🗺️ Jewish Perspectives on West Bank Policy, Proportionality and Necessity.
- Ian Miller
- Jan 25
- 7 min read
Community | Political/Religious Group | Typical Stance on West Bank Policies | Notes / Nuances |
Israeli Jews | Right-wing / Religious Zionist | ✅ Strong support for settlements, annexation; military actions seen as security necessity | Believe in biblical/historical claim to the land; support expansion in Area C |
Center / Liberal | ⚖️ Support Israel’s security but favor two-state solution; critical of settlement expansion | Focus on long-term peace, some favor partial withdrawal | |
Left-wing / Secular | ❌ Oppose settlements; advocate diplomacy and negotiation | Support Israel’s existence but oppose occupation policies | |
American Jews | Orthodox / Pro-Israel advocacy (e.g., AIPAC, Agudath Israel) | ✅ Support security measures; mixed views on settlements | Emphasize strategic necessity; often defer to Israeli government |
Conservative / Reform | ⚖️ Support Israel’s security but critical of settlement expansion | Many support diplomatic solutions, humanitarian concerns | |
Young, Progressive Jews | ❌ Mostly critical of occupation; oppose settlements and annexation | Growing trend toward supporting Palestinian rights; some criticize military operations | |
European Jews | Orthodox / Traditional | ✅ Support Israel’s security; mixed on settlements | Smaller communities; generally defer to Israeli government |
Progressive / Liberal | ❌ Critical of settlements and occupation; support international law frameworks | Emphasis on human rights and diplomacy |
🔑 Key Takeaways
Support ≠ blanket approval of all actions. Many who support Israel’s security are critical of settlement policy.
Generational divide is strong, especially in the U.S.: younger Jews are more critical.
Religious ideology often correlates with stronger support for expansion and hardline policies.
Geography matters: Israeli Jews’ support is more pragmatic/security-focused, while Diaspora Jews’ views are more values-driven.
Hamas (and other armed groups in Gaza) has not completely stopped launching missiles into Israel, but the frequency and scale have changed significantly since the large‑scale conflict that began in October 2023. Here’s the current situation based on the most recent reporting and analysis 📌:
🔥 1. Major Escalations Have Mostly Subsided
The massive barrage of long‑range rockets that marked the start of the current war in October 2023 — which killed many civilians and triggered a massive Israeli military response — dropped sharply after intense Israeli action and ground operations in Gaza. Hamas and its allies still have some capabilities, but the sustained high‑volume barrages are no longer routine.
📉 2. Smaller Rocket and Missile Launches Still Occur
There have been occasional rocket launches from Gaza, even after ceasefire efforts and sporadic de‑escalation moves. For example, in May 2024 Hamas fired rockets toward central Israel (including near Tel Aviv) for the first time in months, showing they still retain some rocket capability.
These sporadic attacks were much smaller in scale than the 2023 barrage: in that incident, about eight rockets were launched, most were intercepted or landed in open areas without major casualties.
🤝 3. Ceasefires and Agreements Have Been Fragile
After heavy fighting, there have been negotiated halt‑fires and partial agreements, such as the January 2025 ceasefire plan. But those have often been fragile or temporary, and violations on both sides — including rocket/anti‑tank attacks by Hamas and retaliatory Israeli strikes — have continued.
⚔️ 4. Other Groups Also Fire from Gaza
It’s important to note that not all launches are necessarily by Hamas alone:
Other militant groups like Islamic Jihad have also fired rockets from Gaza. Israeli officials have sometimes attributed smaller barrages to these groups.
So even if Hamas avoids large barrages at times, other factions can still trigger flare‑ups.
📊 5. Reasons the Attacks Continue — Even Occasionally
Incomplete ceasefires: Agreements have often not fully addressed the core issues, leaving armed factions on both sides with incentives to resume attacks.
Political and military signaling: Smaller rocket launches may aim to demonstrate capability or exert pressure in negotiations, even without triggering full‑scale war.
Israeli operations: Israeli strikes and military pressure can provoke reactive attacks by militants in Gaza. This dynamic has kept the situation tense and episodic.
🧠 So • Does Hamas still fire missiles into Israel?
Yes — but rarely and in much smaller numbers than during the peak of the war in 2023.These launches tend to be occasional, limited barrages or single rockets, not the sustained mass waves that ignited the earlier phase of conflict.
They happen against a backdrop of:
fragile or partial ceasefires,
ongoing Israeli operations in Gaza and military responses,
and periodic political and security escalations.
In other words: the conflict’s active “rocket war” phase has dialed down considerably, but missile and rocket fire — usually on a much smaller scale — continues episodically.
Not all Palestinians support Hamas. Public opinion across Palestinian communities is diverse and highly influenced by location, political affiliation, age, and circumstances.
Hamas has de facto authority in Gaza since 2007, following violent clashes with Fatah. Residents there may vote out of necessity, fear, or alignment, but support is not uniform.
2️⃣ Polling Data on Support
Surveys from reputable sources like the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) give insight:
Polling Year | Region | Support for Hamas | Notes |
2024 | Gaza | ~35–40% | Stronger among younger men, religious conservatives; lower among women and urban professionals. |
2024 | West Bank | ~15–20% | Majority support Fatah or PA leadership; Hamas seen as more radical and confrontational. |
2023 | Overall Palestinian Territories | ~25–30% | Shows that most Palestinians are not actively supporting Hamas, especially regarding military actions. |
5️⃣ Summary
Support for Hamas is significant in Gaza, but far from universal.
