- July 25, 2026
- 4:59 pm
- Israel
A survey, published on July 24, 2026, by the i24NEWS channel in connection with the 9th of Av, showed a rare public consensus for modern Israel: 92% of respondents believe that there is “sinat chinam” — baseless hatred in the country. But behind this almost national agreement lies a deep political divide, especially noticeable regarding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The study was conducted by Direct Polls on behalf of i24NEWS. According to the presented data, 94% of supporters of the ruling coalition and 90% of opposition supporters acknowledge the existence of baseless hatred. Thus, the difference between the two camps on this issue is only four percentage points.
This is one of the few issues on which voters of opposing political blocs almost do not argue. Both government supporters and its opponents see internal hostility as a real and serious problem for the state.
Why the survey is related to the 9th of Av
The publication date has special significance. The 9th of Av is one of the main mourning days in the Jewish calendar, associated with the destruction of the First and Second Temples, exile, and other tragic events in Jewish history.
According to Jewish tradition, one of the reasons for the destruction of the Second Temple was precisely “sinat chinam” — baseless hatred among Jews. It is not just about personal dislike, but about internal division, where political, religious, or social disagreements become stronger than the sense of collective responsibility.
Therefore, the survey results look particularly alarming. Israelis not only know the historical meaning of the 9th of Av but also overwhelmingly believe that the same destructive problem exists in modern Israeli society.
However, acknowledging the problem does not yet mean agreement on who is responsible for it and how it can be overcome.
79% consider political boycotts a factor of hatred
Participants in the study were asked whether political boycotts contribute to the strengthening of baseless hatred. 79% of respondents answered affirmatively.
However, here the unity between political camps is already beginning to break down. Among supporters of the ruling coalition, 91% agreed with this statement, while among opposition supporters — 66%. The difference was 25 percentage points.
Even among opposition voters, two-thirds acknowledge that political boycotts exacerbate internal division. Nevertheless, government supporters are much more likely to view the boycott as one of the central causes of public hostility.
In Israeli politics, a boycott usually means the refusal of parties to cooperate with a certain politician or political camp, to enter into a coalition with them, or to recognize them as a potential partner in forming a government.
In recent years, such a policy has largely focused on the figure of Netanyahu. For some parties, refusing to join a government led by him is a principled position. For his supporters, such a refusal looks like an attempt to deprive the choice of millions of citizens of legitimacy.
That is why the issue of political boycotts is almost impossible to separate from the attitude towards the prime minister.
Netanyahu has become the main symbol of division
The most striking results of the survey were shown in assessing Israelis’ personal attitudes towards Benjamin Netanyahu.
Among coalition supporters, 73% stated that they love the prime minister or have a pronounced sympathy for him. Among opposition supporters, only 5% gave such an answer.
The opposite picture is observed in the response about hatred. Among opposition supporters, 69% defined their attitude towards Netanyahu precisely as hatred. In the coalition camp, there were only 6%.
This means that political camps differ not only in the assessment of the prime minister’s decisions, his government, or the Likud party. The differences have acquired a deeply emotional and personal character.
Overall, in Israel, 40% of respondents stated that they love Netanyahu, and 37% — that they hate him. On a national level, the difference is only three percentage points.
However, such an almost equal ratio does not indicate a moderate attitude of society towards the prime minister. On the contrary, it shows that the country is divided into two large parts with diametrically opposite feelings.
Behind the averaged national figures lie two political realities. In one, Netanyahu remains an experienced state leader capable of defending Israel in conditions of war and international pressure. In the other, he is perceived as a politician responsible for deepening the public crisis.
NAnews — Israel News notes that the wording of the question was extremely emotional. Participants were asked not only about support or disapproval of the government’s work but about love and hatred. Therefore, the results primarily reflect the intensity of public feelings, not just electoral preferences.
Society recognizes the division but continues to live within it
The main paradox of the survey is that representatives of both political camps almost equally see the danger of baseless hatred, but when it comes to specific issues, they themselves demonstrate extreme polarization.
94% of coalition supporters and 90% of opposition supporters agree that hatred exists. But at the same time, 73% of the coalition camp speak of love for Netanyahu, while 69% of the opposition camp use the word “hatred.”
