

Emily Thornberry, (Lady Nugee), is standing as the racist Zionist candidate for leadership of the Labour Party


According to Thornberry – Israel is a ‘beacon of freedom, equality and democracy’ despite torture being routinely used, censorship being standard and imprisonment without trial being the norm for Arabs
Emily Thornberry has, quite undeservedly, gained a reputation, as being on the Left, albeit the soft-Left. This is because she was one of the few who didn’t resign in the ‘chicken coup’ of the summer of 2016. There can be no doubt however that Thornberry is a die-hard racist and Zionist.
According to Thornberry, if you don’t support a Jewish state, a state based on Jewish ethnicity, a state that excludes non-Jews from the national collective, then you are ‘anti-Semitic’.
Palestinian child imprisonment is one of Thornberry's examples of Israeli democracy at its best
It is a sign of the political and intellectual poverty of social democracy that people like Thornberry have no understanding of history. The idea that one’s civic and political rights should depend on one’s religion went out with the French Revolution.
Britain took slightly longer than France before Jewish Emancipation was enacted. It was finally on 26 July1858 that Lionel de Rothschild took his seat as the first Jewish member of the House of Commons. He had first been elected for the City of London in 1847 but had had to swear an oath ‘on the true faith of a Christian’.
According to Emily Thornberry this is an example of why Israel is a 'beacon of freedom'
The battle against religious coercion and for the separation of Church and State was one of the main democratic achievements of the bourgeoisie revolutions. Under feudalism rights were inherited.
Israel is a Jewish state as was spelt out by Benjamin Netanyahu in response to popular Israeli actress, Rotem Sala who exclaimed:
Dear god, there are also Arab citizens in this country. When the hell will someone in this government convey to the public that Israel is a state of all its citizens and that all people were created equal, and that even the Arabs and the Druze and the LGBTs and - shock - the leftists are human."
Netanyahu promptly explained that
 “First of all, Israel is not a country of all its citizens. According to the nation-state law that we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish nation,”
Netanyahu was of course correct. Israel is a state of the Jewish people not its non-Jewish citizens. According to Thornberry, if you support the same solution that was achieved in South Africa, a non-racial state for all who live there, then you are anti-Semitic.
This is what Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ crisis has been about. That is why the IHRA ‘definition’ of anti-Semitism,that the Zionists were so insistent on, conflates anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. According to Lady Nugee We need to get on our hands and knees and ask for forgiveness to the ‘Jewish community.’  According to Thornberry
When an expert looks into a problem you have – whether it’s a doctor, a mechanic, or a plumber – you take their advice and follow it without thinking twice.
So when the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), and imminently the Equalities and Human Rights Commission give the Labour Party specific recommendations about how we need to root out the poison of antisemitism from our movement, our starting point must not be to dispute their proposals but ensure every single one is implemented unless we can rationally explain why not.
The mind numbing stupidity of Lady Nugee beggars belief. The BOD, JLM are all political actors not technical experts. As for the EHRC they are a state body whose interference in a democratic political party should have been condemned from the beginning. The fact that Nugee welcomes the EHRC intervention demonstrates how distant she is from socialist politics.
The idea that there are any ‘experts’ when it comes to anti-Semitism is debatable. But the idea that the JLM, affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation, which funds the theft of Palestinian land is an ‘expert’ in anti-racism is obscene. The JLM are racist apologists.
In what the Independent described as ‘a warning aimed at members of Jeremy Corbyn’s inner circle’ Thornberry called for staff fingered by the EHRC to be “out the door immediately”. Her comments were seen as ‘an attack on Mr Corbyn’s senior advisers, including his former chief of staff Karie Murphy’. Clearly Lady Nugee’s loyalty to Corbyn was contrived and calculated.
Thornberry is also an opportunist.  She is one of 36 Labour Friends of Israel sponsors who are also supporters of Labour Friends of Palestine.  She not only supports the Palestinians but she also supports their oppressors!  That’s what’s called even-handedness.  
Substitute 'Thatcher' for 'Thornberry' and 'South Africa' for 'Israel' and you should have the measure of Lady Nugee
