General UK Media

Yachad poll of UK Jews and Israel compromised by loaded questions


Cross posted by Judy Keiner at Times of Israel

Lots of headlines yesterday in the UK and Israel about a claimed totally independent survey done by IPSOS MORI, that says a huge percentage of UK Jews feel Israeli policies re settlements make them feel ashamed, the world is going to impose more sanctions if Israel doesn’t get out of the settlements, etc. (A Guardian report by Harriet Sherwood, uncritically citing the survey results, has been shared over 4000 times.)

yachadsurveybias

Which is really strange, because a genuinely independent carefully sampled and non-loaded question survey of UK Jews at the time of the Israeli elections this year found that a huge majority of UK Jews supported Bibi Netanyahu.

Well, the research may have been technically assembled and carried out by IPSOS MORI, but it will have been shaped and the questions devised by the organisation that paid for it, Yachad, and the three retired academics who wrote the covering report, whose views are all in line with those promoted by Yachad, the UK equivalent of JStreet.

You can have all sorts of highly sophisticated number crunching methodology and convincing surrounding kosher social science apparatus attached.

You can even have a section of questions which appear to go against your usual message, just so no-one can claim you’re only asking questions which suit your agenda.

But that’s just a nifty way of covering your back.

Because your key aim is to show that a huge percentage of your respondents agree with your core messages. The other questions are just wrapping paper.

The key way to get a totally biased survey outcome matching the message you really want to put across is this: is feed your respondents a whole set of statements that embody the political views you want to push, and then invite them to agree or disagree.

Social Science Research Methods 101: if you invite people to agree or disagree with loaded statements, a much higher proportion will agree than if you measured their opinions by enabling them to have a choice of what statements they agree with and include some that represent very different political positions.

In the chart above, taken from the survey, the key example of loaded bias that demonstrates that this Yachad poll is a carefully tarted up bit of opinion management posing as a valid social science survey. The statements are all core Yachad positions which the respondents are invited to agree or disagree with. No statements of opposing or contrasting positions on offer.

Not only that, but they’re almost all couched in highly emotional language, adding further bias to draw sympathy. Stuff like “I feel a sense of despair every time Israel approves further expansion of settlements on the West Bank” and “There will be unstoppable international pressure for sanctions against Israel if it continues to expand the settlements.”

What you don’t get are any alternative choices like “The conflict isn’t really about settlements” or “The major obstacle to peace is Palestinian intransigence”.

This Yachad survey, with its beautifully designed presentation and its array of eminent profs and highly-professional pollsters, must have cost a bomb.

I wonder who paid?

But whoever did, and however beautiful it looks, and however elaborate the statistical percentages, with questions as loaded as those, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

53 replies »

  1. If people are biased in favour of agreeing with loaded statements they were presumably also biased in favour of statements like:

    “Israeli control of the West Bank is vital for Israel’s security”

    “The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a land of their own”

    “There is no credible Palestinian partner for Israel to make peace with”

    …which were also asked of respondents?

  2. Wriggle all you want but there is an undeniable message. Over a 1000 respondents is a massive sample of a population of around 270,000. Political opinion pollsters in the UK typically use a sample of 500 out of a population of 60+ million.The margin for error, in polling terms must be very small.

    The last refuge of claiming ” loaded questions” can’t wash away the fact that the poll shows that the self appointed ” leaders” of the ” Jewish community” and the sans cullottes of the nut job fringe are hopelessly out of step with the majority of the Jewish population.

    It is time for the Board of Deputies, and others, to start representing the Jewish population properly or stop claiming to be representative. They might also find it an opportune time to revisit the practice of funding assorted gaggles of fringe crazies.

    • There is no credible Palestinian partner for Israel to make peace with” YES OR NO
      The major obstacle to peace is Palestinian intransigence”. YES OR NO
      There can be no prospect of peace unless and until the Palestinians stop incitement YES OR NO

  3. No, doesn’t count. The single table is so loaded with emotionally loaded Yachad position statements that the answers to it aren’t valid. They cannot be relied on, whatever the answers to other tables are. Very, very basic principles of social science bias avoidance.

    • But are you saying that the answers to these statements:

      “Israeli control of the West Bank is vital for Israel’s security”

      “The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a land of their own”

      “There is no credible Palestinian partner for Israel to make peace with”

      …are also unreliable then, under the same basic principles of social science bias avoidance?

    • Stephen Bellamy, I thought the Deputies were elected? Why do you say they do not represent the Jewish population?