In the West Bank and Palestinian diaspora, Hamas is much less popular than Fatah.
Public opinion is nuanced: many Palestinians want political solutions, aid, and security, rather than military escalation.
Criticism of Israeli government actions in Gaza has been widespread, international, and multi-layered 🌍🕊️
1️⃣ Global Political Reactions
United Nations:
Multiple UN bodies (Human Rights Council, General Assembly) have condemned civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure in Gaza.
Reports have highlighted possible violations of international humanitarian law, including indiscriminate bombing and targeting of residential areas.
European Union:
EU leaders have called for restraint, proportionality, and protection of civilians, while reiterating Israel’s right to self-defense.
United States:
The Trump administration supports Israel’s security, but also expresses concern about civilian deaths and humanitarian crises.
U.S. Congress debates are sharply divided along party lines, reflecting differing levels of support or criticism.
Other Countries:
Middle Eastern states, including Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey, condemn Israeli military actions and call for ceasefires.
Some governments (e.g., Brazil, South Africa) have issued strong statements criticizing Israel for excessive force.
2️⃣ International Organizations and NGOs
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem:
Accuse Israel of disproportionate attacks, collective punishment, and targeting civilian areas.
Document destruction of homes, schools, hospitals, and UN shelters.
International Red Cross / Red Crescent:
Emphasizes humanitarian crisis, shortages of medical supplies, food, and clean water in Gaza.
3️⃣ Public and Academic Opinion
Global public protests:
Large demonstrations in Europe, North America, South America, and Asia criticizing Israeli military operations.
Academics and intellectuals:
Many scholars describe Israel’s conduct as disproportionate to security objectives, stressing international law violations.
Some advocate boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) as a response.
4️⃣ Nature of Criticism
Humanitarian: Civilian casualties, displacement, destruction of infrastructure.
Legal: Alleged violations of Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law.
Political: Concerns about blockades, access to aid, and long-term occupation.
Moral / Ethical: Debates over proportionality, collective punishment, and targeting of residential areas.
5️⃣ Balance
Supporters of Israel’s government argue these operations are defensive, aimed at stopping rocket attacks and tunnels.
Critics highlight civilian suffering and question whether actions are proportionate and lawful.
🔑 Summary Statement
Criticism of Israeli military actions in Gaza is broad and international, coming from governments, international organizations, NGOs, academics, and public protests.While Israel emphasizes self-defense against Hamas, critics focus on humanitarian impact, legal violations, and civilian casualties, calling for restraint and long-term resolution.
What Hamas did in Israel was a crime an Israel has the right to defend against this. What is a proportional reaction?
This is a really important question — and one that sits right at the heart of international humanitarian law.
What Hamas did was a crime (mass killing of civilians, hostage‑taking = war crimes).
Israel has the right to defend itself.
The hard part is defining what counts as a proportional reaction ⚖️🕊️
1️⃣ What “Proportionality” Actually Means (Legally)
In international law, proportionality does NOT mean:
“An equal number of deaths”
“Matching violence with violence”
“Eye for an eye”
Instead, under the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law, proportionality means:
A military action is unlawful if the expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
So the test is:
🎯 Military necessity
🧍 Civilian harm (foreseeable)
⚖️ Balance between the two
2️⃣ What a Proportional Reaction Allows
Israel is allowed to:
Target Hamas fighters and commanders
Strike weapons depots, tunnels, launch sites
Conduct ground operations to dismantle armed groups
Defend borders and prevent future attacks
Even if:
Civilians are unavoidably harmed
Infrastructure is damaged
IF those harms are:
Not the objective
Minimized as much as reasonably possible
3️⃣ What Makes a Response Disproportionate
A reaction becomes disproportionate if:
❌ Civilian Harm Is Excessive
Large‑scale civilian deaths not necessary to achieve a clear military goal
Destruction of residential areas without specific military targets
❌ Collective Punishment
Cutting off food, water, electricity, or medical aid to the civilian population as pressure
Punishing civilians for actions they did not commit
❌ Indiscriminate Force
Weapons or tactics that cannot distinguish between civilians and fighters
Repeated strikes on hospitals, shelters, or aid routes without compelling military justification
4️⃣ A Simple Way to Think About It
Ask three questions for any military action:
Is there a specific military target?
Is this the least harmful way to neutralize it?
Is the civilian cost clearly outweighed by the concrete military gain?
If the answer to #3 is “no” — it’s disproportionate, even if the cause is self‑defense.
5️⃣ Why This Is So Contested in Gaza
Gaza presents extreme challenges:
Hamas embeds within civilian areas (a war crime on their part)
Gaza is densely populated
Civilian escape routes are limited
But international law is clear:
The enemy’s violations do not cancel Israel's own obligations.
That’s why:
Many governments accept Israel’s right to defend itself
While simultaneously criticising how that defence is carried out
6️⃣ Bottom Line
✔️ Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas❌ That right is not unlimited
A proportional response means:
Focused on military objectives
Civilian harm minimised, not normalised
No collective punishment
Constant reassessment as conditions change
This is why criticism can be compatible with recognising Israel’s right to self‑defense — the debate is not whether Israel can act, but how far it can go.
Comments