In an article for Labour List Thornberry stated that ‘People who believe Israel does not have the right to exist should be drummed out of the Labour Party. What she means is Israel’s right to be a racist state not the right of Israelis to live there under a non-racial regime just like White South Africans were welcomed to stay after the end of Apartheid. What matters to Nugee is Israel’s role as the West’s warrior state.
The Balfour Declaration
Similarly Thornberry used a speech commemorating the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, which began the process of Palestinian ethnic cleansing, to make the same point. She stated that
‘there should be no place in modern society, and – let me stress – no place in the Labour Party for anyone who holds that kind of abhorrent view.’
It would seem that if you deny the right of a racist state, Israel, South Africa or Nazi Germany, to exist then you have no place in modern society, let alone the Labour Party! Maybe, being a lawyer, Thornberry wants to reinstate the feudal concept of the outlaw.
Of course it was somewhat ironic for Thornberry to denounce racism when praising the Zionists’ friend Arthur Balfour. Balfour when Prime Minister introduced the Aliens Act 1905 preventing Jewish refugees from Czarist Russia entering Britain was. Before become Foreign Minister he was also known as ‘Bloody Balfour’. As Chief Secretary for Ireland he ordered troops to open fire killing 3 Irishmen who were demonstrating in Mitchelstown, County Cork.  In 1893, he spoke in parliament describing how Cecil Rhodes, the godfather of white supremacy, was “extending the blessings of civilization.”  Two years later – then in opposition – he described Black people as “less intellectually and morally capable” than whites. [The racist worldview of Arthur Balfour, David Cronin]
Clearly paying tribute to a racist and imperialist went to Thornberry’s head.  Under the guise of opposing racism, she called for anti-racists to be expelled from the Labour Party and society. Let us remind ourselves of who the man was who signed the Balfour Declaration, which enabled Britain to give the land of the Palestinians to the Zionist settlers.
In 1906, the House of Commons was engaged in a debate about the native blacks in South Africa. Nearly all members of Parliament agreed that the disenfranchisement of the blacks was evil. Not so Balfour, who – almost alone — argued against it.
“We have to face the facts men are not born equal, the white and black races are not born with equal capacities: they are born with different capacities which education cannot and will not change.”  
It is no surprise that Balfour is a hero to the Zionists. What is surprising is that he is a hero to a prominent Labour politician.
It should be noted that like most non-Jewish Zionists, Balfour also didn’t like Jews very much either. He told Chaim Weizmann, President of the Zionist Organisation and Israel’s first President, that ‘he agreed with some of Cosima Wagner’s ‘anti-Semitic postulates’. Apparently Germany’s Jews had
captured the German stage, press, commerce and universities and were putting into their pockets, only a hundred years after emancipation, everything the Germans had built up in centuries”. [Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, p. 153].
As Leonard Stein noted, if Balfour was an ardent Zionist, “it was not out of a sentimental tenderness for Jews”. When the leader of British Jewry, Lucien Wolf, appealed to him to intercede with the Russian government to end Jewish persecution, Balfour “admitted that the treatment of the Jews was abominable beyond all measure”, but went on to remind Wolf that “the persecutors had a case of their own”.  See Centrepiece of imperial strategy.
Corbyn apparently passed the invitation to speak to Thornberry who was only too happy to pay tribute, on behalf of the Labour Party, to someone who was both an anti-Semite and a white supremacist.
It is understandable that the Jewish Labour Movement should honour the memory of Balfour. The JLM’s sister party’ the almost defunct Israeli Labour Party organised a colour bar in Palestine. Jewish employers who employed Arabs were picketed by the Zionist trade union Histadrut
Historically Labour support for Zionism and colonisation in Palestine was on a par with its support for the British Empire. It was only a minority of Labour members under people like Fenner Brockway who supported the Movement for Colonial Freedom (renamed Liberation) from 1947 onwards.  The Attlee government built the welfare state on the backs of Black and Asian people.
The Kibbutz was portrayed as an oasis of socialism where there were no private property relations and everything was shared in common.  The fact that no Arab could be a member of the Kibbutz was ignored. The natives rarely featured in social democracy’s vision of the world. Today the Kibbutzim are no longer mentioned.
It was the Lebanon War in 1982 that led to a political realignment. Tony Benn, Eric Heffer and others on the Labour Left resigned from Labour Friends of Israel after the latter’s support for the Lebanon War. It was the Right who took up the cudgels for Zionism. This was because of the increasingly open support for the Israeli state from America. The Right of the Labour Party, as symbolised by Blair’s support for Bush’s war in Iraq, has always seen support for US foreign policy as axiomatic.