      • Virtually every democratic system has a ‘democratic deficit’, ie. is, to some extent, not 100% representative of the pool of people of which it is supposed to be. Some have a greater deficit than others.

        The Board of Deputies’ deficit is very substantial (to take one very simple example, its gender balance, average age and geographic spread are way out of kilter with the Jewish community as a whole). There are a number of reasons for that that I’m happy to talk about if you’re interested: http://gabrielquotes.org.uk/contact/

        • At the 2015 General Election, 650 MPs were elected of these 191 were women. In total, since 1918, there have been fewer women MPs – 450 – than there are men who currently sit in the House of Commons. There are slightly more women in the UK then men. I don’t doubt that average age is also out of kilter. What should we make of that? Should we discount the UK House of Commons for this?

          I would expect geographic spread of the Board of Deputies would be in line with the geographic spread of the Jewish population as it is directly elected by synagogues. However the number of synagogues is not spread evenly through the UK. Greater London, South Hertfordshire, south-west Essex, Greater Manchester, Gateshead, Leeds, Greater Glasgow have the bulk of the synagogues and I expect the non affiliated would live mostly in those areas. Do you have figures to dispute this? What should we make of that? Would Yachad have a more representative spread?

          • It depends what you mean by ‘discount’. We shouldn’t treat the House of Commons as a gospel representative of the views of the British people for exactly the reasons you specify: there are groups that are massively under-represented.

            Re. the Board, I am of course aware that synagogues are not evenly spread throughout the UK. However, a substantially higher proportion of Deputies are based in London than the proportion of synagogues that are in London (ie. a number of shuls in ‘the regions’ select as their Deputy, often uncontested, a London-resident person). The gender/ age/ sexuality/ disability disparities with the Board are of particular concern though.

            I don’t really understand your question, “Would Yachad have a more representative spread?” The point that the original commenter made was that, as this survey shows, the Board’s Israel policy doesn’t align with Anglo-Jewry’s views on Israel. There are a number of reasons for that disparity, the Board’s intrinsic unrepresentativeness – which isn’t to its unique discredit, as you point out, Parliament is hardly much better – being one of them.

        • I agree with your 1st sentence, but only as an academic observation. In practical terms, however, ‘elected’ (assuming free & fair elections) has to mean ‘representative’, otherwise the whole concept of democracy means nothing. Should we rather replace an elected Parliament with one ‘selected’/pre-selected by a group of ‘experts’ Iran-style? The fact that the elected Deputies are not representative in terms of demographic profile (gender, average age, etc.) is neither here nor there. The same may be said about the UK Parliament, or any parliament in the world at this time. I’m happy to hear your arguments, but minority opinions that blame ‘the system’ generally bring to my mind ‘sore losers’ or ‘sour grapes’. Granted, electoral systems are not perfect — the ‘1st past the post’ UK one certainly isn’t and in many ways the Parliament cannot be said to be representative. The Israeli system is certainly more representative, yet you still have a problem with its results. It seems like the old problem of ‘whoever disagrees with my opinion is wrong and not representative’.

          With Diaspora Jews, the concept of ‘representative’ is particularly problematic, because it is unclear what is the population they are supposed to represent. If the only thing you ever do ‘as a Jew’ is criticise Israel — should you be entitled automatically to elect deputies, virtue of the ‘accident’ of having been born ‘with Jewish blood’? The survey mentions in one place “highly assimilated Jews”. To what degree of assimilation is the person still ‘a British Jew’ (rather than just ‘British’) and hence his/her opinions are held to have some sort of ‘special significance’ when it comes to Israel?

          BTW, I asked you a question on the Times of Israel thread, would you mind having a look? Thanks.

          • I’m not blaming the system or saying that Parliament/ BoD/ Knesset/ whatever is intrinsically illegitimate just because it’s not 100% demographically representative. That’s an impossibly high standard. I don’t think any elected body could possible be 100% demographically representative.

            What I’m saying is:
            1. The Board exists (according to its Constitution and mission statement) to represent the views of the Jewish community to the wider world.
            2. The views of the Jewish community have, for once, been determined by an opinion poll. Unlike politicians in ‘real life’, Jews rarely get these opportunities because polls are expensive and rare. But just this once we happen to have a snapshot of communal opinion.
            3. The way the Board has been representing what it said were the views of the Jewish community turns out, according to the poll, not to be an accurate representation of the actual views of the Jewish community.
            4. That’s not to the Board’s discredit, because it’s not psychic and didn’t previously have the benefit of this polling. Now we know quite how large the gap is, the real test is how the Board will respond, both on this specific issue (I think a commission of Deputies and non-Deputies should review BoD Israel policy, personally) and more generally (how are we going to seek to make the BoD more representative of Jewish communal opinion?)

