A recent public opinion survey conducted in mid-June provides an unprecedented window into the complex and polarized attitudes within Israeli society regarding the ongoing military campaign against Iran. Spearheaded by Dr. Gayil Talshir and Dr. Nimrod Nir of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Department of Psychology, in collaboration with researchers from Tel Aviv University, the study delves deeply into various facets of societal sentiment, ranging from support for the military actions to emotional responses, trust in national institutions, and perceptions of national unity. The research highlights stark divisions between Jewish and Arab Israelis, reflecting broader socio-political fractures that influence perspectives on security and diplomacy.
This survey arrived at a time of escalating tension and military engagement, capturing real-time public opinion on a campaign perceived as pivotal for Israel’s national security. An overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis expressed ardent support for the campaign against Iran, with 83% endorsing the strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. This strong backing is set against a backdrop of high confidence in Israel’s security apparatus, where institutions such as the Israeli Air Force and Mossad garner some of the highest levels of public trust. Conversely, the findings reveal that Arab Israelis almost unanimously reject the military campaign, with only 12% in favor and a pronounced preference for diplomatic solutions. This dichotomy is accompanied by a significantly higher prevalence of fear and despair within the Arab Israeli community.
The research delves into nuanced attitudes about strategic goals and alliances, particularly the role of the United States. Among Jewish Israelis, nearly half support military action independently of American cooperation. However, opinions about the ultimate objectives are split: 56% advocate for the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capabilities through military means, while the rest favor diplomatic resolution strategies. Trust in the U.S. backing remains mixed, with many advocates willing to defy American requests to halt attacks. In stark contrast, Arab Israelis show overwhelming support for diplomacy and express a strong inclination to comply with U.S. demands, signaling a more cautious approach to military escalation.
Emotional responses to the conflict reveal a profound divergence between the communities. Jewish Israelis predominantly report feelings of hope and pride intertwined with a tempered degree of fear and despair. For instance, over 28% feel pride, and nearly a quarter express hope regarding Israel’s prospects amid the conflict. Arab Israelis, however, indicate a pervasive climate of fear and pessimism, with nearly 70% reporting fear and a quarter despair. This emotional landscape reflects deeper social cleavages and perceptions of vulnerability that shape public receptivity toward state actions and policy directions.
The survey also measures perceptions of social cohesion amid the turmoil. Remarkably, 57% of Jewish respondents believe the campaign against Iran is a unifying national endeavor, strengthening society’s fabric. By contrast, a majority of Arab Israelis—56%—view the campaign as a source of division and discord. Such perceptions underscore the lingering ethnic and political fault lines within Israeli society and raise critical questions about the sustainability of national unity in times of conflict.
Trust in security institutions remains a cornerstone of Israeli public confidence, with the Israeli Air Force and Mossad receiving the highest ratings. These agencies, in the eyes of many Jewish Israelis, epitomize competence and strategic resilience. Individual figures such as the Mossad Director, Air Force Commander, and IDF Chief of Staff enjoy widespread support. In contrast, confidence in the government and its security cabinet lags markedly, with relatively low trust scores. This ambivalence towards political leadership juxtaposed with faith in security agencies reveals complex dynamics of governance and public expectation amid a protracted conflict scenario.
Another dimension explored in the survey is the readiness of Israeli society for a lasting conflict. Jewish Israelis exhibit considerable optimism, with 68% perceiving the home front as moderately or highly prepared for prolonged military engagements. Arab Israelis display a contrasting outlook, with a significant 75% perceiving inadequate preparedness. These divergent views on logistical and societal resilience contribute to the broader tapestry of anxiety and confidence shaping responses to the Iran campaign.
The hostage situation and ongoing conflict in Gaza figure prominently in public opinion. Support for a negotiated deal that would end the Gaza campaign in exchange for the return of hostages has grown significantly following the initiation of the Iran strikes. Among Jewish Israelis, 71% endorse such a deal, marking a notable increase from prior survey results. Arab Israelis display near-unanimous support, with 99% favoring a hostage agreement that could halt hostilities. This alignment on hostage diplomacy across communities signals a rare area of consensus amid wider political divergence.
Methodologically, the survey’s rigor is reflected in its robust sampling techniques and comprehensive weighting to ensure representativeness across demographic and political variables. Conducted on June 15-16, 2025, the sample of 1,057 respondents spanning ages 17 to 86 was stratified to mirror Israel’s complex social fabric, including indicators such as religion, geography, and political affiliation. The precision of findings is underscored by a margin of error of ±4.2% at a 99% confidence level, lending high credibility to observed trends and differences.
Taken together, the data presents a vivid portrait of a society grappling with the emotional and strategic implications of a high-stakes campaign. The pronounced rift between Jewish and Arab Israelis—across perspectives on military action, emotional wellbeing, institutional trust, and visions of national unity—underscores challenges for policymakers seeking cohesion amid adversity. The divergent sentiments also frame the broader geopolitical context, highlighting how internal societal fractures can influence support for and sustainment of military initiatives.
Beyond raw numbers, the survey invites deeper reflection on how collective identity and political allegiances shape perceptions of conflict and peace. The disproportionate levels of fear and despair among Arab Israelis are not merely emotional reactions but indicative of systemic marginalization and political disenfranchisement. These social undercurrents complicate efforts to foster inclusivity and consensus, which are essential for durable security and peace.
Furthermore, the data illuminates the role of trust not just as a static metric, but as a fluid force shaping public support and compliance with military or diplomatic strategies. The dichotomy between faith in security agencies and skepticism toward elected officials may impact future legitimacy and mandate for action. Understanding these dynamics is critical for strategic communication and governance, particularly in conflicts requiring prolonged societal endurance.
In sum, this survey offers a timely and granular examination of Israeli public opinion during a critical juncture. By integrating psychological insights with political analysis, it contributes to a more nuanced discourse on the intersection between domestic unity, emotional resilience, and international security policies. As Israel continues navigating the precarious terrain of regional conflict, such empirical insights become indispensable in crafting responsive and adaptive strategies that address not only external threats but internal societal cohesion.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: (Not provided in the original content)
News Publication Date: (Not provided in the original content)
Web References: (Not provided in the original content)
References: (Not provided in the original content)
Image Credits: (Not provided in the original content)
Keywords: War, Social surveys, International relations
