Alerts

New Survey on Israel and Gaza Highlights Shifts in U.S. Public Opinion

Consistent sympathy for Israel remains low, and there is a prevailing perception of moral equivalence between both sides — matching previous surveys and reflecting a typical American notion of “fairness.”
Share this
Anti-Israel Protest, Washington, DC, 2017
(Ted Eytan/Wikimedia/CC BY-SA 2.0)

Table of Contents

Summary

A new Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA) survey of 322 random Americans conducted after the end of the Israel–Gaza war reveals nuanced and complex attitudes toward the conflict and its aftermath.

While sympathy for Israel remains stronger than for Hamas, there is a growing empathy for Palestinians as distinct from Hamas. Most respondents believe no side truly “won” the war, though those who did choose a winner overwhelmingly named Israel.

A majority still favors the Two-State Solution, but support drops by 10% when conditions like recognizing Israel as a Jewish state and renouncing the right of return are introduced. Nearly half of respondents assign shared responsibility to both Israeli and Palestinian citizens for their leaders’ actions, and most expect Hamas to violate the ceasefire first.

The results suggest that American perceptions are guided by notions of fairness, and highlight an opportunity for Israeli public diplomacy to influence views on Palestinian independence and post-war stability.

We launched a survey on October 13, 2025, among 322 random Americans (margin of error ±5%) to assess reactions related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Israel–Gaza war, and several related issues. The survey was conducted after President Trump left Israel following his speech at the Knesset marking the end of the war.

After a short introduction, we asked seven questions. The introduction text was as follows:

Mediated by the United States, the Israel–Gaza war ended this week.

A ceasefire took effect, Israeli hostages held by Hamas were to be released, and Israel would free Palestinian prisoners. A regional peace conference was also convened to discuss future possibilities. Under the agreement, Hamas would have no role in Gaza’s future administration and would be disarmed. Israel would withdraw to agreed-upon lines.

An international force would supervise the process. Now that the war has officially ended, we are interested in your opinions on several related issues. Please answer the following questions regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the future of regional dynamics.”

Empathy Question

Our first question — “Where does your empathy lie?” — has been a recurring one in our surveys over the past two years.

The result of this question aligns with the trend observed during the war: sympathy for Israel remains much higher than sympathy for Hamas, but is lower than the combined sympathy for “Palestinians (not Hamas)” and “Hamas.”

Perceived “Winner” of the War

Regarding who “won” the war, the general feeling was that “neither side” truly won. However, among those who did choose a side (about a third of our sample), Israel was favored by more than a 3-to-1 margin.

Responsibility for Actions

In light of protests and reports of antisemitic and anti-Israel behavior around the world, we compared our sample’s views on how much “ordinary citizens”—Palestinians and Israelis alike—are responsible for the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. The comparison shows nearly identical results: between 41% (for Palestinians) and 38% (for Israelis) of respondents felt that citizens bear “at least some” responsibility.

Breaking the Ceasefire

We found that more respondents (27%) believed Hamas would be the first to violate the ceasefire agreement, compared to about 20% who thought Israel would. About a quarter believed both sides were equally likely to break it, and only 5% believed there would be no violations at all.

Preferred Solutions

The “Two-State Solution” remains the most popular idea among our respondents, though about 32% were open to a demilitarized Palestinian state with international security forces. About 20% supported an autonomous Palestinian state under Israeli security control, and about a quarter supported a “one-state” solution with equal rights for both peoples. A small minority opposed any form of independent Palestinian statehood.

Conditions for Palestinian Statehood

There are several conditions that Israelis generally believe must be met before considering an independent Palestinian state. The most basic include:

  • Palestinian recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state,”
  • No demand for resettlement within Israel proper, and
  • The need for changes in Palestinian education and terrorism-related activities.

When these conditions were added as requirements, support for an independent Palestinian state dropped by about 10%, while support slightly increased (about 5%) for a demilitarized state with international security control or for an autonomous Palestinian region under Israeli security oversight. A similar increase occurred among those opposed to any Palestinian statehood.

Conclusions

  1. Overall sympathy toward Israel compared to the Palestinians remained unchanged with the war’s end — though there is slightly more empathy toward Palestinians.
  2. The general feeling is that “neither side” truly won, though among those who did choose a winner, Israel was preferred.
  3. About 8% more respondents believed Hamas would be the first to violate the ceasefire, though about a quarter felt both sides were equally likely to do so.
  4. There is a balanced sense of shared responsibility among both Israelis and Palestinians for the actions of their leadership.
  5. The Two-State Solution remains the majority preference, but support drops by 10% when conditions for Palestinian statehood (recognition, renunciation of “right of return,” and education reform) are introduced.

In summary, consistent sympathy for Israel remains low, and there is a prevailing perception of moral equivalence between both sides — matching previous surveys and reflecting a typical American notion of “fairness.” While support for the “Two-State Solution” remains solid, it weakens when tied to conditions requiring recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the abandonment of the right of return, and reforms to Palestinian education and anti-terror attitudes.

These findings offer an opportunity for Israeli public diplomacy to further shape these attitudes — both by refining support for Palestinian independence and by presenting realistic and viable alternatives to the traditional “Two-State Solution.”

