More than a century after Britain, with the Balfour Declaration, provided one of the most important political underpinnings for the formation of the Zionist project in Palestine, today a large part of the same country’s public opinion considers Israel a serious threat to world peace. This development is not merely a change in the view of the citizens of a European country toward a foreign actor; rather, it is a sign of the erosion of the international legitimacy of a regime that, over decades, has tried to justify its actions within the framework of the right to defend its security and existence by relying on the support of Western powers.
A new poll by Britain’s National Centre for Social Research shows that 78 percent of respondents consider Israel a serious threat to world peace; while this figure was about 48 percent two decades ago. This indicator had reached 73 percent in the fall of 2024 and, after a temporary decline, rose again in the spring of 2026. At the same time, 74 percent of participants also assessed America as a serious threat to world peace; a figure that was about 35 percent in 2024. The juxtaposition of these two statistics shows that British public opinion has become more pessimistic not only about Israel’s performance, but also about the role of the main powers supporting it in creating global instability.
To understand the depth of this change, one must return to November 2, 1917; when Arthur Balfour, Britain’s then foreign secretary, announced his government’s support for the establishment of a so-called national home for the Jews in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration was not merely a diplomatic position; rather, it was considered a turning point in converting the political aspiration of the Zionist movement into a project supported by one of the great powers of that time. This commitment also found a political and legal standing during the period of the British Mandate over Palestine. From 1922 to 1947, London was in charge of administering this land and played an important role in providing the grounds for the formation of Israel.
Now, more than a century after that decision, a significant historical contradiction has formed: a country whose government played a role in paving the way for the establishment of Israel is today witnessing the formation of one of the broadest waves of public criticism of this regime. The answer to this change must be sought, more than anything else, in Israel’s own performance.
Gaza, in this context, became a determining turning point. Israel’s extensive military operations after October 7, 2023 led to the destruction of a large part of residential areas, the annihilation of vital infrastructure, the collapse of a large part of the healthcare system, and the widespread displacement of Palestinians. According to statistics from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, by September 27, 2026, the number of Palestinians killed since the start of this operation exceeded 74,000, and the number of wounded reached about 175,000.
The legal dimensions of these atrocities have also become one of the main factors in weakening Israel’s international credibility. The UN Independent Commission of Inquiry announced in September 2025 that Israeli officials and forces had committed genocide in Gaza and also spoke of the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Also, the International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion of July 2024, declared the continuation of Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territories illegal and emphasized the necessity of ending this situation.
However, the change in public opinion cannot be considered merely an emotional reaction to the images of Gaza. The main issue is the formation of this perception that what is happening in Palestine is not a temporary incident, but part of a long-term pattern based on the continuation of occupation, the expansion of settlements, and the restriction of Palestinians’ rights. Gaza in fact became a factor that brought the dimensions and consequences of these policies before world public opinion more than before.
The expansion of the scope of Israel’s operations to Lebanon and Syria and the direct confrontation with Iran have also strengthened this perception. The concern of public opinion is no longer limited merely to the Palestine issue; rather, the question has been raised as to whether Israel’s security and military policies, instead of creating stability, have themselves become one of the main factors in expanding the crisis in the region. When the actions of a regional actor lead to increased insecurity and the possibility of expanding confrontations, it is natural that the public assessment of its role in global security should also change.
In this context, the increase in negative views toward America is also noteworthy. Over the past decades, Washington has been Israel’s most important political and military backer and has reduced international pressures against Tel Aviv in many crises. The continuation of this support, especially during the developments in Gaza, has strengthened the question in Western public opinion as to whether the great powers are as committed to implementing these principles toward their allies as they speak of the international order and human rights.
Of course, the change in public attitude in Britain does not mean a complete change in London’s official policy or the end of this country’s support for Israel. Governments still make decisions based on security, economic, and strategic alliance considerations; but widespread public opposition can increase the political cost of supporting Israel and influence governments’ future decisions.
The reality is that for decades Israel enjoyed a kind of political and diplomatic immunity in an important part of the Western world; an immunity rooted in historical considerations and strategic alliances. But today this political capital has faced serious erosion. The British poll is a clear sign of the change in the criteria by which public opinion judges this regime.
From the Balfour Declaration to today’s poll, there is a distance of more than a century; but history now faces a meaningful contradiction: a country that once played a role in the formation of Israel today witnesses that a large majority of its citizens consider this regime a threat to world peace. This development shows that the support of great powers may provide the ground for the formation of a regime, but it cannot create eternal legitimacy for it. International legitimacy is not the legacy of a historical declaration, but the result of political behavior and adherence to the rights of nations; a criterion against which Israel today, more than ever, faces a crisis.
MNA
