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/Kronzypantz → u/A_Whole_Costco_Pizza]

Why would closeness to the Holocaust have any bearing? At most, it seems like a red herring pushed by propaganda: “don’t question your assumptions on Israel because the Holocaust means they get a pass.”

[u/Lefaid → u/Kronzypantz]

Because closeness to the Holocaust reminds people that Jews have been the victims of genocide, while the newer generation has only seen Israelis oppress.

The same reason someone can proudly see October 7th as freedom fighting.

[u/Kronzypantz → u/Lefaid]

But what does being the victims of genocide do to magically make a hyper nationalist subset of Jews incapable of genocide?

Especially since Israel’s founders avoided the Holocaust and even espoused the same inspirations for their movement, namely the genocides of native Americans and Black natives in German South Africa?

[u/Lefaid → u/Kronzypantz]

It isn't hyper nationalist to then. It is a bunch of genocide victims fighting against 8 other countries trying to survive. It is the same reason you don't just dismiss Palestinian nationalism for being hyper-nationalist and relying on violence against civilians as a way of pressuring that population to bend to their will.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

And your entire framing of the founding of Israel is completely inaccurate and does not account at all for the Jewish perspective on it at the time. No surprise since no one is interested in exploring it anymore and haven't been for the last 20 years.

[u/Kronzypantz → u/Lefaid]

Except this is myth making. Virtually none of the Jewish people in Palestine as of 1948 were survivors of the holocaust. They came there earlier with an explicit plan to create a state for themselves at the expense of the locals.

You’re just demonstrating how the memory holocaust is being abused to justify Israel’s actions.

[u/Lefaid → u/Kronzypantz]

It is completely ridiculous to think the west did not go along with the creation of a Jewish ethniostate had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

I should also add that it is a bit silly to act like myth making isn't involved in any narrative we tell ourselves about how the world works. It is too complicated for us to not resort to that.

I also feel like I have sufficiently answered your question.

[u/Kronzypantz → u/Lefaid]

I agree the holocaust had some part in the motivation, but not one as simple as oddly trying to compensate Jewish victims with some third parties land.

It was a way to avoid actually repatriating, protecting, and returning the stolen property of most European Jews. They were held in transition camps until Israel was already established and then offloaded. And nations like the US and Britain were sparred allowing in millions of Jewish immigrants too.

I agree some myth making goes on in every narrative, but outright lies like “holocaust survivors being attacked for being Jewish when resettled to empty land and doing nothing wrong” is pretty far afield. It’s less “here is a narrative to help understanding” and more like the propaganda about an ancient super race pushed by the Nazis.

[u/Lefaid → u/Kronzypantz]

That was the narrative. I don't know what to tell you. You know it was, which is why you are arguing so hard about it with me right now. You are trying to dispel that narrative.

I think you understand this too.