FAQ
What were the key findings about public sympathy?
Americans showed greater sympathy for Israel than for Hamas, but slightly more overall empathy for Palestinians when separated from Hamas. This reflects a consistent trend seen in earlier JCFA surveys.
How did respondents view the outcome of the war?
Most participants believed that neither side “won” the conflict, but among those who did choose, Israel was seen as the victor by more than 3-to-1. This suggests recognition of Israel’s relative success without a sense of decisive victory.
What is the public stance on a Palestinian state?
The Two-State Solution remains the most favored approach. However, support falls by about 10% when respondents are asked to consider conditions such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, ending anti-Israel education, and renouncing terrorism. Some respondents preferred a demilitarized state under international supervision.
What do Americans believe about ceasefire violations and responsibility?
About 27% of respondents think Hamas will be the first to violate the ceasefire, compared with 20% who expect Israel to do so.
When it comes to moral responsibility, roughly 40% of Americans believe that both Palestinian and Israeli citizens share some responsibility for their governments’ actions.
What do these results suggest for future Israeli diplomacy?
The survey results indicate that while American sympathy for Israel remains stable, there is also a strong desire for perceived fairness between both sides. This suggests an opening for Israeli public diplomacy to better communicate Israel’s security concerns and conditions for peace. By framing its positions in terms of mutual recognition, regional stability, and realistic peace frameworks, Israel can potentially shift U.S. public opinion toward greater understanding of its long-term security needs and support for pragmatic alternatives to the traditional two-state model.

Dr. Irwin J. Mansdorf

Irwin J. (Yitzchak) Mansdorf, PhD., is a clinical psychologist and a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs specializing in political psychology.
Share this

Invest in JCFA

Subscribe to Daily Alert

The Daily Alert – Israel news digest appears every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday.

Related Items

Stay Informed, Always

Get the latest news, insights, and updates directly in your inbox—be the first to know!

Subscribe to Jerusalem Issue Briefs
The Daily Alert – Israel news digest appears every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday.

Notifications

The Jerusalem Center
The Failures of French Diplomacy in Lebanon

Does Macron have such a short memory that he can forget the presence of Yasser Arafat and his terrorists in Beirut? Khomeini’s hateful propaganda in Neauphle-le-Château, near Paris?

12:07pm
The Jerusalem Center
This is How Hamas Opened a Front in Europe

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood identified Europe’s weak point. In a naivety mixed with stupidity, the continent’s leaders do not understand the principles of fundamentalist Islam – and we are paying the price for it. 

12:06pm
The Jerusalem Center
The Digital Panopticon: How Iran’s Central Bank Aims for Financial Legitimacy and Absolute State Control

The Digital Rial transitions the financial landscape from one where transactions can occasionally be tracked to one where they are always monitored, always recorded, and always subject to state intervention.

12:05pm
The Jerusalem Center
Why Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Is “Slow-Walking” Normalization With Israel

Trump seeks a historic achievement, but Riyadh is not willing to pay the price without a genuine settlement ensuring the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

12:05pm
The Jerusalem Center
Between Hitler and Hamas: The Dangers of Appeasement and Genocidal Aggression
The past is never far away. The study of Hitler’s “whole method of political and military undermining” and today’s methods of Hamas raises an open question.
10:32am
The Jerusalem Center
Mamdani’s Triumph Is Likely to Embolden Leftists in the West
For European observers, in particular, the success of the Red-Green alliance in the New York City mayoral race should be a wake-up call.
 
10:31am
The Jerusalem Center
Christian Zionists: Civilization’s Defense Force in an Era of Existential Threat

The 700 million Christian Zionists worldwide constitute a force multiplier for Israel’s international security and diplomatic standing, and a powerful counterweight to delegitimization and defamation campaigns targeting the Jewish state.

10:30am
The Jerusalem Center
Tehran Under Pressure: Nuclear Escalation, Economic Strain, and a Deepening Crisis of Confidence

The Iranian leadership is struggling to stabilize its grip both internally and externally.

10:28am
The Jerusalem Center
The Black-Market Drain: How Illegal Crypto Mining Cripples Iran’s Electricity and Economy

The illegal crypto mining phenomenon in Iran is not merely a few isolated cases of law-breaking; it is an organized, large-scale black market enabled by highly subsidized energy prices.

10:26am
The Jerusalem Center
The Gaza Flotilla Is a Fraud

Far from a humanitarian mission, the latest 70-vessel spectacle on its way to Gaza from Italy is a costly act of political theater @FiammaNirenste1 @JNS_org

11:28am
The Jerusalem Center
The Assassination of Abu Obeida – Why Is Hamas Remaining Silent?

Senior Israeli security officials note that such silence is not new; Hamas often delays its statements following targeted Israeli assassinations, raising questions whether this stems from attempts to verify the information or from a deliberate strategy of ambiguity https://x.com/jerusalemcenter

11:25am
The Jerusalem Center
The Impact of Radical Legal Ideology: From the Classroom to the International Forum

Massive funding of Critical Legal Studies-style academic and extracurricular programs promotes anti-Western ideas and undermines international community institutions and legal conventions https://x.com/jerusalemcenter

11:23am

Close