Beyond the terrorism narrative: Young Americans’ changing views of 7 October

هبة بعيرات
Hiba Birat
NoonPost

هذا التقرير متاح أيضًا بـ العربية

Three years have passed since the events of 7 October, which were followed by the largest documented genocide in modern history. In that time, governments, societies and historical narratives have changed profoundly. The events have come to be seen as a historical turning point, after which nothing is as it was before.

Where does the American public now stand on 7 October, after the initial shock has faded? How have Zionist groups used the events to shape US public opinion? And how has the escalating genocidal war in Gaza changed the way progressives and human rights advocates discuss the attacks? Is a new discourse emerging in the US that gives greater weight to narratives of resistance than to accusations of terrorism, or is it too early for such a fundamental shift?

Casting 7 October as another 11 September

In his speech to the UN General Assembly, Netanyahu compared the events of 7 October in the settlements surrounding Gaza with the 11 September attacks in New York City. He was doing more than appealing to emotion or trying to capitalise on a historical moment. Backed by its supporters in the US, Israel drew on the narrative about terrorism it had cultivated since the beginning of this century, and on the hostility towards Arabs and Muslims that narrative had generated over those decades.

Israel sought to frame 7 October as another episode in an open-ended war on terror, rather than a separate outbreak of regional violence shaped by local factors and a different political context for resistance.

This framing drew parallels between the objectives, strategies and enemies in the two wars. It defined the enemy as extending beyond Hamas to Iran and its regional proxies, helping legitimise the expansion of Israel’s war across the region, just as Washington had expanded its war on al-Qaida.

Israel’s supporters in the US also linked 7 October to 11 September to influence US policy and secure further unconditional support. They presented the war as a confrontation with a common enemy threatening western civilisation and American influence in the Middle East.

They pointed to the global alliance Washington had formed to fight al-Qaida. In their account, the alliance’s legitimacy remained intact despite the vast numbers of Afghan and Iraqi civilians killed in the name of “Washington’s legitimate right to self-defense,” and no one had dared accuse Washington of genocide.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel US think tank, focused its efforts after 7 October on linking the two events. It repeatedly urged Americans to view Israel’s response in light of the anger and pain they themselves had felt after 11 September.

The institute has continued to invoke 7 October in discussions of the 11 September attacks and the changes they brought to the global order and international alliances. It links Hamas to al-Qaida, justifies Israel’s genocide as a necessity of the moment, and urges US politicians and the public to support Israel in a shared war on terrorism on the grounds that it is also America’s war.

The American Jewish Committee also drew on the comparison to urge US politicians to continue supporting Israel’s war in Gaza and resist pressure for a ceasefire. It invoked Washington’s “understandable” determination after 11 September to pursue threats to its interests and sustain a military campaign overseas for many years. That, it argued, should help Americans understand Israel’s insistence on continuing its military operation until Hamas was completely eliminated, given the group’s presence on its border and the constant threat it posed.

Several groups have challenged the parallels Israel’s supporters have repeatedly drawn, arguing that the comparison is inaccurate and serves neither peace nor truth. US rights groups such as Lawfare highlighted differences between the US war on al-Qaida and Israel’s war on Hamas: population density, civilian death tolls, and the historical and political context in which Israel was itself an active participant. Even so, they continued to describe both al-Qaida and Hamas as terrorist groups.

They were joined by American Jewish groups that condemn the colonial policies of Israel’s far-right government. Publications and organisations including Jewish Currents, IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace rejected the comparison as detached from its wider context and blamed Israel’s policies in the occupied territories. They did not, however, celebrate 7 October as legitimate resistance, generally condemning it as a criminal attack on Israeli civilians. Pro-Israel groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, responded by accusing them of betraying Jews and glorifying terrorism.

A narrative losing its hold

Early polls after 7 October showed American sympathy for Israel and acceptance of its military operation as a legitimate response to Hamas’s attacks. A Pew Research Center survey in March 2024, nearly five months after the events, found that 58 per cent of Americans — almost six in 10 — considered Israel’s war on Gaza an acceptable response to the attacks. Meanwhile, 38 per cent said Israel’s conduct of the war was proportionate to the scale of the attacks.

More striking was the finding in the same early poll that 22 per cent supported Hamas’s military action from the start of the war, although only 4 per cent of them supported the way the 7 October attacks were carried out. This suggests that Americans were aware early on of the nature of the conflict and that it did not begin on 7 October, as Zionist groups seek to portray it.