The Labour Left today has forgotten why Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn supported the Palestinians. Israel was seen, rightly, as the armed watchdog of US imperialism and the West, not as some kind of cuddly refuge for Jews searching for their identity. 
There should be no place in Labour for Israel’s ‘Right to Exist’
Thornberry made two statements that need to be challenged.  If you challenge the Israeli state’s ‘right to exist’ then you should not be in the Labour Party.  I wonder if Lady Nugee would have said the same about the Apartheid State’s ‘right to exist’. We should challenge every racist and ethno-nationalist state’s ‘right to exist’.  No state has a ‘right to exist’ least of all racist states.  Only human beings have the right to exist.  
The Israeli state is a special kind of state like its South Africa cousin of 25 years ago. It is a self-declared ‘Jewish state’ – which means it is a State of Jews, not merely Jews in Israel but throughout the world.  A Report by the Pew Research Centre Israel’s Religiously Divided Society showed that 48% of Israeli Jews support the physical expulsion of Israel’s Arab citizens, compared to 46% who don’t.
The Israeli state is the most racist state in the world. The Israeli Democracy Institute’s 2017 Report Jews and Arabs:  Conditional Partnership’ found that 2/3 Israeli Jews are opposed to Arabs buying land anywhere but in Arab areas (3% of Israel’s total land) and 25% oppose them buying any land!  This is the state that Emily Thornberry defends up to the point of expelling socialists from Labour. This is the state that Thornberry calls a ‘beacon of freedom’.
A Palestinian State
Thornberry’s response is that a Palestinian state should exist side by side with Israel. In other words Partition, segregation and ethnic cleansing.  Such a state wouldn’t even be a Bantustan. The Bantustans  in South Africa had greater powers than the enclaves envisaged for the Palestinians.
After 50 years of military dictatorship in the West Bank and Gaza (as well as the Golan Heights) there is no prospect of any Palestinian state emerging.  The leader of the Israeli Labour Party, Avi Gabbay made Labour’s position quite clear in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2.  
“I won’t evacuate settlements in the framework of a peace deal, If you are making peace, why do you need to evacuate?  If you are making peace, why do you need to evacuate?”
Without dismantling the settlements there can never be a two state solution. Gabbay is right. No Israeli government could possibly withdraw over ½ million settlers without a civil war. There is no political force in Israel that wants a 2 state solution.  Zionism has always claimed the whole of the Land of Israel, not half. God gave all of it!
Thornberry is aware of this.  She knows that the settlements are here to say. She also knows that Israel cannot give the vote or accord any basic democratic political or civil rights to the 5+ million Palestinians living under occupation without the end of the Jewish state.
As the Jewish National Fund, one of the main architects of Israeli apartheid made clear when challenged over its policy of only allocating land to Jews,
 A survey commissioned by KKL-JNF reveals that over 70% of the Jewish population in Israel opposes allocating KKL-JNF land to non-Jews, while over 80% prefer the definition of Israel as a Jewish state, rather than as the state of all its citizens.’
The situation in the Occupied Territories will continue indefinitely because Israel is not prepared to become a democratic state at the expense of being a Jewish state.  In reality there are no Occupied Territories. There is no border except in the heads of racist hypocrites like Thornberry, between Israel and the West Bank. The Green Line has gone. It does not appear on Israeli maps. In its place is an Apartheid state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan in which half the population has no rights whatsoever and a small proportion of the Palestinian, some 1.5 Israeli citizens are seen as a fifth column in Israel’s midst, awaiting a future move to ‘transfer’ them.
Those who talk of a non-existent Peace Process are deliberately drawing a shroud over the real issue, democratic rights for all Israelis and Palestinians.If Thornberry can’t understand that human beings should not be divided on grounds of ethnicity it is she who should be expelled.
Israel uses torture routinely against Palestinian prisoners and it even uses it against children, Palestinian children of course. 60% of Palestinian children who are detained are tortured by Israeli forces.
Yet in what Asa Winstanley called ‘a groveling address in front of the Israeli ambassador at the Labour Friends of Israel annual dinner’ in November 2017, Emily Thornberry declared that
‘even today... modern Israel stands out as a beacon of freedom, equality and democracy, particularly in respect of women and LGBT communities.’
As Private Eye used to say:  ‘Pass the sick bag Alice.’

