Paradox of Hope: Israel Awaits Trump’s Return?

Paradox of Hope:What Israelis Expect from Trump’s Return

A new comprehensive study by the Dor Moriah Analytics Center has revealed Israeli expectations regarding the impact of D. Trump’s victory in the US presidential election on Israel’s future. The preparation of this report coincided with an interesting statement by Trump, which was fully “predicted” by our research results.

Trump’s Statement: Annexation in Question?

On December 16, 2024, President-elect Donald Trump stated that under current conditions, he does not support the annexation of the West Bank. Trump emphasized that such steps could complicate relations with key allies, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which would affect regional stability and joint efforts to contain Iran.

Research Methodology

The study, conducted by the Dor Moriah group in December 2024 in collaboration with the Geocartography Center, employed a two-phase approach:

– In-depth expert interviews conducted in late November 2024

– A national sociological survey with a sample of 1,007 respondents representing all sectors of Israeli society, including Jewish and Arab populations. The maximum statistical margin of error is ±3.09% at a 95% confidence level.

Optimism vs. Sense of Uncertainty

The research revealed a striking combination of optimism and uncertainty across several issues significant to Israeli society. 54% of Israelis believe Trump’s victory would strengthen state sovereignty, while 50% anticipate improved relations with Saudi Arabia. Nearly 40% expect Trump to take action to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Study Findings 1 (Dor Moriah: Allowed for publication)

Study Findings (Dor Moriah)

One of the study’s most notable findings was the lack of clear consensus among Israelis regarding Donald Trump’s plans for Israel’s future political structure. On this key issue, public opinion is almost evenly split across three positions: 30% of respondents believe Trump will support a “two-state solution,” 29% expect him to back Israeli annexation of territories, and more than a quarter of respondents (27%) were unable to determine Trump’s preferred conflict resolution model.

Study Findings 2 (Dor Moriah: Allowed for Publication)

This distribution of opinions, where no single position gains clear advantage and a significant portion of respondents struggle to answer the question, reflects a deep uncertainty in understanding the US president’s long-term strategy.

This situation becomes even more significant in the context of current Middle East tensions and rising geopolitical instability. In effect, Israeli society finds itself in a position of strategic uncertainty regarding their key ally’s intentions on the fundamental question of the state’s future structure. As experts note, “Trump will have to balance between Israel’s interests and Muslims’ religious ambitions…” and “brutal military activity in the Middle East, which disrupts the long-standing balance of power, could negatively impact US interests.”

Eastern Vector: Uncertainty and Doubts

The Israeli public holds ambiguous expectations about relations with key Global South and BRICS players under Trump’s potential leadership. Unlike the clear optimism about ties with Saudi Arabia, uncertainty predominates here. Regarding China, only 16% believe Trump will positively influence these relations, 20% expect deterioration, while others either see mixed influence (22%) or are unable to make predictions (21%).

A similar pattern emerges regarding Trump’s expected impact on relations with Russia. Here, opinions are almost evenly split between positive expectations (18%), negative (21%), and ambiguous (23%).

War or Diplomacy: Split Expectations of Trump

The study revealed another division in Israeli society – this time in assessing methods Trump would use to resolve Israel’s conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. As with the question of Israel’s future model, opinions are almost equally divided: 29% of respondents expect Trump to pursue a military solution to the conflict, while 28% believe in his commitment to a diplomatic path.

This ambivalence in assessing conflict resolution methods echoes the uncertainty about Trump’s preferred political model: “two states for two peoples vs. territorial annexation.” In both cases, society shows a deep divide between “hard” and “soft” approaches, reflecting fundamental uncertainty about the potential US president’s true intentions.

Conflict Roots: Territory vs. Religion

The study revealed an interesting hierarchy in Israelis’ understanding of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict’s root causes. Nearly half of respondents (47%) see its origins in territorial disputes, reflecting the traditional approach to the conflict as a struggle for land. Religious contradictions rank second in importance – noted by 38% of respondents. Cultural-historical differences (27%) and political contradictions (22%) also play significant roles.

Notably, economic interests (11%) and geopolitical confrontation between economically developed countries and Global South nations (10%) rank last in this hierarchy.

