Perceptions of Israel Before and After the Start of the War

[Debater Slayer]

In the last several months, I have read different polls gauging public opinion in various countries regarding Israel's image amid its actions in Gaza. Without going into the findings of any polls, I'm interested to know whether opinions on Israel—not on every individual Israeli, but on the country as a geopolitical and military unit—have changed among any members here since the start of the war, and if so, how.

The poll is anonymous. I also couldn't fit more options into the poll because I used the maximum number of possible responses, so I consolidated the responses where the overall sentiment before and after the start of the war is the same (i.e., still overall positive, overall neutral, or overall negative) into one instead of dividing each into "Positively before and more/less positively now," "Negatively before and more/less negatively now," etc.

 

[Stevicus]

In the last several months, I have read different polls gauging public opinion in various countries regarding Israel's image amid its actions in Gaza. Without going into the findings of any polls, I'm interested to know whether opinions on Israel—not on every individual Israeli, but on the country as a geopolitical and military unit—have changed among any members here since the start of the war, and if so, how.

The poll is anonymous. I also couldn't fit more options into the poll because I used the maximum number of possible responses, so I consolidated the responses where the overall sentiment before and after the start of the war is the same (i.e., still overall positive, overall neutral, or overall negative) into one instead of dividing each into "Positively before and more/less positively now," "Negatively before and more/less negatively now," etc.

I think my perceptions have remained largely the same throughout my life. Early on, I recall the 1972 Olympics killings and the Arab oil embargo of 1973, which was triggered by US support of Israel. I think this event, along with growing up during the Vietnam-Watergate era, was what may have propelled me to look more and more into history and geopolitics. Around the same time, I could tell that public opinion in the U.S. was largely pro-Israel at the time, as they were seen as a scrappy, tough underdog being ganged up on by all their neighboring Arab states. Cold War perceptions also figured into it, as the Israelis were backed by the U.S., while the Arab states were backed by the Soviets.

Another aspect which was driven home early on was that, during WW2, many Jews were desperate to escape the Nazis, but could find no countries willing to accept them. They had no place to go, so the creation of Israel was meant so that they would have a place to go. So, that also became part of the overall perception of Israel which many Americans shared at the time. I also had classmates, friends, and teachers with familial ties to Israel, so that also influenced my early perceptions.

My high school history teacher described the US-Israel relationship as not unlike a marriage. "For better or worse, in sickness and in health," we were pretty much stuck with each other. Even the media seemed on board with that. Not just with the news, but also entertainment media. I remember a TV movie with Charles Bronson called "Raid on Entebbe." A lot of kids thought Charles Bronson was a cool, tough guy. I also recall a big row at the Academy Awards when Vanessa Redgrave made statements which were seen as anti-Israel. There was a great deal of outrage thrown in her direction. U.S. policy regarding Israel and the Middle East appeared to be fixed and unchanging, supported by both parties and overwhelmingly within the media (except for those willing to take the heat for not toeing the line).

Later on, I had friends who were really into Bible prophecy, and they saw America and Israel has having great significance in prophecy. They believed that it was God's will that the U.S. support Israel no matter what, warning of grave consequences if we ever stopped giving them support. I don't think very many literally believed that, but I came to realize that this mindset did have some influence over public perceptions regarding Israel.

However, I also got to know more and more people who actually came from that area of the world, which also enhanced my perspective to some degree.

Throughout all this, I've also seen reportage on the various peace conferences. It seemed to be an endless cycle of violence, then a cool down, a peace conference with the goal of "peace in the Middle East" - at least until the next incident of violence occurs, then it starts all over again. It's basically the same core issues, the same arguments as they always have been since Israel was first established as an independent nation. My perception is that this has been a generational war, punctuated by constant calls for vengeance - "an eye for an eye."

 

[Revoltingest]

Before the war, Israel was ramping up its brutality of Palestinians.
Killings were highest in a decade.
No change in my negative view of Israel.