The generational divide in American views of 7 October was apparent from the earliest days of the crisis. A Harvard CAPS-Harris poll conducted about a week after the attacks found that 48 per cent of respondents aged 18 to 24 understood why 7 October had happened and supported it in some form. By comparison, 95 per cent of those over 65 expressed unequivocal sympathy for Israel.

Overall, however, early polling — including polls by the New York Times, the Economist and Marist in October 2023 — showed sympathy for Israel, particularly over the Israeli hostages held in Gaza, and support for its military action.

It also showed strong condemnation of Hamas and its military operations, which Americans readily associated with terrorism. This reflected decades of work by pro-Israel groups to shape US public opinion, portraying jihadist and Islamist groups in general as an external enemy threatening the future of western civilisation.

As time passed and Israel’s documented crimes in Gaza escalated, American support for Israel declined. The same polls that had initially shown overwhelming support for Israel began to show declining support.

Gallup’s 2026 survey found that 41 per cent of Americans sympathised with Palestinians, while only 36 per cent sympathised with Israelis. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in May this year found that support for Palestinians and Israelis had almost converged, at 50 per cent and 52 per cent respectively. Support for Israel had fallen from 67 per cent in 2022, before the events of 7 October — a marked deterioration in American attitudes towards the country.

A Harvard CAPS-Harris poll conducted in July this year, meanwhile, found that 60 per cent of respondents aged 18 to 24 supported Hamas, compared with 40 per cent who supported Israel.

The poll shows a generational divide that continues to shape American attitudes nearly three years after the events. Direct support for the 7 October attacks has remained limited in official US polling. In an Associated Press-NORC poll conducted this year, only 7 per cent of respondents said the attacks were justified, while 10 per cent supported Hamas’s refusal to disarm.

Supporting Palestinian rights under pressure

The events of 7 October have cast a long shadow over US organisations, groups and politicians that support Palestinian rights. Amid the initial shock, some groups — especially student groups such as the national umbrella organisation for Students for Justice in Palestine, as well as Within Our Lifetime — embraced the language of resistance. They justified the events as legitimate armed action by a people under occupation, while denying that the settlers killed in the settlements surrounding Gaza were civilians.

Other organisations and politicians were compelled to express their positions more cautiously, focusing on the Israeli occupation and the brutal colonial policies that had led to the attacks.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) sought to balance the requirements of US law, which prohibits support for what it defines as terrorism, with the right to free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It condemned the killing of civilians on both sides and held Israel responsible for the events and their consequences, citing the policies it had pursued in Gaza for decades.

Other organisations, including American Muslims for Palestine, neither condemned Hamas nor stated a position on the attacks themselves. Instead, they focused entirely on blaming Israel and holding it responsible for the events.

Progressive politicians and members of Congress who support Palestinian rights took a similar approach, condemning violence on both sides while stressing the role of Israeli policies as a root cause of the continuing violence. In their statements on 7 October, Palestinian American Representative Rashida Tlaib and Representatives Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush expressed grief over civilian deaths on both sides. They called for Israel to be held accountable for its colonial policies and for an end to its settlement project in the occupied territories. Omar and Bush also condemned the attacks, while Tlaib refused to condemn the events or describe Hamas as a terrorist movement.

Those who had initially celebrated the events soon faced relentless pursuit and intensive investigations by university administrations and US courts. Student movement leaders paid a heavy price for what official US bodies deemed support for terrorism, incitement to kill Jews and antisemitism. Penalties ranged from expulsion from universities to deportation from the US.

Pro-Israel groups played a prominent role in pursuing these activists at universities, workplaces and even in public spaces, accusing them of incitement and glorifying terrorism. Members of the targeted groups lost their positions and jobs, while their political activity and freedom of expression came under increasing pressure.

Organisations that tried to work around US law also faced action by pro-Israel groups. These groups pressed the attorney general’s office to open an investigation into American Muslims for Palestine’s activities. They were also behind a lawsuit brought by “survivors of the events of Oct. 7” against the organisation. The pro-Israel groups portrayed it as a mouthpiece and front for Hamas’s operations in the US.