            As to your thoughts about how we define Who Is A Jew?, that’s an age-old debate but I’d be wary of a situation where anyone was able to determine whether or not another person is Jewish. As a Liberal Jew [who keeps kosher, regularly runs synagogue services as a lay minister, has taught cheder for more than 8 years, works for a Jewish charity, spent a year as director of a Jewish youth movement…], there are plenty of Orthodox Jews who would be happy to determine that I’m not Jewish. I know they’re wrong. I wouldn’t want to be sitting in judgment on other Jews either.

            Finally, I saw your question on ToI but unfortunately I don’t have the information. I’m not one of the research team. They might provide it to you if you ask them though?

            Shabbat shalom!

            • 1-3. I don’t see how the Board does not “represent the views of the Jewish community to the wider world”. Even according to the Yachad poll (and — let’s face it — if Yachad wanted a fair poll it would have involved in its design and execution people who hold opposite opinions), a clear majority of British Jews strongly opposes BDS, sanctions against Israel, etc. A clear majority favours the 2-state solution — and that’s also the prevailing Board message. A clear majority says says that the Palestinians must recognise Israel as the Jewish State… You can cherry-pick certain responses that agree more with your own opinions, but even they are usually in minority — like the issue of sanctions. By the way, the sanctions question is confusingly worded “I would be prepared to support some sanctions against Israel if I thought they would encourage the Israeli government to engage in the peace process”. It amounts to a straw man proposition: the implication is that the Israeli government is unwilling to engage in the peace process and needs “encouraging”. Under that set of hypothetical assumptions, 24% said that they would support sanctions. But do they actually believe that those assumptions are correct? Why not ask them directly: what do you think is the single biggest obstacle to peace — and let them choose among a set of carefully balanced options (on one hand, ‘Israel to stop settlements’ and on the other hand ‘Palestinians to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people’)?

              4. I find your suggestion of a “commission of Deputies and non-Deputies” undemocratic. Why non-Deputies? Who will appoint them and why, when there is an elected body? The idea that in a democratic system the elected body should ‘conform’ to whatever seems to have come out of an opinion survey is (assuming that it’s genuinely innocent) extremely naive. Policies are set by elected bodies; which don’t have to align their views to the results of opinion surveys, especially when the latter are suspect of politically-motivated manipulation.

              I totally agree that it’s an age-old problem. I see myself as a liberal Jew (usually participating in Reform services). But I think that inclusion always comes at a cost and the cost is compliance with some sort of ‘red line’ (that’s why ‘Jews for Jesus’ are not usually included as Jews). Another example: if you want to be included on the Board of Deputies, then you MUST respect its basic role, to “represent the views of the Jewish community to the wider world”. You can try to change things from WITHIN. But when you write a letter to “the outer world” (as Yachad did by writing a letter asking David Cameron to put pressure on Netanyahu), then you have broken that basic tenet and should no longer be included. You may still think you should sit with me on the Board; but I don’t think so. If you’ve converted to Christianity, you may still think you are a Jew; but I certainly don’t think so — you crossed a red line. See the point?

        • Correct that the deficit is substantial.
          The Reform, Progressive & Liberal Synagogual representation is vastly over represented.
          It’s at least 50% whereas is percentage of Anglo Jewry is a much lower number.
          There is a suspicion that the Reform etc have negotiated better terms financially to enable their synagogues to send more Deputies.
          For example, Finchley United, with a membership of over 3,500 sends 2 Deputies.
          Finchley Reform and Finchley Progressive between them send 6 deputies representing a total membership of less than a fifth of Finchley United.
          This pattern is repeated throughout the country.
          The Liberal group tends to favour Yachad’s policies.

  4. Of course I am, Gabriel Webber.

    The whole survey is compromised by the presence of such clusters, and by the binary agree/disagree choices made.

    But then we have to remember that this is a Yachad sponsored and very expensively paid for survey– devised by a highly agenda driven outfit, one of whose main objectives is to persuade the Jewish community and the wider community that most UK Jews share Yachad views– actually a small minority of UK Jews’ views (see JC surveys which **are** valid on UK Jews candidate preferences in both Israeli and UK elections this year). And the retired profs are all long time sympathisers with or in the case of at least one of them very strongly supportive of Yachad and Peace Now views.