 

[sun rise]

As a Jew growing up in the 1950's and 60'a, I was utterly pro Israel. As I've written before here, that changed gradually starting after the 1973 war.

When the horrible Hamas attack happened, my response was very pro-Israel. I felt that the monsters who carried out the attack needed to be killed. But as the war has continued, I returned to my prior view of the mess. I returned to my realization that the horror that is the Middle East has roots in the Torah and Quran. Both sides can cite respective scriptures that show that the other side is evil and hated by God. Jewish settlers commit atrocities on Muslim Palestinians in the West Bank. Hamas's horrible atrocity filled attack with rape and murder of babies is utterly depraved. The leaders of both sizes profit from the horror in different ways. The voices for reconciliation on both sides are too weak to stop the horror.

So from pro-Israel to balanced to pro-Israel and again to balanced.

 

[sun rise]

Postscript: Yahya Sinwar is deeply in love with Benjamin Netanyahu - opinion accurately illustrates why my attitude toward the mess is what it is. One word: Netanyahu.

Bibi then played directly into Sinwar’s supple hands, making every mistake a lover can. Rather than planning and implementing a carefully thought-out strategy with achievable objectives, he launched a headlong frontal attack against Hamas, promising more than could be delivered. The war’s objectives were defined as Hamas’s destruction, its ousting as the governing body in Gaza, and the freeing the hostages.
...
Not that Israel’s full-on attack was not fully justified. It was. But it was also clear to anyone familiar with asymmetric warfare in densely populated areas that a large-scale campaign, lacking clearly defined objectives, would eventually stall and that Israel would be caught in an ongoing quagmire. In fact, this is precisely what happened, what Sinwar predicted and dreamed Bibi would do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the last several months, I have read different polls gauging public opinion in various countries regarding Israel's image amid its actions in Gaza. Without going into the findings of any polls, I'm interested to know whether opinions on Israel—not on every individual Israeli, but on the country as a geopolitical and military unit—have changed among any members here since the start of the war, and if so, how.

The poll is anonymous. I also couldn't fit more options into the poll because I used the maximum number of possible responses, so I consolidated the responses where the overall sentiment before and after the start of the war is the same (i.e., still overall positive, overall neutral, or overall negative) into one instead of dividing each into "Positively before and more/less positively now," "Negatively before and more/less negatively now," etc.

I voted for "other": from overall negatively to extremely negatively

And that is in context of their general treatment of palestinians both now and in the past.

 

[Yerda]

On the whole Israel behaves like every other nation state with security issues. The military response is often nuts, but I wouldn't expect that the UK, France etc would conduct themselves any better in a similar situation. Compare the UK in Ireland or French Algeria, Russia in Chechnya, USA and most of the world.

 

[dybmh]

he horror that is the Middle East has roots in the Torah

The Torah is a teaching, Sunrise. The majority of leaders in Israel don't study it. It breaks my heart. If only they studied Torah and Talmud ...

and Quran

Not the Quran. It's the Hadith.

 

[dybmh]

On the whole Israel behaves like every other nation state with security issues. The military response is often nuts, but I wouldn't expect that the UK, France etc would conduct themselves any better in a similar situation. Compare the UK in Ireland or French Algeria, Russia in Chechnya, USA and most of the world.

Thank you, yerda.

 

[dybmh]

Before the war, Israel was ramping up its brutality of Palestinians.

Before the war , in 2023, Palestinians were attacking innocent Israelis on average 5 times a day. At its peak, 10 attacks per day.

Killings were highest in a decade.

Based on your recollection. And we've seen how limited that can be. In order to judge properly, one needs to know who, what, when, where, why. That's what happens in a court of law. Lack those details, it's easy to blame. You like to blame, don't you? Everyone does. It helps to make sense of the world.

No change in my negative view of Israel.

Naturally.

 

[dybmh]

And that is in context of their general treatment of palestinians both now and in the past.

Have you considered the Israeli perspective, or only the Palestinian perspective?

