60% of surveyed Palestinians “extremely supported” the military actions on Jan 7, an additional 15% somewhat supported. This was research done by Palestinians based locally.
There is a lot of hopeful thinking about humanity being conjured out of thin air, evidence on the ground is to the contrary. Many people on the ground support the conflict and expect to win. A great majority of Palestinians supported the attacks in January. A great majority of Israelis insist on a military response taken to its conclusion.
This is not the case of peoples being held hostage by their leaders. They might not like their leaders but they would put new ones in power who were substantially the same.
Consider that asking about support for Hamas attacks once the retaliation has stoked up hate is inherently going to be strongly affected by views shaped by the large-scale invasion and bombing, especially when a portion of those polled were in the war zone.
Now consider the extent to which provoking this kind of reaction was Hamas' goal in light of polls showing people wanting them out in a situation where their legitimacy as a political leadership kept dropping with each year without another election.
> This is not the case of peoples being held hostage by their leaders. They might not like their leaders but they would put new ones in power who were substantially the same.
After this? Maybe. Before this, the poll above shows people wanted them out, per above. Which might make one want to ask why the Israeli leadership is so easy to goad into over-reaction and what that says about the extent to which they want peace, because given the sharp but predictable changes in polling this reaction is clearly entirely counter-productive.
>support for Hamas attacks once the retaliation has stoked up hate is inherently going to be strongly affected by views shaped by the large-scale invasion and bombing
In September 2022 armed struggle was the most popular option for resolving the situation, support for that went up in Sept 2023. [1]
"32% support and 67% oppose the idea of a two-state solution"
Palestinians don't like their governments, this does not mean they would have governments that acted substantially differently. Support for violence is widespread and predates the Oct 7 attacks and Israeli response.
> Before this, the poll above shows people wanted them out, per above.
The older survey above did not address violence. Not liking your government does not imply that you oppose all of their general positions.
> In September 2022 armed struggle was the most popular option for resolving the situation, support for that went up in Sept 2023. [1]
The change is well within the margin of error given the poll size. It is also a question that does not in any way tease out how many of those support atrocities like the Hamas attacks vs. legal and legitimate armed resistance of an occupied population against the occupier (Israel is still considered an occupier by both the UN and EU due to the extent of their control). As such it's not relevant in response to the sentence of mine you quoted.
The other survey asked a very different question, specifically on views on the cease-fire specifically in Gaza. If we're going to compare polls that ask entirely different questions, it's far more reasonable to interpret that as directly contradictory to support for those kinds of attacks prior to the Israeli retaliation than it is to assume abstract support for armed struggle as a long-term means to solve the conflict as a whole implies support for a specific kind of action.
As it is, I stand by my claim that you can't meaningfully say anything about the pre-Israeli retaliation views on attacks of the type Hamas carried out when interviewing a population that at that point had been subject to a full-scale invasion, extensive bombing, and many thousands dead.
What we can say something about is about the specific questions people were asked in surveys, none of which to my knowledge included questions about large terror attacks on civilians.
> "32% support and 67% oppose the idea of a two-state solution"
"which was presented to the public without providing details of the solution" is key here. The poll I linked got 50% for “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.” A key part of the problem with asking open-ended about a two-state solution is that it forces people to impose their own idea of what that would mean in terms of borders and concessions from each side. E.g. if you were to ask about a two-state solution that involves Israel maintaining control over their illegal settlements in the West Bank, you're certainly likely to get far more opposition than the poll I linked.
As such what the difference in numbers tells us is just that the exact form of a two-state solution would have a significant impact on the potential for it to lead to peace.
> The older survey above did not address violence. Not liking your government does not imply that you oppose all of their general positions.
I did not suggest they did. It showed people wanted Hamas out, and replaced by the PA, and wanted them to give up their independent armed units, as I stated. The statement people were asked to agree or disagree with was "The PA should send officials and security officers to Gaza, to take over the administration there, with Hamas giving up its separate armed units"
Not wanting to give up all violence for an occupied population is unsurprising - it'd be far more surprising if most of a population of which the vast majority was born after the Oslo accords were signed yet has seen no signs of progress would believe in negotiation. It'd also be entirely unreasonable to demand of an occupied population to want to give up their legal right to armed resistance.
There is, however, a vast chasm between legitimate armed struggle and indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
Overreaction is the mildest thing I'd call it. It's an ongoing series of brutal war crimes, and if it's true that the reaction is considered spot-on that does not make it more justified.
At the same time, it is a demonstration of exactly why this reaction is counter-productive, because you can expect that exact same anger to grow in a Palestinian population where the vast majority had nothing to do with the attacks, nor have ever voted for - or even had a chance to vote for - Hamas (~80% of the current population of Gaza were either not born or not of voting age when Hamas won a minority of the vote), and who before this wanted Hamas out. Expect to see a massive resurgence in support for Hamas and even more extreme groups, and the net outcome being to have made Israel's security situation significantly worse.
It has also massively damaged support and sympathy for Israel internationally. E.g. many political forums I'm in used to see it as distasteful or too extreme to describe Israel as an apartheid state just a couple of years ago, while it is a widely supported view today, and the Israeli reaction is regularly described as ethnic cleansing with little opposition to the use of that term.
Put another way: Hamas has gotten exactly what it wanted out of this, and Israel has harmed its case and harmed its security massively.
If I were to make a prediction, it would be that unless Israel massively changes direction very quickly, the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks will contribute to making resistance to the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement start to crumble.
What I meant is that "overreaction" is a subjective term. From perspective of an average Israely (again, my subjective observation) it's not "over" reaction.
So
> the Israeli leadership is so easy to goad into over-reaction
From Israely leadership perspective it's NOT an overreaction, so it IS easy.
