Contrary to what leading “progressive” media outlets such as CNN would have us believe, the educated English-speaking public is more concerned with geostrategic aspects of the conflict than with the humanitarian plight of the Palestinians. During the war, Google searches overwhelmingly focused on the terms, “Iran” and “Israel” rather than “Gaza” and “the Palestinians.” This trend was evident worldwide, especially with the American public. This finding demonstrates that the Western public is more focused on regional instability and the potential for a broader regional war than on questions of Palestinian rights and the humanitarian plight of the Palestinians. In public opinion campaigns, Israel should emphasize the necessity of confronting Iran and its proxies rather than trying to defend itself on the Palestinian front.
Powerful liberal, progressive media sites such as the CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post would have us believe that most view Israel’s conflict with its enemies – particularly the Palestinians – through a humanitarian and progressive lens. This perspective ignores the realist perspective in international relations, which would focus on the most powerful actors in conflict: Iran and Israel. In the coverage by these and other “progressive” outlets of the presumed human plight in Gaza, the sheer number of Gazans killed – based on figures provided by the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health and accepted at face value – trump geostrategic concerns. These include threats to regional stability from Iran’s genocidal plans toward Israel and its destructive dismemberment of Arab states through its Shiite proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Iraq and Syria.
Surprisingly, a Google Trends analysis of searches relating to five terms – “Gaza,” the “Palestinians,” “Iran,” “Israel” and “Lebanon” – over the past year demonstrates that public opinion focus on the most powerful actors, Iran and Israel, and the consequences of their conflict (including the involvement of Iran’s proxies). The finding indicates that progressive and humanitarian concerns play second fiddle to the importance of states in the conflict and not the other way round.
Table 1 displays the relative number of Google searches for Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Gaza and Palestinians over the past twelve months. Plotting the searches for each term (represented by different colors) produces five distinct curves. At all times, the green and purple curves, representing Iran and Israel respectively, are overwhelmingly higher than the curves for Gaza (red) and the Palestinians (blue). This shows that there were many more searches for Iran and Israel than for the Palestinians and Gaza.
This was true even when the increase in Gaza casualties, as reported by the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health was highest in the initial months of the war compared to the casualties of the two powerful states in the region. In fact, Iran’s population was entirely unaffected, at least in terms of physical casualties, and Israeli casualties – after the October 7 massacre – were minimal compared to the inflated figures Hamas produced, and which the progressive media accepted at face value. Even in November 2023, for every six searches related to Israel or Iran, there was only one search for the terms, “Palestinians” or “Gaza.” If Google searchers had in fact been focused on “humanitarian” issues, the ratio would have been reversed.
Over time, as the Israeli conflict with Iran, which operated through its Hezbollah proxy, intensified when compared to the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation in Gaza, the ratio of searches in favor of Iran, Israel and Lebanon became even more pronounced. By the end of December 2023, for every six searches for “Gaza” and for every search for “Palestinians” there were on average 62 searches for “Israel” and “Iran,” a ratio of ten to one. Following Iran’s direct strike against Israel on April 13, 2024, even when the number of searches for these terms was at its lowest, the ratio rose to 15 searches for Israel and Iran combined for every one search for “Gaza” or “Palestinians,” highlighting growing concerns over the implications of a direct confrontation between the two regional powers compared to the presumed plight of the Palestinians. In the immediate aftermath of the Iranian strike, the ratio of searches for Israel and Iran combined compared to “Gaza” or “Palestinians” surged to fifty to one.
In subsequent peaks, for example at the end of July when Israel killed Hezbollah Chief-of-Staff, Fuad Shukr in Beirut and on the same day, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, and then assassinated Hezbollah chief, Hassan Nasrallah on September 27, 2024, which was then followed four days later by a massive Iranian missile attack on Israel, the ratio of searches declined to thirty and forty searches respectively for every one search for Palestinian-related terms, but the gap was nevertheless considerable.
The intensification of the war on Israel’s northern front, particularly the rounds of direct confrontations between Israel and Iran had paradoxical effects on the Palestinians. For Hamas, this was undoubtedly a boon: Israel diverted some of its finest troops from the southern to the northern front, allowing Hamas to infiltrate northern Gaza and to counter Israel’s third incursion into Jabaliya during the course of the war. Politically, however, the shift in focus to the northern front and the regional confrontation between Israel and Iran robs the Palestinian issue its limelight, as reflected by the analysis of worldwide Google searches.
Plotting Google searches for the same terms – “Iran,” “Israel,” “Lebanon,” “Gaza” and “Palestinians” – in the United States over the same period (see Table 2), reveals a very similar pattern to the worldwide searches for the five terms plotted in Table 1. At all points in time, including when Hamas churned out rapidly escalating Palestinian casualty figures in the early months of the war, the overwhelming majority in the United States focused on the terms, “Israel” and “Iran” over “Palestinians” and “Gaza.” As with the global data displayed in Table 1, this gap widened as the direct conflict between Israel and Iran and on the northern front with Hezbollah intensified relative to the southern front in Gaza.
It is noteworthy that the highest number of searches occurred in the District of Columbia, even though its population is miniscule compared to most states of the Unio. This reflects the reality that international politics in the United States primarily engages the elites – in this case, Washington politicians, the security and intelligence agencies), the big think-tanks and the major universities in the area (Georgetown, George Washington and American University).
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Connecticut all ranked high in the number of searches relative to their populations, a trend that can perhaps be attributed to the high number of elite higher educational institutions in these states. Despite the “progressive” reputation of these states, searches for “Iran” and “Israel” outnumbered searches for “Gaza” and the “Palestinians,” mirroring the overall patterns observed both worldwide and in the United States as a whole.
For Israel, these findings are instructive. They demonstrate that contrary to the portrayal of the war in the leading “progressive” media outlets, most educated English-speakers worldwide and in the United States view the conflict through a realistic lens – primarily concern over the ramifications of the confrontation between the two major regional powers – Israel and Iran. This suggests that Israeli public diplomacy should focus on explaining the reasons behind Israel’s conflict with Iran and its main proxy, Hezbollah, rather than focusing on the Palestinian front.
These findings also suggest that Israel in fact has greater leeway in dealing with its foes than is commonly thought. Israeli policy is often constrained by perceptions of public opinion, particularly in the United States. The prevailing belief is that Iran and its proxies command far less sympathy in Western public opinion than the plight of the Palestinians. These findings indicate that Israel should also be less constrained in its freedom of action against its Palestinian enemy, Hamas.
JISS Policy Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.