What I notice is this:

The stories which flood the media and the internet about the Palestine/Israel conflict paint a picture and put it in a frame for their audience. Framing. And when an individual looks at this framed picture, they are being lead to a particular conclusion which is so compelling, the outside observer cannot conceive of any other explanation other than: "Israel is not just wrong, they are evil." followed by: "What else could it be?"

"What else could it be?" Conclusions which end this way: "What else could it be?" are arguments from ignorance. The same thing occurred here in America when a mob attacked our capital at the urging of Trump&Co. The parallels between the mob that attempted an insurrection here, in America, and the anti-Israel mob are profound. They are consuming vast amounts of internet "news". Much of it is coming from social media. It's emotive content. Pulling at the heart-strings, and the audience completely ignores the framing of the story. It's like looking at a picture on a wall, and becoming fixated, transfixed on the picture to the point of neglecting that surrounding it, on the wall, is nothing but empty space.

"What else could it be?" is an answerable question. But no one will believe me. I cannot disclose the sources of my information. And I doubt Israel will declassify and explain itself. First, and most important. Israel cannot reveal its intelligence gathering capabilities. The more they reveal, the easier it will be for their enemies to escape detection and compromise the security of the nation. Second, the world's citizens will never believe them anyway. It doesn't matter what Israel says, the majority will call us liars. It's already been tried a few times. Israel has released bits and pieces of its intelligence capabilities in regard to their foreknowledge of the locations of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza City, prior to Oct. 7th. The world community looked at it and laughed, because it was too perfect. It looked fake, they said.

Your point of view is natural and normal. You cannot answer that question, can you? "What else could it be?" My question is different. I'm asking:

Why do you expect that you, as an outsider, far away, from a distance, is getting an accurate and fair rendering of the conflict as it is occuring in real-time?

 

[Debater Slayer]

On the whole Israel behaves like every other nation state with security issues. The military response is often nuts, but I wouldn't expect that the UK, France etc would conduct themselves any better in a similar situation. Compare the UK in Ireland or French Algeria, Russia in Chechnya, USA and most of the world.

All of the examples you gave were or are either occupying other countries or trying to establish their hegemony over them, though, so I think that using them as a yardstick or standard of comparison could probably open the door to justifying all manner of abuse and excessive use of military force. If one uses them as a standard, does that make such actions any more acceptable, or does it just underline that the examples you listed (the UK, France, Russia, and the US) were mistaken and abusive in their approaches? Or something else?

I haven't voted in this poll myself, by the way. I'm interested to see others' responses without adding my own.

 

[Yerda]

All of the examples you gave were or are either occupying other countries or trying to establish their hegemony over them, though, so I think that using them as a yardstick or standard of comparison could probably open the door to justifying all manner of abuse and excessive use of military force. If one uses them as a standard, does that make such actions any more acceptable, or does it just underline that they were all mistaken and abusive in their approaches? Or something else?

I haven't voted in this poll myself, by the way. I'm interested to see others' responses without adding my own.

I just wanted to get across the point that Israel isn't special in the treatment of Palestinians. The occupation/conflict has been marked by brutal violence and repression and that this is pretty standard behaviour for nation states engaged in this kind of situation. I don't expect that most countries would have been better behaved in a similar scenario.

Also, for most other countries avoiding the conflict would have been pretty easy (i.e. just don't invade other countries). While they are not blameless, it is a bit more complicated for the Israelis.

I could be wrong, but this is my impression.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you considered the Israeli perspective, or only the Palestinian perspective?

Both

What I notice is this:

The stories which flood the media and the internet about the Palestine/Israel conflict paint a picture and put it in a frame for their audience. Framing. And when an individual looks at this framed picture, they are being lead to a particular conclusion which is so compelling, the outside observer cannot conceive of any other explanation other than: "Israel is not just wrong, they are evil." followed by: "What else could it be?"

