It seems to me that the headline "Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel" isn't supported by the survey. E.g. the "there is apartheid in Israel" (58%) wasn't a yes or no question, but one in which they were allowed to answer "in some ways" (39%) or "in most ways" (19%). "In some ways" could mean anything - e.g. there are separate schools/roads. As to "would support an apartheid regime", that doesn't sound like something which was asked (or for that mater, defined) either, but extrapolated from the other questions about Apartheid-like measures which could be implemented if the West Bank was annexed. This paragraph is revealing: "The survey conductors say perhaps the term "apartheid" was not clear enough to some interviewees. However, the interviewees did not object strongly to describing Israel's character as "apartheid" already today, without annexing the territories. Only 31 percent objected to calling Israel an "apartheid state" and said "there's no apartheid at all." What does "no apartheid at all" mean? Isn't it really a binary question, yes or no Israel is (or should be) broadly comparable to South African apartheid? By the logic of this survey, any country with a put upon minority (e.g. a large amount of US black males being banned from voting as they are convicted criminals) is an "Apartheid state" because there are aspects of the society which reflect some aspects of Apartheid. But logically that's wrong. As we are all well aware, calling a state an "Apartheid" state is a major allegation and one which needs to be carefully defined for it to be meaningful and useful in a discussion. I'm not saying this survey isn't worrying or difficult - but I'm not sure the results can be taken as far (or close to as far) as the article wants them to be taken.
Western-backed Syrian rebels say kill foreign Islamic State (Reuters)