this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
24 points (92.9% liked)

Europa / Europe and the EU + EEA

1244 readers
94 users here now

A community for all things to do with Europe as well as the EU/EEA.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Israelis aren't Jews. The Torah is literally against the creation of the state.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How many do have duel citizenship?

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

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

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Western media continues to do damage control for a genocidal fascist state by conflating antizionism with antisemitism.

[–] 5ibelius9insterberg@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is what you get for repeating: „All Israelis love Bibi, but everyone in Gaza hates Hamas“ over and over again.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 8 points 1 day ago

Oh, it's fully intentional. The Zionists need antisemitism. They are as dangerous to Jews as they are to everyone they hate.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"SWG among a national sample of 800 adults"

That's like a single metropolitan neighborhood sample size.

I also think it should have an additional question about Israelis, tbh.

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Using 800 to estimate 59,095,757 people's views doesn't seem very credible to me, personally, but that aside what exactly are you proposing? Is it just anti-jewish commentary and ideology that needs to be cracked down on or is it also mentions of Israel? Who gets to decide the distinction?

This isn't exactly a new problem so don't expect raising awareness to magically solve it.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But the problem is it's randomized, with a minor bias towards the ones available to poll and the ones who actually respond to it. There is an equal chance that all 800 were statistical outliers as there is a chance 0 were, and every possible combination between the two. 95% ±3 means more than 1 in 20 such studies (if the study were repeated in large number) could be completely bogus and 97% means 1 in 33.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Seems like a lot of words to not disagree with anything I said.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think everything you've said about this has been pretty ignorant, my dude.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world -1 points 1 day ago
[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 0 points 1 day ago

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