    So sponsor/bankroller inherent bias and reporter/analyst inherent bias. However lovely and noble the profs are as individuals and however much they think they’re being unbiased.

    There are of course many other sources of bias in the Yachad survey, but I wrote a blog for the ToI, not an academic critique.

    One further example is the agreement/disagreement presentation of opinions.

    This forces the respondent to make one of two choices. So with an opinion that’s a positive statement, especially one with emotional overtones, he’s much more likely to agree than disagree. But a better tuned poll would offer a much wider range of choices from “agree somewhat” to “strongly agree”, and it would also have a “no opinion” and or “don’t know” category, because that’s nearer to how real people think, and it also means the respondent needs more time to reflect, and is less likely to tick a box without too much thought.

    But anyway, offering a set of highly emotional binary choice options it’s rather like saying, “Mmm” in a conversation.

    Like a set of EU referendum questions along the lines of

    “I shall be devastated if Britain leaves the EU, so we should stay in” AGREE/DISAGREE

    “Britain’s place in the world will be permanently damaged if we leave the EU, so we should stay in” AGREE/DISAGREE

    Even if you have elsewhere in the survey statements like

    “Britain should leave the EU” AGREE/DISAGREE

    and

    “Britain would be better off out of the EU” AGREE/DISAGREE

    • From the very first paragraph of the methodology section…
      “The questionnaire comprised about 70 attitude statements, in most cases framed as fixed-choice, Likert scale items
      in which the respondent was asked to express his or her level of agreement or disagreement on a five point scale…
      We were careful to balance the number of statements that were supportive of Israel’s position against those that rejected or criticised its stance; and to balance the number of stridently expressed views of a hawkish and dovish kind. ”

      So no binary questions but (just as you suggest) a wider range of choices on a five point scale.

      Have you actually spoken to any of the academics involved or even had sight of the original poll?
      Indeed… have you even read the report?

      • I have indeed read the report. Carefully. There are some questions that offered a five point scale.They’re all about fairly innocuous topics which Yachad isn’t really interested in, but give the appearance that this poll was all about reporting the views of UK Jews for the first time in 10 years. You can see the display of those in the report. But really this entire report was a wrapper round their core purpose. Table B3. That appears from the discussion to have been presented as a binary yes/no. The statements exactly match Yachad’s core messages that it puts out time after time. Unless of course the results have been manipulated by statistical clustering to turn a five scale actual set of responses into an apparent binary yes/no. In which case, another decision taken for political purposes which would misrepresent the real nature of the responses.The actual discussion in the report is somewhat opaque on this subject. And this is the table that generated Yachad’s headline reports that all the mainstream press carried. And Yachad and Hannah Weisfeld went on the offensive claiming that the views in B3 are now mainstream amongst UK Jews. Really dishonest stuff.

      • ” Most items have six response options: strongly agree, tend to agree, neither agree nor disagree, tend to disagree, strongly disagree, don’t know. Figures quoted in this summary typically represent the total of the two agree percentages set against the total of the disagree percentages. Given the variable number of responses in the middle (neutral) category, we represent the balance of opinion in the form “X% as against Y%” or sometimes simply as “X%:Y%”. We have disregarded the small proportion of “don’t know” responses when computing these percentages.” (report footnote)

        It doesn’t tell you which ones do and don’t. Merging “tend to agree” to bulk up “strongly agree” is again highly misleading. It would have been more honest to have had an “agree” category, so that the response choices would be “strongly agree”, “agree” and “tend to agree” “neither agree nor disagree” “strongly disagree”. “disagree” “tend to disagree”. On table B3, there appear to be no respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed or wanted to choose the don’t know option. Or the poll reporters decided they could disregard those as they were only a “small proportion”. Well, great. Very scientific. What is “a small proportion” in scientific terms? This is a degree of poll response manipulation that shows that table B3 is even more misleading than would be apparent from the choice of highly emotional statements which happen exactly to match Yachad’s main political messages.

  5. If I were British, I’d be ashamed by how dishonest the BBC is in its reporting – and start a boycott of the BBC by refusing to pay the license fee.

    What if millions of Brits refused to pay the BBC “jizzya” and demand that the BBC stand on its own ???

  6. Gabriel, gender, age, geographic balances add up to an informal deficit. The democratic deficit in the Board is more formal. It is a bit like this….