Study Findings 3 (Dor Moriah, Allowed for publication)

This distribution of responses indicates that Israelis perceive the conflict primarily through the lens of local factors (territory, religion, culture), placing less emphasis on global economic and geopolitical aspects. However, it’s notable that many Israelis cited multiple factors in their responses. This suggests that Israelis view the conflict as a multidimensional phenomenon where various factors intertwine and reinforce each other. Such understanding of the conflict’s complexity and multifaceted nature could be key to finding resolution paths, as one expert notes, “…religious radicalization of the conflict is a direct path to regional catastrophe. Transforming a territorial dispute into a religious war makes it fundamentally unresolvable.”

The Religious Paradox

A fascinating discovery of the study lies in the correlation between Israelis’ degree of religiosity and their perception of the conflict: the more religious Israelis are, the more likely they are to see the conflict as territorial rather than religious. Among religious citizens, 55.5% consider the territorial issue key, while 55.7% of secular Israelis point to religious contradictions as the main cause of conflict. This contradiction becomes even more acute given that 38% of all respondents fear an intensification of religious confrontation due to the beliefs of Trump’s team.

Study Findings 4 (Dor Moriah: Allowed for Publication)

Gender Disparities

The study revealed significant differences in conflict perception between men and women. Women are substantially more likely to see territorial disputes as the root cause (52% compared to 42.9% of men), while men tend to place greater emphasis on the religious factor (42.7% compared to 34% of women). This division extends to assessments of conflict resolution prospects.

Class Perception

Economic status significantly influences how people perceive the conflict’s root causes. Middle-class and affluent population segments more frequently point to territorial issues (51-52%), while those with below-average income place greater emphasis on the religious factor. Interestingly, only 11% of all respondents see economic underpinnings in the conflict.

Generational Divide

The older generation shows more optimism regarding Trump’s diplomatic capabilities (34.7% of the population aged 55+ versus 21.7% aged 18-34 believe Trump’s policies will promote a diplomatic solution to the conflict between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah organizations), and more frequently supports the “two states for two peoples” concept.

Study Findings 5 (Dor Moriah, Allowed for Publication)

The youth are more inclined to support the idea of territorial annexation, but are less likely to view the territorial factor as the root cause of the conflict.

Study Findings 6 (Dor Moriah, Allowed for Publication)

In Search of Explanations

The contradictions revealed by the study reflect the complex nature of Israeli society, where traditional dividing lines – religious, social, and generational – manifest in unexpected ways. This is particularly evident in attitudes toward Trump: 70.3% of religious Israelis believe his victory will strengthen the country’s sovereignty, while only 48% of secular citizens share this view.

Among the few points of consensus remains the Iranian issue – in one way or another, everyone expects Trump’s support, albeit in different forms: 38% associate it with the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, 34% with economic strangulation, and 29% with the creation of an anti-Iranian coalition. Regarding this, one expert warns that “…a strong Israel is necessary for the US as a counterweight to Iran, but excessive militarization could undermine the stability of the entire region.”

However, another expert emphasizes: “In an emerging multipolar world, Israel can become not just a technological but also a cultural bridge between civilizations. Its unique experience in synthesizing tradition and innovation is in demand both in the West and East.” This correlates with previous Dor Moriah research showing that about half of respondents consider Israel’s movement toward the Global South promising.

Conclusion

The results of expert forecasts and sociological polling show, on one hand, predominantly optimistic expectations among Israelis regarding Trump’s anticipated policy toward Israel, and on the other hand, uncertainty in expectations regarding vital issues for the State of Israel.

The comprehensive understanding of regional problem factors by a large part of the population is identified as a development potential for Israeli society, as well as Israel’s real possibility to serve as a technological and cultural bridge between civilizations in the emerging multipolar world.

Based on the research results, the following recommendations can be made:

1. Strategic Autonomy

– Development of Israel’s technological potential

– Development of its role as a regional technology hub

2. Internal Stability

– Finding balance and developing inclusive dialogue between religious and secular populations

3. International Positioning:

– Strengthening ties with the Global South, diversifying international relations

– Strengthening Israel’s regional role as a mediator in the “civilizational conflict”

– Maintaining strategic partnership with the US without losing sovereignty

Israel’s successful future depends on the ability to balance various factors – from technological development to religious identity – while maintaining strategic autonomy in a changing world.