Another possible explanation is the distinction between the Israeli government and the Israeli people. I can easily see somebody believing that the Israeli government is committing genocide, but still having sympathy for the wider Israeli public.
The exact language of the questions is relevant. The first asks if "Israel" is committing genocide. This obviously refers to the government of Israel. However, the second question refers to "the Israelis." I think most respondents interpreted this to mean the wider Israeli public.
I wish my Google were surfacing it readily, but I've seen research before that finds that Americans historically have distinguished between a government and its people in survey responses and have diverged pretty sharply in sympathies, dating back to Cold War era surveys about the Soviet Union. So this explanation strikes me as reasonable and as one that people could hold without hypocrisy.
It’s so weird when MN (especially MN Catholicism!) makes national/international news. All the sudden “far mode” collides with “near mode,” and it’s disorienting. Richfield and the Diocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis are “near mode,” and seeing Takes from famous pundits who don’t know anything about either is like (e.g.) Captain Picard having Opinions on “Bde Maka Ska” or whatever.
All that said, my family and I are sincerely praying for everyone affected.
Now that I’ve read the whole piece, this is a good and important point on interpreting polls. Footnote 10 and its preceding paragraph or so in particular.
Another explanation that occurs to me is people who accept the broader, academic definition of "genocide", and even conclude that attempts to eradicate culture are as morally abhorrent as attempts to eradicate the people themselves, but then get really uncomfortable when pondering whether slavery and Jim Crow, or the Trail of Tears and the like, or centuries of colonialism and influence operations, or (drawing from my own country) residential schools, the Sixties Scoop and the potlatch ban might therefore also all qualify, and therefore they themselves have benefited from the results of genocides (and even arguably ongoing ones, in some cases).
Seems like a plausible mental process, but I'm not sure how it would explain this poll result. Wouldn't this thought process lead the thinker to either (a) deny the (putative) Israeli genocide, in which case they won't show up in the result at all or (b) lower the moral weight they assign to genocide, in which case they end up in the Diluted Genocide Definition bucket?
It is closely associated with that, and I had the same thought, but I think there's a distinguishing characteristic: this hypothetical person still thinks that genocide is extremely bad and is not, at least in their own head, diluting the moral weight assigned to it. But this hypothetical person is also aware enough of the benefits that have passed down to them as a result of past genocides (within this broader definition), and don't especially want to give that up, that it ends up feeling very hypocritical to call something out as a genocide while continuing to benefit from genocide. And a lot of people do not like feeling like hypocrites* and so look to somehow square this circle and try to express disapproval while also trying to justify why they aren't willing to forgo the benefits they enjoy from said past genocides.
You could, of course, say that this gets to the same end result as the Diluted Genocide Definition bucket, that even as our hypothetical poll respondent might think that they haven't diluted the moral weight of genocide as they accepted an expanded definition, their actions, or lack thereof (insofar as they are passively willing to accept the results of past atrocities that have ended up being in their favour), tell a different story. So this respondent ends up being unable to muster as harsh a condemnation as they might otherwise: what's happening to the Palestinians is really bad, but, so this respondent thinks, the analogous group to mine is the Israelis, so in condemning Israel too strongly I'm effectively condemning myself, and if I'm worthy of condemnation then why am I not doing more about that, and if this respondent were to follow the chain of logic it could end up at some very uncomfortable conclusions.
*This of course goes for any number of other uncomfortable mental dissonances, such as not liking the idea of having made a pragmatic lesser-of-two-evils choice and making post hoc justifications for it and in turn coming to see your choice as actively good and correct rather than merely less bad and less wrong. (This I think explains some of why many hold-my-nose voters in 2016 especially ended up actively defending their candidate of choice in that election even when they claimed beforehand that their vote was only because the other one was worse.)
Another possible explanation is the distinction between the Israeli government and the Israeli people. I can easily see somebody believing that the Israeli government is committing genocide, but still having sympathy for the wider Israeli public.
The exact language of the questions is relevant. The first asks if "Israel" is committing genocide. This obviously refers to the government of Israel. However, the second question refers to "the Israelis." I think most respondents interpreted this to mean the wider Israeli public.
This is an excellent idea and I wish I had thought of it. I'm sure that's part of the explanation as well.
I wish my Google were surfacing it readily, but I've seen research before that finds that Americans historically have distinguished between a government and its people in survey responses and have diverged pretty sharply in sympathies, dating back to Cold War era surveys about the Soviet Union. So this explanation strikes me as reasonable and as one that people could hold without hypocrisy.
It’s so weird when MN (especially MN Catholicism!) makes national/international news. All the sudden “far mode” collides with “near mode,” and it’s disorienting. Richfield and the Diocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis are “near mode,” and seeing Takes from famous pundits who don’t know anything about either is like (e.g.) Captain Picard having Opinions on “Bde Maka Ska” or whatever.
All that said, my family and I are sincerely praying for everyone affected.
Now that I’ve read the whole piece, this is a good and important point on interpreting polls. Footnote 10 and its preceding paragraph or so in particular.
Another explanation that occurs to me is people who accept the broader, academic definition of "genocide", and even conclude that attempts to eradicate culture are as morally abhorrent as attempts to eradicate the people themselves, but then get really uncomfortable when pondering whether slavery and Jim Crow, or the Trail of Tears and the like, or centuries of colonialism and influence operations, or (drawing from my own country) residential schools, the Sixties Scoop and the potlatch ban might therefore also all qualify, and therefore they themselves have benefited from the results of genocides (and even arguably ongoing ones, in some cases).
Seems like a plausible mental process, but I'm not sure how it would explain this poll result. Wouldn't this thought process lead the thinker to either (a) deny the (putative) Israeli genocide, in which case they won't show up in the result at all or (b) lower the moral weight they assign to genocide, in which case they end up in the Diluted Genocide Definition bucket?
I may, of course, misunderstand you!
It is closely associated with that, and I had the same thought, but I think there's a distinguishing characteristic: this hypothetical person still thinks that genocide is extremely bad and is not, at least in their own head, diluting the moral weight assigned to it. But this hypothetical person is also aware enough of the benefits that have passed down to them as a result of past genocides (within this broader definition), and don't especially want to give that up, that it ends up feeling very hypocritical to call something out as a genocide while continuing to benefit from genocide. And a lot of people do not like feeling like hypocrites* and so look to somehow square this circle and try to express disapproval while also trying to justify why they aren't willing to forgo the benefits they enjoy from said past genocides.
You could, of course, say that this gets to the same end result as the Diluted Genocide Definition bucket, that even as our hypothetical poll respondent might think that they haven't diluted the moral weight of genocide as they accepted an expanded definition, their actions, or lack thereof (insofar as they are passively willing to accept the results of past atrocities that have ended up being in their favour), tell a different story. So this respondent ends up being unable to muster as harsh a condemnation as they might otherwise: what's happening to the Palestinians is really bad, but, so this respondent thinks, the analogous group to mine is the Israelis, so in condemning Israel too strongly I'm effectively condemning myself, and if I'm worthy of condemnation then why am I not doing more about that, and if this respondent were to follow the chain of logic it could end up at some very uncomfortable conclusions.
*This of course goes for any number of other uncomfortable mental dissonances, such as not liking the idea of having made a pragmatic lesser-of-two-evils choice and making post hoc justifications for it and in turn coming to see your choice as actively good and correct rather than merely less bad and less wrong. (This I think explains some of why many hold-my-nose voters in 2016 especially ended up actively defending their candidate of choice in that election even when they claimed beforehand that their vote was only because the other one was worse.)