    The other day my family elected me the supreme autocratic ruler of the village. Or rather, they selected me because nobody else in the house wanted to do the job. I was the only candidate. The rest of the people in the village are blissfully unaware of my new status and position. The few that maybe are aware, are extremely dubious about the idea.

    The fact is the vast majority of UK Jews have no say in the make up of the Board. More significantly they don’t want a say. They couldn’t give a holy crap.

    • Err… so let me see if I understood you correctly. So, you say that “It is time for the Board of Deputies, and others, to start representing the Jewish population”, the vast majority of which (again, you say) “don’t want a say. They couldn’t give a holy crap”. Yeah, an interesting opinion. Sorry, I’ve got a meeting now. Good-bye.

      • Didn’t say they didn’t want a say. I said they didn’t have any interest in the Board, and they were not interested in having any say in its make up. and in the Board speaking for them, particularly inaccurately. Obviously, it is preferable that the Board quit purporting to speak for the Jewish population that it doesn’t in any sense represent. This isn’t going to happen any time soon. Too many egos involved.

        Since the Board is going to go on falsely claiming it speaks for the Jewish population, it should make a better effort to speak for them more accurately.

        How did your meeting go ?

        • But Yachad does speak for the Jewish community, does it?
          Just like the lately unheard of (mercifully) Independent Jewish Voices, claiming that most British Jews are intimidated from expressing their views on Israel.
          Wonder who funds Yachad…..Weissfeld is very coy about that…probably JStreet put in a good word and gets money from the arch Jew/Israel hater, the Jew Soros.

  7. This poll is severely flawed. The results are not reliable.

    568 of the responses were generated by ‘snowballing’ – that is by selecting a group of 72 initial ‘seeds’ and then asking them to recruit their contacts. 568 is more than half the total sample size. The report (p50) says that the 72 were representative with respect to synagogue affiliation, age and place of residence. But how representative were they with respect to attitudes to Israel? Precisely how were the 72 selected? We are not told.

    The report says “The snowball sample over-represented Jews with a left-leaning political stance and those with post-graduate qualifications; this would have produced a dovish bias.”

    So IN MORE THAN HALF OF THE SAMPLE THERE WAS A DOVISH BIAS. Unmatched by a hawkish bias in the other half.

    And we still do not know the *extent* of the dovish bias – since we are not told how the initial 72 were selected.

    • “The 72 were representative with respect to synagogue affiliation, age and place of residence. But how representative were they with respect to attitudes to Israel?”

      How do you think the survey should have selected a sample based representatively on attitudes to Israel, *before* conducting a survey to determine what the prevailing attitudes were?

      • >>>”How do you think the survey should have selected a sample based representatively on attitudes to Israel, *before* conducting a survey to determine what the prevailing attitudes were?”

        Your answer is somewhat disingenuous. I don’t think that that’s what Jonathan is asking — he’s suspecting that the 72 were selected in a way which ensured that there views skewed the results. For instance, select 72 with a high proportion of Yachad sympathisers…

        • OK, but if he’s imputing that three independent academic professors at a British university published deliberately fraudulent research in the interests of an organisation that was paying them, that seems like quite an extreme claim to make without any specific evidence. I hope he has also reported it to the police since bribery is an offence under English law.

          • The Report ADMITS that those 72 and their recruits had a doveish bias. There is no countervailing hawkish bias in the rest of the sample. I do not have to “impute” anything. It is stated in the Report. Page 50.

          • Again, I feel that you are being deliberately disingenuous. “Independent academic professors” (are there any unacademic ones?) whose research methodology is err… let’s say ‘in line with’ their strongly held opinions (not to mention political opinions!) and those of their sponsors are very common. Most people, for instance, disparage global warming denying academic research, funded by oil companies.

            As I said previously, a credible poll would have had a supervisory committee including Zionists. Anything that is partisan is suspect and your recourse to the supposed infallibility of “independent academic professors” only increases that suspicion. Both Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz are “independent academic professors”. Both are skilled in research methodology. Yet they reach diametrically opposite conclusions. Not even a ‘nice try’, Gabriel.

          • But why are they presented in the report as agree/disagree?

            It makes it even worse.

            It makes it positively misleading.

            And that’s apart from the sampling bias created by the snowballing of respondents– 72 left leaning respondents who chose their contacts to produce 580 approx of the respondents.

            Yet the genuinely balanced and arms length JC polls shows that UK Jews are by a huge proportion (around 69%) not left leaning, based on their choices at the last UK election in May.

