The extent of Israelis’ hunger plight on Gaza – powered by censorship and media, downplaying the humanitarian crisis

Under increasing international pressure, Israel announced on May 19, 2025 that it would lift a month-long humanitarian blockade on Gaza.

The Israeli government said the aid will include “basic quantities” to avoid hunger, while more than 90% of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip experience acute food insecurity.

Despite the astonishing risks of malnutrition and hunger in Gaza, two-thirds of Israelis object to allowing humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. It is true that international organizations provide assistance to international aid agencies that the Israeli government has banned and refused to cooperate with, even if they have international aid agencies that the Israeli government has banned and refused to cooperate with.

What drives Israeli opponents to aid?

As researchers with a strong interest in conflict resolution and humanitarian aid, we wonder whether the key factors driving Israeli attitudes may be misunderstandings about the scale of humanitarian demand.

To find out to what extent misunderstandings shape opposition to humanitarian aid, we investigated nearly 3,000 Jewish Israelis between all ages, regions, income levels and genders between January 21, 2025 and March 19, 2025.

We found that many respondents believe that less than 10% of Gazans are hungry – revealing a clear disconnect between public perception and what international humanitarian organizations report. Indeed, when asked to explain their opposition to humanitarian aid, one of our survey responded: “They don’t have food shortages, they are just presented.” Another answered: “The vast majority of Gaza residents have enough food and have restaurants and shopping malls in Gaza.”

Will reliable information change attitudes?

Our survey points to the role that media bias and censorship may play in distorting Israeli understanding of Gaza’s suffering.

Media bias is a common phenomenon during the war. But since the October 7, 2023 attack, Israeli wars have been killed by Hamas fighters, and media bias against the Gaza war has been institutionalized in Israel. For national security reasons, the IDF has increased its censorship system.

A recent analysis shows that more than 35% of articles from Israeli media have been partially deleted, while almost 10% of articles have been reviewed in 2025.

Although Israelis can consume international news freely, many people are not due to language barriers and bias against Israel.

As a result, what Israeli citizens read in state media, hear and see increasingly reflect the interests of the government.

Additionally, online platforms such as Facebook and X are designed to promote posts, thereby enhancing users’ previous beliefs, resulting in an echo chamber rather than putting people in various perspectives.

Exposure to a terrible humanitarian situation

But what happens when people who express doubts about the level of suffering in Gaza provide reliable information?

To conduct the test, we asked participants to read a randomly selected subset of news articles published by Ynet, Israel’s most popular online news source, about the terrible humanitarian conditions in Gaza. These include reports that managed to escape the children's censors who lost half their weight and families survived on grass and garbage.

We then compared whether those who read these news reports showed higher levels of support for aid delivery than there was no. The results show that contacts on the humanitarian situation in Gaza have led to an increase in support for humanitarian aid – but only a 5 percentage point increase.

This limited shift underlines many of Israel’s views on the Gaza War and its resistance to changing attitudes, even when it comes to basic humanitarian aid. Understandably, this part involves the ongoing collective shock and anger caused by the brutal Hamas attacks of 2023. In addition to killing people, more than 250 hostages were also taken, and dozens of hostages were still being held.

Our survey found that matching the wider Gazans was seen as unworthy of sympathy, finding that more than one-third of Israelis believe that more than 90% of Palestinians in Gaza support Hamas.

One common belief that Gaza “has nothing uninvolved”. Many respondents made it clear that their defense against humanitarian aid was justified, including: “Everyone in Gaza was involved in what happened on October 7” or “they should not be cared for after they were happy about what they did for us.”

However, this view contradicts evidence of significant opposition to Hamas within Gaza.

According to the latest poll by the Centre for Palestinian Policy and Investigation conducted in early May 2025, only 37% of Palestinians in Gaza believe the October 7 attack was “right”. In addition, half of Gaza respondents said they supported recent demonstrations and demanded that Hamas give up control of Gaza.

In view of this reality, the attribution of Israel’s collective responsibility for the October 7 attacks created disturbing moral calculus that justifies civilian suffering. Likewise, it points to the role of misunderstanding in ongoing conflict and leading to humanitarian crises.

Another possible reason for the limited impact of accurate reporting of humanitarian crises is that it represents only a drop in barrels compared to the broader information environment most Israelis face.

A story of news, no matter how compelling, is unlikely to be more than a few months with emotional and partially censored media coverage, political messaging and cumulative effects on social media discourse, which emphasizes threats and distrust.

In such an environment, deep-rooted narratives are difficult to change.

In this regard, the fact that even a single brief news story has any effect is encouraging. It shows that a more accurate and sustained information environment – ​​conveying the true degree of humanitarian suffering and the complexity of public sentiment in Gaza may have a greater impact on Israeli public opinion.

This article is republished from the conversation, a non-profit independent news organization that brings you factual and trustworthy analysis to help you understand our complex world. It is written by: Jori Breslawski, Tel Aviv University and Carlo Koos, University of Bergen

Read more:

Jori Breslawski received funding from the Hartage School of Government, the Colton Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation and the Global Religious Research Program.

Carlo Koos receives funding from the European Research Council (www.wareeffects.eu)