And in general "overreaction" is too emotionally charged. What would be an adequate reaction? Send us your X women we'll rape them? How do you measure "over"ness of a response to mass rape and torture?
It is irrelevant to the point I made that the average Israeli doesn't see it as overraction or that the leadership doesn't. The point is that they're demonstrating that they're either to dumb to realise what Hamas intent was (goading them into brutal violence to whip up support for further violence against Israel in return), or they're not interested in stopping the violence.
And as I point out "overreaction" was the mildest term I'd consider using. Emotionally charged would be to call it mass murder and ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. An adequate reaction would be not to brutally murder civilians and carry out extensive war crimes.
> How do you measure "over"ness of a response to mass rape and torture?
By lack of adherence to international law. By any willingness to cause mass murder and engage in ethnic cleansing.
At the very least, by the time the IDF response had led to the murder of more civilians than the attack of terrorists they are hunting, they ought to consider that it is no more morally acceptable for them to murder civilians than the other side, and they've become what they claim to want to destroy.
That doesn't answer my question, what would be an adequate reaction to more than thousand civilians brutally murdered, raped, etc? What Israel should've done as response that you would consider adequate for all sides, Palestinians, Israelis, and international community?
It's not my job to solve a problem successive Israeli governments created by their decades of violations of international law. Maybe they can't find something they consider an "adequate reaction" that doesn't involve mass murder and ethnic cleansing. That doesn't make those legitimate, or moral, or legal. That is a problem of their own making.
Consider that if it was reasonable for Israel to murder many times more civilians in response to a Hamas attack on civilians, it would be equally reasonable for Palestinians to murder many times more Israeli civilians than that again in response to the IDF attack on Palestinian civilians.
But nobody have an inherent right to a reaction they consider fair, if that reaction involves brutally violating the rights of innocent third parties.
It's no less terror when the IDF kills innocent civilians than when Hamas does, and seeking to legitimise it is no less immoral.
OK. But you do say what Israel shouldn't do, and at the same time, you can't provide any alternative solution. That's a really convenient position. I don't think doing nothing is an option here, so Israel does what the electorate expects it to do, that's what I meant in my comment about overreaction.
Also, I'm not sure who you mean by "they". Let's talk about specific people: past governments are mostly dead, current generation was born into this situation the same as Palestinians were born into theirs. "They" (current Israeli population) can't end the occupation; there are no feasible options. So what "they" should do in case a neighboring nation kills a thousand of "them"? Again, these people have nothing to do with occupation. The kids at that rave party most likely considered themselves as far left (just given the demographics). I myself am far left; I'm a part of "them", and I'm against the occupation, but no one is able to come up with a solution that would satisfy both sides.
So when you talk about "them", whom do you mean? Who'd you expect would find a solution if you can't even solve this smaller moral dilemma of what your country's response should be in case of Oct. 7?
edit: like, how can you overreact if no one can say what "non-over" reaction should be?
Sorry I think you got confused there by the unclear question in the report. The survey was conducted on 6th of October, one day before the Hamas attack (that's written on the report page). So "this war" can not mean that attack or the Israeli counterattack but probably the decade long conflict.
Also the survey shows people have very low trust in organisations, including Hamas.
The second link they posted is about [1], which was conducted well into the retaliation. So while it is clearly about the October 7 attack, it's also clearly massively affected by the feelings about the counter-attack.
From the article you quote, 51% of Gaza supported a 2 state solution, 75% face food insecurity, only 23% had a great deal or quite a lot of trust in Hamas, 52% had no trust at all in Hamas, most said their freedom of speech is limited or not free at all. Per the Washington Institute, 70% wanted PA to take over Gaza from Hamas in July 2023.
In regards to the 60% you quote, the question was framed as
"How much do you support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th?"
Given the majority of Gaza has trouble accessing the news/electricity, 95% don't trust Israel's news (in the same survey), what they know about Oct 7 is not what we know about Oct 7. Whether you and I believe it or not, there are plenty who think all the targets on Oct 7 were military, any atrocities are fake news, etc. And for a people suffering under blockade for 16 years, including a year of weekly peaceful protests in 2018-2019 that were repeatedly met with violence by the IDF (~200 killed, thousands maimed/disabled), living in slums with little to no electricity [1], seeing their lives deteriorate year after year as the world has forgotten them - it would not be surprising at all for them to support a "military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance."
Furthermore, we're talking about a survey taken in the midst of war where 46% have lost their homes (same survey you shared), 80% of Gaza is displaced, and all the thousands of civilian and children deaths and tens of thousands of maiming and mutilations etc. Hospitals destroyed. Bakeries and water towers bombed. Journalists and health care workers murdered. ... Unclear how many, but probably all of the population has PTSD; 90% of the children had PTSD back in 2021 [2]. So in that context, in the midst of such immense suffering, the answer to this question should not be surprising at all. It is completely rational.
However, it would not be accurate for us to conflate their answer with supporting atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct 7 (which is not something it seems the survey asked about).
>> Many people on the ground support the conflict
Re: Gaza, the survey you link says 90% "support a ceasefire that includes a mutual cessation of hostilities." So I don't think it's accurate to say the civilians of Gaza support this conflict.
There is a lot of hopeful thinking about humanity being conjured out of thin air, evidence on the ground is to the contrary. Many people on the ground support the conflict and expect to win. A great majority of Palestinians supported the attacks in January. A great majority of Israelis insist on a military response taken to its conclusion.
This is not the case of peoples being held hostage by their leaders. They might not like their leaders but they would put new ones in power who were substantially the same.
https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/12/05/palestinians-vie...
https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20...