In other words, Israelis see the disease of society, but each camp tends to look for its source on the opposite side.
Government supporters may consider the cause of the division to be the opposition’s refusal to recognize election results, political boycotts, and the campaign against Netanyahu. Opposition voters, on the contrary, may associate public tension with the government’s actions, the prime minister’s leadership style, and attempts to present political opponents as a threat to the state.
The survey does not establish which of these interpretations is correct. It shows something else: the country is almost united in assessing the scale of the problem but divided in understanding its causes.
Settlements in Gaza: almost equal division
The study also touched on the issue of the possible resumption of Jewish presence in the Gaza Strip.
48% of respondents opposed the restoration of settlements. They believe that such settlements would become a constant target for terrorist attacks.
47% of survey participants supported the idea. Of them, 34% advocated for the return of settlements without additional conditions, and 13% linked support to the implementation of a program for the emigration of Gaza Strip residents.
On a national level, the difference between supporters and opponents is only one percentage point. However, within political camps, the picture again looks almost opposite.
Among coalition supporters, 79% supported the idea of settlements. In the opposition camp, only 13% did, while 83% of opposition supporters opposed it.
Thus, the issue of Gaza becomes another line of internal division. Formally, the country is almost evenly divided, but this equality consists of two political camps, within which completely different positions prevail.
Artificial intelligence has become part of political struggle
Another block of the survey was dedicated to a “Likud” video created using artificial intelligence. It featured images of Gadi Eisenkot and the chairman of the RAAM party, Mansour Abbas.
42% of respondents called such a video crossing a red line. Another 34% consider the use of such materials a legitimate tool in the election campaign. 19% reported that they had not seen the video at all.
And here, assessments directly depend on political affiliation.
Among opposition supporters, 71% consider the video crossing an acceptable boundary. In the coalition camp, only 15% gave such an assessment, while 59% of government supporters called the video a legitimate election tool.
These results show that Israeli society has not yet formed common rules for the use of artificial intelligence in political advertising.
What one side perceives as manipulation, forgery, and a threat to a fair campaign, the other considers permissible satire or a usual way to convey a political message.
The desire for unity clashes with the rejection of the other leader
Another Direct Polls survey for i24NEWS, published in July 2026, showed that 50% of Israelis would prefer the creation of a broad national unity government after the elections. However, the majority of supporters of each camp are not ready to accept the leader of the opposite bloc at the head of such a government.
Among opposition voters, 83% would not agree to a national unity government led by Netanyahu. Among coalition voters, 70% rejected the possibility of such a government headed by Gadi Eisenkot.
This complements the picture presented by the survey for the 9th of Av. Many Israelis want to reduce tension, stability, and a broad government, but only on the condition that it is led by a representative of their own camp.
At the level of the idea, national unity remains popular. At the level of specific names, it faces strong resistance.
Warning for the 9th of Av
The survey results cannot be viewed merely as another popularity rating for Netanyahu or a measurement of electoral preferences before the elections.
The survey raises a more serious question: is Israeli society capable of maintaining a common national foundation when political debate increasingly turns into personal enmity.
The country has experienced heavy wars, terrorist attacks, a hostage crisis, mass mobilization of reservists, internal protests, and prolonged political confrontation. These events should have emphasized the dependence of Israelis on each other, but at the same time, they have intensified disputes over power, responsibility, and the future of the state.
The acknowledgment by 92% of citizens that baseless hatred exists can be considered both an alarming and encouraging result.
Alarming — because it concerns almost the entire society.
Encouraging — because a problem recognized by the overwhelming majority can theoretically become the basis for a common conversation.
However, so far, the survey results indicate that such a conversation is yet to begin. Israelis agree that the division is dangerous but continue to see the main source of danger not in their own camp but in political opponents.
NAnews — Israel News believes that this is the main meaning of the published figures. Modern Israel is not divided into those who see public hatred and those who deny it. It is divided into people who equally fear hatred but understand its origins completely differently.
On a day that reminds of the consequences of internal hostility, such a result sounds not like ordinary sociology but as a serious warning to the entire Israeli society.