Tony Greenstein

7 August 2019

Tower Hamlets Council’s Decision to Refuse to Host the Big Ride for Palestine is both Cowardly & Shameful


The IHRA, the Pretext for this racism has nothing to do with opposing anti-Semitism and everything to do with Undermining Solidarity with Palestinians 

In what must count as one of the most shameful and racist decisions of a ‘Labour’ Council, Tower Hamlets refused last weekend to host the Big Ride for Palestine.
The reasons that Council officials gave were that raising money to fund sporting equipment for Palestinian children had “political connotations” and that the closing rally of this year’s bike ride could not go ahead in the borough “without problems”.
One wonders whether raising money for Israeli Jewish children would also have had political connotations. The stench of hypocrisy is overbearing.
 Officials told organisers there was a risk speakers might express views which contradicted the council’s policies on community cohesion and equality. Fancy that.  You would never guess that we live in a democracy.
This is what free speech under a New Labour Council is about. I guess we should be grateful. If this were Israel we could be locked up without trial – it’s called administrative detention.
What kind of Orwellian world do we live in when supporting children in the world’s largest open prison, Gaza, might be thought to promote inequality? How could this possibly affect ‘community cohesion’ – unless they are saying Jewish residents would be upset by supporting Palestinian children?
The real reason for banning The Big Ride was that supporting the event might breach the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism because of references on the Big Ride’s website to apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
In other words calling Israel what it is – an apartheid state and referring to ethnic cleansing is considered to be ‘anti-Semitic’. What this really means is that telling the truth is now anti-Jewish! The IHRA is effectively saying that Jews are racist, because if you are anti-racist you are anti-Jewish. 
There is no doubt that Israel is a racist and apartheid state.  It is a state where the Chief Rabbi of Safed, a government employee, backed up by dozens of other rabbis, issued an edict forbidding Jews to rent homes to Arabs.
It is a state where hundreds of demonstrators come onto the streets in Afula to protest the sale of a house to an Arab. It is a state where hundreds of Jewish communities are legally entitled, under the 2011 Admissions Committee Law to bar Arabs from their communities.
It is a state where education is segregated and according to the 2006 Israeli Democracy Institute Survey, 62% of Israelis wanted the government to encourage local Arabs to leave the country and 75% of Jews didn’t approve of sharing apartments with Arabs.
It is a state where not one single Arab village or town has been created since 1948, whereas hundreds of Jewish communities have been created.
As for ethnic cleansing it is the official policy of the Israeli government, of whatever political hue, to increase the number of Israeli Jews and reduce the size of the Arab population. That is why no Palestinian refugees are allowed to return whereas any Jew is allowed to ‘return’ regardless of whether they have been there before.
It is a state where the Ministry of Education can ban a book, Borderlife, about a relationship between Jewish and Arab teenagers because it gives the wrong message.
Education officials explained that
intimate relations between Jews and non Jews, and certainly the option of formalising them through marriage and having a family... is perceived by large segments of society as a threat to a separate identity
According to Dalia Fenig a senior education official:

“Young people of adolescent age tend to romanticizing and don’t, in many cases, have the systemic vision that includes considerations involving maintaining the identity of the people and the significance of assimilation.”

