Support for Israel in Europe hits record low, YouGov survey finds
Public support and sympathy for Israel in Europe has fallen to its lowest level ever, according to a recent survey by YouGov.
The pollster said fewer than a fifth of respondents in six countries hold a favorable view of Israel. The survey was conducted between 12 and 26 May across Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Spain and Italy.
Sympathizing with the Palestinian side
Around 18 to 33 percent sided with the Palestinian side while 7 to 21 percent favored the Israeli side.
However, a significant proportion of people chose either to sympathize with both sides equally or said they were unsure, indicating a complex public sentiment and a reluctancy to fully take sides.
Understanding the attitude
More people reported understanding the attitudes of the Palestinians – even if they did not personally agree with them – than those who said they could not. The difference was most notable in Britain, where 51 percent people said they could understand the Palestinian viewpoint, while 22 percent said they could not.
More respondents in France, Germany, Spain and Italy said they could not understand Israel's viewpoint than those who said they could. Around 19 to 48 percent of the people said they understood the Israeli stance.
Net favorability towards Israel in Germany (-44), France (-48), and Denmark (-54) was the lowest since the polling began and in Italy (-52) and Spain (-55) was also at its lowest, whereas in the US, it was at -46, slightly higher than its low of -49 in late 2024.
Overall, only between 13 percent and 21 percent of respondents in any country polled had a favourable view of Israel, compared with 63-70 percent whose views were unfavourable.
Perception on Hamas attack and Israel's response
The 2023 Hamas attack on Israel was overwhelmingly regarded as not justified by a majority in every country – around two-thirds to three-quarters. Very few respondents considered it justified.
In contrast, Israel's military response in Gaza received more mixed responses. A majority of the respondents in most countries said it was not justified, particularly in Spain and Italy. Between 44-66 percent people viewed Israel's actions in Gaza as not justified whereas only 9-28 percent said they thought it was justified.
Most respondents believed Israel was right to send troops into Gaza in response to the Hamas attacks but that the response has gone too far and caused excessive civilian casualties. Fewer believed Israel acted proportionately, and a smaller portion believed Israel was wrong to use force at all.
Opinion on lasting peace agreement
Asked whether they thought a permanent peace agreement was likely in the next decade, respondents in every country were more likely to say it was unrealistic than realistic.
Denmark was the most pessimistic, with two-thirds (67 percent) doubting the feasibility of peace in the near future.
The French were the most optimistic that this may happen in the next 10 years, but even then, only 29 percent said they believed it.
France is also leading efforts to persuade other European countries, including the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands, to recognise Palestinian statehood at a joint UN conference with Saudi Arabia in New York on June 17.
A total 147 of 193 UN member states currently recognise the State of Palestine. Spain, Ireland and Norway agreed to recognition last year.
Israel's war on Gaza under the mandate of defeating Hamas has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, leaving two million Gazans on the brink of starvation and displaced from their homes.
The war began after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack that killed 1,218 people and saw 251 taken as hostages, 57 of whom remain in Gaza including 34 the Israeli military says are dead.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
EU naval mission raises assessment to ‘severe' for vessels with US, Israeli interests
The European Union's naval mission in the Red Sea, Aspides, on Sunday raised its assessment to 'severe' for vessels with US and Israeli interests transiting through the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab strait and the Gulf of Aden, according to a statement.
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Pope Leo urges international diplomacy to prevent ‘irreparable abyss'
VATICAN CITY: Pope Leo on Sunday said the international community must strive to avoid war that risks opening an 'irreparable abyss,' and that diplomacy should take the place of forces struck Iran's three main nuclear sites overnight, joining an Israeli assault in a major new escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself.'Every member of the international community has a moral responsibility: to stop the tragedy of war before it becomes an irreparable abyss,' Pope Leo said during his weekly prayer with pilgrims.'No armed victory can compensate for the pain of mothers, the fear of children, the stolen future. Let diplomacy silence the weapons, let nations chart their future with peace efforts, not with violence and bloody conflicts,' he added.'In this dramatic scenario, which includes Israel and Palestine, the daily suffering of the population, especially in Gaza and other territories, risks being forgotten, where the need for adequate humanitarian support is becoming increasingly urgent,' Pope Leo said.
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Strikes on Iran mark Trump's biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble
With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, US President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic US strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump, who insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks, could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking US military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against American and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves could escalate into a broader, more protracted conflict than Trump had envisioned, evoking echoes of the 'forever wars' that America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he had derided as 'stupid' and promised never to be dragged into. 'The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities,' said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations. 'But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond... This is not going to end quick.' In the lead-up to the bombing that he announced late on Saturday, Trump had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were 'the right thing to do.' Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a 'high probability of success,' the official said – a determination reached after more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities paved the way for the US to deliver the potentially crowning blow. Nuclear threat remains Trump touted the 'great success' of the strikes, which he said included the use of massive 'bunker-buster bombs' on the main site at Fordow. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. 'In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy,' the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan US-based organization that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. 'Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge. The strikes will set Iran's program back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities,' the group said. Eric Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, said Iran's next move remains an open question and suggested that among its forms of retaliation could be to hit 'soft targets' of the US and Israel inside and outside the region. But he also said there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table – 'though they would be doing so in an even weaker position' – or seek a diplomatic off-ramp. In the immediate aftermath of the US strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its 'national industry' to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every US citizen or military member in the region would now be legitimate targets. Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X: 'Trump indicated this is now the time for peace. It's unclear and unlikely the Iranians will see it the same way. This is more likely to open a new chapter of the 46-year-old US-Iran war than conclude it.' 'Regime change' Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking 'regime change' if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. That, in turn, would bring additional risks. 'Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns,' said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. 'You'll find the bones of many failed US moral missions buried in Middle East sands.' Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in 'disproportionate attacks' if it felt its survival was imperiled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential US inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump, who faced no major international crisis in his first term, is now embroiled in one just six months into his second. Even if he hopes US military involvement can be limited in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents. Trump's slogan of 'peace through strength' will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. 'Trump is back in the war business,' said Richard Gowan, UN director at the International Crisis Group. 'I am not sure anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing ever believed his spiel that he is a peacemaker. It always looked more like a campaign phrase than a strategy.'