Statements by CAIR executive director Nihad Awad, who had expressed happiness at seeing Palestinians in Gaza cross the separation fence on 7 October, were similarly used to stir hostility towards the council and call for its activities to be halted. CAIR responded by reaffirming its condemnation of the attack as an unacceptable crime against civilians.

Tlaib was censured by the US House of Representatives because her statement on the events included the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which the House considered an explicit call for Israel’s destruction and direct incitement to exterminate Israelis.

Three years on, progressive politicians and advocates of Palestinian rights continue to manoeuvre amid the Trump administration’s fierce assault on speech concerning the Palestinian cause. In a comment marking the anniversary, Zohran Mamdani condemned the attacks, describing them as a “war crime,” and mourned the Israeli civilians killed. He also continued to criticise Israel and condemn its genocidal war on Gaza.

Abdul El-Sayed, a Senate candidate in Michigan, took a similar position. He condemned Hamas’s “horrific attack” and said all children and civilians deserved peace and safety, while continuing to focus on stopping Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

Muslim politicians and candidates, and others who support Palestinian rights, have faced fierce attacks from pro-Israel groups demanding that they state a clear position on 7 October. The pro-Israel groups have demanded condemnation of violence that, in their account, killed more than 1,200 “Israeli civilians,” while the politicians have continued to condemn Israel, describe its actions in Gaza as “genocide,” and demand an end to Washington’s unconditional support for Tel Aviv.

Voices defending the attacks

Some prominent US voices, particularly in academia and the media, openly supported the 7 October attack, describing it as a major victory for armed struggle and Palestinian resistance.

The day after the events, Joseph Massad, a professor of modern Arab politics at Columbia University, published an article on the Electronic Intifada website praising the attack as an achievement for Palestinian resistance and a step towards final liberation. Pro-Israel groups launched a broad campaign against him and demanded his dismissal from Columbia.

Massad initially remained in his post despite the campaign, amid divisions within the university administration over his right to express his views. He was later forced to take temporary leave.

The campaign also targeted Russell Rickford, a Cornell University professor who supports Palestinian rights. Rickford had described the attack as inspiring hope for a shift in the balance of power and a stronger global struggle against oppression. Mounting pressure from Israel’s supporters prompted him to apologise for his choice of words and take temporary leave from his post.

Other academics from leading institutions, including Yale University, the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of California, Davis, also defended the attack. Among them were American studies professor Jareena Grewal and the prominent American philosopher Judith Butler. They viewed it as armed struggle against a settler-colonial project that represented contemporary global oppression. Israel’s supporters in the US responded with fierce criticism and calls to exclude them from academia.

The most prominent voice supporting the attack was the Jewish professor Norman Finkelstein, a staunch defender of Palestinians’ right to armed struggle. Finkelstein said he was happy after the attack, declaring that it “warms every cell in my soul.” He compared it with the slave rebellion led by Nat Turner in the US in 1831. Both involved violence against civilians, he said, but it was the desperate violence of people who saw no alternative and had no other choice.

Finkelstein continued to defend the attack as time passed, despite intense pressure from pro-Israel groups. He also defended those who carried it out against allegations of atrocities against women and children, insisting that there was no evidence Hamas fighters had committed rape or other sexual crimes on 7 October.

US media figure Hasan Piker joined Finkelstein in consistently defending the attack. In his media appearances over the past three years, Piker has defended Hamas’s decision to launch it, arguing that it was the final and predictable response to decades of Israeli brutality against Palestinians.

Piker also faced a campaign of bullying that reached the House of Representatives, with calls for him to be held accountable for glorifying “terrorism,” alongside accusations of antisemitism and promoting extremism among American youth. The global Zionist campaign against him ultimately pushed the British government to cancel his visa for a visit to the UK and bar him from entering the country, citing what it described as his controversial and extremist positions towards Israel.

TAGGED: Al-Aqsa Flood ، Benjamin Netanyahu ، Genocide ، Hamas ، October 7
TAGGED: 7 October ، Israeli Army Crimes ، The Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza ، War on Gaza ، Zionism
Download this article as PDF
Share this Article
هبة بعيرات
By Hiba Birat Writer and Practicing Attorney in New York, Master's in International Law and Human Rights
Follow:
Palestinian writer and practicing attorney in the state of New York, Master's degree in International Law and Human Rights.
Previous Article NoonPost Three years of war on Gaza: How solidarity spread beyond the streets
Next Article NoonPost Shared suffering, separate struggles: Palestinians after 7 October