"What else could it be?" Conclusions which end this way: "What else could it be?" are arguments from ignorance. The same thing occurred here in America when a mob attacked our capital at the urging of Trump&Co. The parallels between the mob that attempted an insurrection here, in America, and the anti-Israel mob are profound. They are consuming vast amounts of internet "news". Much of it is coming from social media. It's emotive content. Pulling at the heart-strings, and the audience completely ignores the framing of the story. It's like looking at a picture on a wall, and becoming fixated, transfixed on the picture to the point of neglecting that surrounding it, on the wall, is nothing but empty space.

"What else could it be?" is an answerable question. But no one will believe me. I cannot disclose the sources of my information. And I doubt Israel will declassify and explain itself. First, and most important. Israel cannot reveal its intelligence gathering capabilities. The more they reveal, the easier it will be for their enemies to escape detection and compromise the security of the nation. Second, the world's citizens will never believe them anyway. It doesn't matter what Israel says, the majority will call us liars. It's already been tried a few times. Israel has released bits and pieces of its intelligence capabilities in regard to their foreknowledge of the locations of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza City, prior to Oct. 7th. The world community looked at it and laughed, because it was too perfect. It looked fake, they said.

Your point of view is natural and normal. You cannot answer that question, can you? "What else could it be?" My question is different. I'm asking:

Why do you expect that you, as an outsider, far away, from a distance, is getting an accurate and fair rendering of the conflict as it is occuring in real-time?

I did not make such an argument nor did I ask such a question.
You are simply assuming what my reasoning is. This is called a strawman and I have no need to defend myself against arguments I didn't make.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I just wanted to get across the point that Israel isn't special in the treatment of Palestinians. The occupation/conflict has been marked by brutal violence and repression and that this is pretty standard behaviour for nation states engaged in this kind of situation. I don't expect that most countries would have been better behaved in a similar scenario.

Also, for most other countries avoiding the conflict would have been pretty easy (i.e. just don't invade other countries). While they are not blameless, it is a bit more complicated for the Israelis.

I could be wrong, but this is my impression.

Thanks for elaborating on your perspective. It is clearer now.

 

[dybmh]

Both

Are you able to articulate the Israeli position accurately? Including the reasons for the manner which the siege on Gaza has been executed?

I did not make such an argument nor did I ask such a question.

True. I am sharing what I've noticed. It's very common.

You are simply assuming what my reasoning is.

I didn't. I asked. I asked two questions. You've answered the first one and you have now made a claim.

I asked: "Have you considered the Israeli perspective, or only the Palestinian perspective?"

You answered: "Both".

Prove it.

Are you able to articulate the Israeli position accurately? Including the reasons for the manner which the siege on Gaza has been executed?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

not on every individual Israeli, but on the country as a geopolitical and military unit ..

Given the above, I voted:

No. From overall negatively to now overall negatively.​

Mine is not a naive view. I've been to Israel multiple times, I've read more of its history than most, I've done so more assiduously than most, and supported its civil rights organizations longer than most.

And, I love Israel and insist on it's right to self determination, but no right warrants the systematic denial of the rights of others, and there can be little doubt that the trajectory of Israel - much like the probable trajectory of the United States - is moving from bad to worse.

And, as noted by Haaretz, it is Day 285 of an Hamas-instigated war, triggered by a despicable and barbaric pogrom, and resulting in 120 hostages (44 of them declared dead) still held in violation of international law.

 

[dybmh]

but no right warrants the systematic denial of the rights of others

False. Civil liberties are the first casualty of a war fought on native soil. Israel has been in a state of war continuously for the past 70+ years.

 

[dybmh]

And, as noted by Haaretz, it is Day 285 of an Hamas-instigated war, triggered by a despicable and barbaric pogrom, and resulting in 120 hostages (44 of them declared dead) still held in violation of international law.

And. The ICJ ruled that the hostages must be returned unconditionally.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Mine is not a naive view. I've been to Israel multiple times, I've read more of its history than most, I've done so more assiduously than most, and supported its civil rights organizations longer than most.

The above, along with many other reasons, is why I deeply appreciate your input on this.

Salaam.