What Do Polls in Palestine and the Entity Say?

By Nasser Kandil

War, at the end of the day, is a means to change convictions impervious to modification through argument and negotiation, such that under the pressure of force and threats of death and eradication, wars reform consciousness among peoples and societies. For this reason it is said that war begins and ends in minds. The ongoing war over the last eight months succeeded in providing answers to dangling questions preceding the war about the position of Palestinians in Gaza if the Mukawama (Resistance) led by Hamas waged a war leading to wide destruction and a high death toll, and whether the outcome will would be holding fast to Hamas’ leadership and the choice of resistance, or if shares in favor of negotiations and the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas will rise. In parallel, there was a hypothetical unanswered question about the impact on the Entity of a long war which will transmute in the eyes of settlers into an existential war, and whether the outcome will be more extremism favoring war and the leadership calling for it, or if it is possible that a human gathering, which the history of its formation into a political entity says that it was based on a creed called the Promised Land, could be defeated and become accepting of an acknowledgement of defeat, veering towards leaders considered more realistic, or place the blame and responsibility on the leadership that failed in the war, hoping for a leadership better capable of preparing for a future war.
Both vitally important questions needed this war to provide each with an answer, which two institutions regarded in their competing milieus as unbiased, undertook finding answers to: Maarev (Newspaper), unbiased in the eyes of the settler gatherings amidst the Entity’s opposing political encampments, and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, unbiased about the choices of resistance and negotiations, and regarding Mahmoud Abbas’s authority and the Hamas leadership. In the recent few days, both Maariv and the Palestinian Center gauged respectively trends in public opinion among samples of settlers from all classes and areas of distribution, and among Palestinians in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
What has the war done in the minds of combatants and the milieus they belong to and move in? Maariv’s poll said that Benny Gantz, who withdrew from Netanyahu’s government blaming Netanyahu for losing the opportunities possible for exchange of prisoners deals, has gained as a candidate for heading the government and stands at 41% against 35 % to Netanyahu, and that Benny Gantz’s party will gain double its current seats, 24 instead of 12 seats, against a fall back for Netanyahu’s party to two thirds of its current representation, from 32 to 21 seats, while an opportunity appeared for a third faction, the coalition of Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, and Gideon Sa’ar, which could gain 27 seats, and gain over the other competitors. This leaves the political scene divided among small blocks none of which will reach the threshold of 25 % of the Knesset composed of 120 members, which in turn will make the formation of a majority impossible, even in the event that two of the three parties joined forces. The implication, foremost, is that public opinion has withdrawn its confidence in the most hardline party about war engagement, and attributes to it the responsibility for the war’s failure, namely Netanyahu, and that public opinion has considerably decreased its support for Benny Gantz as an alternative, from 32 seats in previous polls to 24 seats, keeping him considerably ahead by double Netanyahu’s margin, but punishes him for his hesitancy in leaving the Netanyahu government, and giving a better position to those who had refused to join Netanyahu’s government such as the Bennett-Lieberman-Sa’ar coalition. Yet with such low percentages in its leanings, giving less than a quarter of the votes to any of the three major factions, public opinion revealed the political confusion, blundering, and fragmentation as an indication of the war’s failure and the consequences of such failure.
In parallel, the poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, revealed that Palestinians in the West Bank, who represent the upcoming center of gravity for political action and the weighting of Palestinian options, voted overwhelmingly in favor of Hamas, with 94% in the West Bank calling for Mahmoud Abbas’ resignation, 73% of whom support the Aqsa Toufaan (Aqsa Deluge) attack irrespective of all that has ensued as a result of the war, with a total outcome of 67 % of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza supporting the Toufaan (Deluge). The poll also showed that 79% in the West Bank see Gaza emerging victorious from this war, and a total outcome of 67% of the Palestinians holding that same view, along with 75% stating satisfaction with Hamas in contrast to 10% indicating satisfaction with Mahmoud Abbas, bringing the percentage in favor of Hamas in the West Bank alone to 82 % and to 8 % in favor of Abbas. A comparison between results of identical polls conducted the previous year and at the end of March 2024 point to a clear strengthening in the Palestinians’ attachment to Al Mukawama (Resistance), its symbols, leaders, and formations, and have no trust in the negotiations approach and its symbols. When we compare what the war has inflicted on both Palestinians and settlers, and the magnitude of the toll on each party, we can ascertain that Palestinians have now become immune to threats of war and the infliction of additional damage, with the effect of the war on them resulting in their holding on even more tightly to the choice of Al Mukawama (Resistance), while we will see that the settlers who have seen only a little of the woes of war that could befall them have started abandoning ship, and are looking for a captain who can lead them at minimal losses to a lifeboat that could get them out of the war.