          • At least one of the professors is a specialist in the history and contemporary politics of Israel, previously a research chemist. No academic qualifications or expertise in poll construction or social science research methodology. Being a professor in one subject does not give you any authority in any other subject. Another professor is a specialist in social policy whose research expertise is in qualititative and the (now largely discredited) so-called action research– discredited since the late 1980s). Why did they engage these people to do this report, when only one of them has any expertise in polling. The common factor between the three of them is they are all broadly supporters of Yachad policies. One is a long term supporter of Peace Now. It is not a question of fraud. It would appear to be, on the part of at least some of them, not recognising their own limitations and those of the poll. I would myself never agree to be involved in research funded and sponsored by an advocacy organisation which does not have any expertise and background in polling, yet chooses to spend a vast amount of money on an exercise which is clearly not generated by a disinterested research query about the political make up of the UK Jewish population. I don’t know if the retired profs knew how Yachad was going to release information about this poll– and withhold the evidence until hours after the news reports had been printed. Frankly. it stinks.

    • No, the report says that the total snowball sample had a doveish bias. It doesn’t state that the initial seed of 72 had a doveish bias. On the contrary, it states that they were representative.

      • Self-appointed Zionists, perhaps. With regret, I believe that Yachad’s protestations of deeply-held ‘Zionism’ are rather ludicrous. I have heard Hannah speak and if that’s Zionism all I’d ask is that she be a bit less ‘Zionist’. And BTW, disingenuous answer again. You knew very well what I meant, yet you chose to deliberately posture. Not a credibility-inducing tactic, I’m afraid… All the best.

          • Hah, good one, Gabriel! So let’s see: self-appointed Zionist organisation Yachad has self-appointed to pay for a poll supervised by other self-appointed Zionists; which poll aimed to gauge the opinions of self-appointed Jews, in order to show that the elected representatives are not as representative as the self-appointed representatives…

            Well, thank you so much for explaining all this. Now it’s clear.

              • Good point.

                I herewith appoint myself a pro-Israel, pro-peace, Zionist organisation under the name of Uber-Yachad. In the name of Zionism and out of my huge loooove for Israel, I hereby call on all the good people in the world and also on David Cameron (what can we do, Corbyn is not yet PM…) to put pressure on the Jj… err on Netanyahu. And boycott his Jewish arse!! We will save Israel from the claws of the effing Israelis who have no clue about the real situation! Free Palestine!

                What’s wrong with our Zionism???? Why did they not accept us into the Zionist Federation??????? They’re not representative! They’re not representative!!!!!

  8. Hello again

    That’s code for ” don’t reply to me again I hate being pointed in the direction of inconvenient facts.”

    The Board exec don’t make policy, the Board in plenary session do. And the Board SPECIFICALLLY rejects the 2 state solution. That the honorary officers ignore Board policy and do their own thing raises other interesting questions.

  9. When you talk about bias in the Yachad survey then claim it’s clearly wrong because a huge majority of British Jews actually support Netanyahu, an alarm started ringing.

    On reading that article you linked to in the JC, it says that 60% OF THOSE WHO EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE would have voted for Netanyahu. When you read on, it appears that ony 67% expressed a preference, meaning that actually only 40% of the total sampled positively wanted Netanyahu. So you could equally spin it as 60% of British Jews expressed antipathy to Netanyahu. Plus it’s a completely different question to ask as to who you would vote for and then implying that, by expressing a preference, you automatically agree wholeheatedly with all their past and future actions.

    The Yachad survey was far better structured, asking a series of questions that you could agree with, disagree with (strongly or otherwise) or express no opinion. Therefore if you strongly disagreed with a statement, you could say so rather than the method of having to choose one of a number of statements, none of which might reasonably reflect your views. Or by implying, as the Israeli election survey did, that support for the man meant unquestioning support for all his actions.

    Aslo it’s incorrect to state, as adloyada did, that it was a binary choice. That’s the way the results were presented but if you look at the full survey many questions involved a 5-way choice involving Strongly Agree, Tend To Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Tend To Disagree & Strongly Disagree. Some wanted the respondent to pick which statement best reflected their views. So that’s one of his main objections blown out of the water. G=Here’s the link to the full document so you can see for yourself:

    http://yachad.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/British-Jewish-Attitudes-Towards-Israel-Yachad-Ipsos-Mori-Nov-2015.pdf

    The problem is not that the Yachad questions were wrong but that some people don’t like the answers.