The pitfalls of polling about a Gaza ceasefire

People like world peace and ceasefires. But public policy involves tradeoffs and conflicting values.  Understanding how voters make the tradeoffs can be much more illuminating than merely recording oversimplified opinions about generic concepts.

If pollsters bothered to ask questions like, “Do you favor or oppose world peace?” I’d wager they’d find 90 percent in favor.  

Pollsters don’t waste time and budgets on such questions, though, in part because the responses tell us only the obvious — peace is positive and certainly preferred over war.   

However, public policy is not just about choosing desirable end-states like world peace or prosperity for all; it’s also about making tradeoffs and reconciling competing values. Most of the poll questions about a ceasefire in Gaza focus on vaguely desirable goals, ignoring the tradeoffs and conflicting values.   

This problem is compounded by limited knowledge. Just 28 percent of voters profess to know a great deal about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Almost the same number confessed to knowing little or nothing.  

So, when Data for Progress, to pick one of several similar examples, asks, “Do you support or oppose the U.S. calling for a permanent ceasefire and a de-escalation of violence in Gaza,” why wouldn’t the average, poorly informed citizen say “Yes, I favor the U.S. calling for permanent a ceasefire”?   

That might stop more deaths — a worthy, indeed vitally important, goal.  

However, given a little more time and information people have a very different reaction.  

Data for Progress itself underlines the point. Another of its questions offers some arguments on both sides and implants some assumptions — that a ceasefire would require “brokering a deal between Hamas and Israel to end the violence on both sides and release all hostages.”  

The pollsters ask respondents to assume a ceasefire would entail agreement by both sides to stop the violence, even though Hamas leaders have clearly stated they’ll  continue attacking Israel until the Jews leave their homes and homeland.   

There was a ceasefire in place until Hamas broke it on Oct. 7, and the terrorist group’s words and deeds demonstrate that it has no intention of ending the violence.  

Respondents were also told this imaginary ceasefire was predicated on hostages being released.  

As President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken affirmed, the humanitarian pause they negotiated came to an end precisely because Hamas was unwilling to release more hostages.   

Neither the questioners nor the respondents should assume that calling for a ceasefire would result in hostages being released.  

But after hearing arguments on both sides, some fallacious, support for a ceasefire in Data for Progress’s poll drops 9 points, from 61 percent to 52 percent.  

My firm, in a survey for Democratic Majority for Israel, looked at the issue from multiple perspectives, using three sets of questions, which all converge on the conclusion that large majorities oppose a ceasefire that would leave the hostages in Hamas’s hands or Hamas in control of Gaza.   

First, we gave voters two options. Just 19 percent took the position that “Israel should agree to an immediate, permanent ceasefire with Hamas,” while 61 percent believe “Israel should only agree to a ceasefire with Hamas after Hamas has been disarmed and dismantled and the hostages they took are released.”   

Given a choice between a permanent ceasefire now and one after Hamas’s defeat and the return of hostages, voters overwhelmingly opt for the later.   

Another question posited two possibilities for ending the war. The less popular, with support from only 17 percent, was “Israel and Hamas negotiate a permanent ceasefire that ends Israeli military action and leaves Hamas in control of Gaza.”   

Voters offer far more support (60 percent) for “Hamas gives up control of Gaza by surrendering its leaders, its weapons and the hostages, while Israel ends its military action in Gaza.”   

Some might argue that we biased the question by alluding to Hamas control of Gaza and the hostages.   

But that is precisely the real policy tradeoff at stake.   

No one, including advocates of an immediate, permanent ceasefire, has yet articulated a plan that gets us from an immediate permanent ceasefire to Hamas relinquishing control of Gaza, of its remaining weapons, or of the hostages.   

When I’ve asked ceasefire advocates how one disarms and dismantles Hamas after a ceasefire, they retreat into magical thinking, “there must be a way to negotiate it.”   

Finally, we asked which of two alternatives would be least palatable. A substantial 54 percent majority said, “any outcome that leaves Hamas in charge of Gaza is unacceptable,” while just 16 percent said, “any additional military action by Israel is unacceptable.”  

Even more (59 percent) believe “any outcome that fails to free all the hostages Hamas kidnapped is unacceptable” compared to 17 percent who instead say “any additional military action by Israel is unacceptable.”   

People like world peace and ceasefires. But public policy involves tradeoffs and conflicting values.  

Understanding how voters make the tradeoffs can be much more illuminating than merely recording oversimplified opinions about generic concepts.   

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 20 years, as president of the American Association of Political Consultants, a member of the Association’s Hall of Fame, and is president of Democratic Majority for Israel.