In other words teenagers might not yet have had time to assimilate the racist ideology behind a ‘Jewish’ state which says that mixed relationships between Jew and Arab are forbidden.
As for ethnic cleansing where would one start?  The demolition of 100 Palestinian homes in July in Sur Baher, Jerusalem might be a start.
Of course the IHRA doesn’t actually say that calling Israel an Apartheid state or a state that practices ethnic cleansing is anti-Semitic.  It doesn’t have to. It is vague enough so that officials will interpret it cautiously excluding anything controversial that might cause ‘problems’ later. That is how bureaucracies operate.
Seven of its eleven illustrations of ‘anti-Semitism’ relate to Israel. The preamble to the 11 illustrations states that:
Contemporary examples of antisemitism... could, taking into account the overall context, include...
But of course Council officials and politicians don’t do context. They apply the definition as if the examples are inflexible and straightforward. 
The IHRA definition has been subject to excoriating criticism by a host of academics and legal scholars such as Geoffrey Robertson QC, who described it as ‘not fit for purpose’. Hugh Tomlinson QC described the IHRA as ‘chilling’ free speech and the Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen Sedley was similarly critical. Even David Feldman, Director of the Zionist Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism described the IHRA as bewilderingly imprecise’. Even the person who drafted it, Kenneth Stern attacked the misuse of the IHRA saying:
The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus.
No amount of reasoned argument or logic can withstand the unanimity of bourgeois support for Zionism.  The IHRA is a necessary defence of British foreign policy support for Israel. 
Last week even Dr Geoffrey Alderman, a maverick right-wing Zionist academic and former Jewish Chronicle columnist, slated the IHRA definition. Like Geoffrey Robertson he described the IHRA as not fit for purpose. The IHRA’s 11 examples ‘embed numerous internal contradictions.’
Yet despite all of this criticism the IHRA continues on its way because it is important to dress up support for the West’s armed guard dog in the Middle East in rosy and comfortable colours.
The actions of Tower Hamlets Council are of course outrageous. Tower Hamlets is a heavily Bengali and Muslim area. The idea that supporting the Palestinians is anti-Semitic is not likely to gain much support in the area and it should be used to remove this politically corrupt and racist New Labour council which owes its existence to the undemocratic removal of the previous independent left administration of Lofthur Rahman, by a combination of the High Court and Tory right-winger Eric Pickles.
But above all it is incumbent on the trade unions, which were responsible for the Labour Party adopting the IHRA to now recognise that their existing policies on supporting BDS and the Palestinians are incompatible with support for the IHRA.
My own branch Unite SE/6246 has sent an open letter to Len McLuskey calling for UNITE to reverse its support for the IHRA. Activists in UNISON and other trade unions should be doing the same. Our message should be simple – support the Palestinians or support Israeli Apartheid and Zionism.
On October 12th Palestine Solidarity Campaign will be holding a trade union conference. They have so far ensured that the IHRA is kept off the agenda as the Socialist Action leadership of PSC is anxious not to come into conflict with the trade union leaders. It provides an ideal opportunity for us to raise the issue nonetheless.
Our message must be that the IHRA must go.  It has nothing to do with fighting anti-Semitism and everything to do with supporting racism and apartheid in Israel.
Tony Greenstein

See Palestine activists hit back after council refuses to host event over antisemitism

8 November 2013

Israeli Democracy Index Confirms Jewish Racism is Rampant

48.9% of Jews agree with the statement that Jews should have more rights than non-Jews

Ethiopia's Black Jews Demonstrate Against Israeli Jewish Racism - Many Israeli Jews don't see them as Jewish  unlike non-Jewish white Russians
 An Israeli comrade writes:

'This is the Haaretz English story on this important poll, which happens to be the 'positive spin' version... The Hebrew story (link below), written by a different journalist (Jonathan Lis), is the 'realistic version' pointing to the same stats but in a rather different light, which is far more critical. The Hebrew header reads "Democracy Index: Half the Public Supports Preferential Rights to Jews" (obviously, the "public" here is the Jewish public). The Hebrew version starts by pointing to the finding that 48.9% of the the Jews agree with the statement that Jews should have more rights than non Jews, a significant increase since 2009. It then focuses on the deterioration of the 'balance' between democratic and Jewish state where, among those polled, 'democratic' loses in favor of 'Jewish'.

As is clearly demonstrated by the article header and sub-header, below, the English version is a different story altogether, focusing on those parts of the survey whose results display "improvements" over past years. For example, Arabs are no longer the number one on the list of undesirable neighbors; since the last survey, they've been replaced by foreign workers... (They surely must feel much better about this one...) Only towards the end of the English version coverage of the ugly reality returns, but with less emphasis and detail than can be found in the Hebrew version.'

Israeli flag flying over Maale Adumim - Israeli settlement just outside Jerusalem
English: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.550838
Hebrew: http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politi/.premium-1.2133862
Among Israeli Jews - Poll: Jewish majority more important than West Bank sovereignty

Fewer Jewish Israelis favor policies that encourage Arab emigration away from Israel, compared with past.

