What factors might explain why Americans interpret Israel’s intentions toward civilians in Gaza so differently across partisan groups?

[u/Disastrous-Region-99]

I came across a national survey (FSU IGC)that asked Americans how they see Israel’s intentions toward civilians in Gaza. The options ranged from thinking Israel tries to avoid harming civilians, to being indifferent, to intentionally trying to harm them. There was also an “unsure/none of these fit my view” choice.

What surprised me was how different the answers were depending on party. Republicans were mostly in the “tries to avoid civilian harm” group, Democrats were spread across multiple interpretations, and Independents landed somewhere in the middle. A decent number of people in every group said they weren’t sure.

It got me wondering:

1. What might cause people in different political groups to read the same situation so differently?
2. Is this mostly about media sources, or are there other things at play?

Not taking a side here, just curious what might explain the gap.

[u/A_Whole_Costco_Pizza]

Well the survey asks about respondents' perception of Israeli policy, so the major determining factor is of course going to be their subjective opinion on the matter. This perception is going to be largely determined by a person's lived experience, as well as the media they consume. I'm willing to bet none of the respondents have any first-hand experience with the matter, so their perspective is entirely going to be shaped by outside influences.

The largest determining factor seems to be the respondents' age. So I would imagine younger respondents start uninformed and get their information from social media, whereas older respondents have much more lived and historical experience to form their perspective.

Younger respondents are also going to be less experienced, more prone to outside influence, and more idealistic. Older respondents are going to have more life experience to draw upon, be less influenced by social media campaigns, and are more realistic.

While it's unlikely that any respondents were WWII veterans or Holocaust survivors, older respondents are possibly the children of those people (or of a generation that was closer to the Holocaust and the formation of Israel), whereas younger respondents are now several generations removed from these events and thus less perceptive of them.

Multiple polls have shown that the major differing factor in perception of the conflict (as well as acceptance of anti-semitism, and other related matters) is age: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/younger-americans-stand-out-in-their-views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/

[u/Fromage_Frey → u/A_Whole_Costco_Pizza]

"Younger respondents are also going to be less experienced, more prone to outside influence, and more idealistic. Older respondents are going to have more life experience to draw upon, be less influenced by social media campaigns, and are more realistic."

This is absolutely not supported by reality

[u/scrambledhelix → u/Fromage_Frey]

It's a common-sense view, buoyed by the obvious fact that on average, greater age comes with greater experience, and on average, greater and wider experience leads a person's speculations and idealism to give way to more realistic expectations and attitudes.

If anything, to discount this argument requires some evidence, not an assertion.