By Judy Maltz | Oct. 6, 2013

Almost two-thirds of Israeli Jews believe it is more important for their country to maintain a Jewish majority than to maintain sovereignty over the West Bank. Only 21 percent feel maintaining sovereignty over the West Bank is more important than preserving the Jewish majority and 7 percent believe both are equally important.
Campaign poster for Shimon Gafsou, mayor of upper Nazareth, who is so proud of the title 'racist scum' that he put up posters to that effect, promising not to change the "Jewish character" of the city and to prevent the building of an Arab school. Photo: QUIQUE KIERSZENBAUM

These were among the findings of the 2013 Israeli Democracy Index,   published Sunday by the Guttman Center for Surveys. The index, released annually since 2003, measures trends in public opinion.

The findings also indicate what might be considered a softening in attitudes of Jewish Israelis toward the country’s Arab citizens. About 44 percent of Jewish respondents said this year that they favored government policies that encourage Arab emigration, down from 51 percent in 2010 and 54 percent in 2009 – the last two times this question was asked in the survey.

Similarly, the survey shows that Arabs no longer top the list of neighbors Israeli Jews would consider undesirable, replaced now by foreign workers. Almost 57 percent of Jewish respondents said that having foreign workers as neighbors would bother them. Next in line among those considered undesirable neighbors for Israeli Jews were an Arab family (48 percent), a homosexual couple (30.5 percent), ultra-Orthodox Jews (21 percent) and Shabbat desecrators (10 percent).

Slightly over 46 percent of Arab respondents said that having homosexual neighbors would bother them. Next in line among those considered undesirable neighbors for Arab Israelis were a Jewish family (42 percent) and foreign workers (31 percent).

The Israeli Democracy Index bases itself on a representative sample of 1,000 Israeli adults. The following are some other key findings published on Sunday:

A substantial majority of Jewish Israelis (63 percent) believes soldiers do not have the right to refuse to serve in the West Bank because they oppose the occupation. Slightly over half believe soldiers do not have the right to disobey an order to evacuate settlements either.

More than half of Israeli Jews (52 percent) believe that human and civil rights organizations, such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and B’Tselem, harm the state, while 36 percent disagree.

Overall, young Israeli Jews are more patriotic and right-wing in their leanings than their elders.
Close to half (49 percent) of all Israeli Jews believe that Jewish citizens should have more rights than non-Jewish citizens.

Most Jews feel that critical national decisions should be determined by a Jewish majority, both on matters of peace and security (67 percent) and on socioeconomic issues (57 percent).

Roughly one out of every three Israeli Jews (31 percent) believes that only Jews should determine the outcome of a referendum on peace that includes withdrawal from the West Bank.

Three-quarters of Israeli Jews believe Israel can be both a Jewish and democratic state. Only one-third of Arab respondents shared this view.

Roughly one-third of the Jewish respondents think the Jewish component of Israel’s definition as a Jewish and democratic state is more important, while 29 percent attach greater importance to the democratic component. The percentage of respondents who prefer the combined definition “Jewish and democratic” has declined steadily in recent years, reaching 37 percent this year.

The share of Jewish respondents who would choose democratic principles over Jewish religious law in the event of a conflict between the two is 43 percent – much higher than the 28 percent who would opt for the latter.

Jewish Israelis most frequently assess the country’s overall situation as “so-so” (43 percent,) with 37 percent calling it “good” and 18 percent calling it “bad.” A much higher percentage of Israeli Arabs (39 percent) consider the situation “bad.”

An overwhelming 83 percent of Jewish Israelis said they are proud to be Israelis and two-thirds said they feel part of the state and its problems. Among Arabs, only a minority of 40 percent said they felt proud to be Israeli or have a sense of belonging to the country (28 percent).

About 42 percent of Israelis feel the right to live with dignity is upheld “too little” or “far too little” in the country.

Almost two-thirds of Israelis believe it is important to narrow socioeconomic gaps in the country even if this means raising taxes.

As in past surveys, the army topped the list of institutions and public servants deemed trustworthy by Jewish Israelis, followed by the president of Israel. Among Arab citizens, the Supreme Court topped the list, followed by the media.

Although the assessment of Knesset members’ performance has improved somewhat, compared with previous surveys, more than two-thirds of Israelis still feel that their politicians are more concerned with their own interests than those of the public.