According to the study, Attitude toward Hamas is Hostile, but Temporarily Softened around October 7.
A new study by JPPI (the Jewish People Policy Institute) systematically examined discourse in the official newspaper of the Palestinian Authority, Al-Hayat al-Jadida (The New Life), between January 2022 and August 2025.
The study, based on advanced AI-driven content analysis of more than 2,300 opinion columns published in the paper, set out to examine prevailing attitudes within the Palestinian Authority toward Israel and the Jews, as well as toward Hamas and the events of October 7.
The research used artificial intelligence tools to gauge sentiment, linguistic patterns, and to identify formulations with antisemitic characteristics or that delegitimize Israel. For the purposes of this study, “antisemitism” follows the IHRA definition, which is the definition accepted by the Government of Israel and by a large number of Jewish organizations worldwide.
Antisemitism and Denying Zionism
Around 20% of the articles mentioning Jews contain clear antisemitic content – including denial of the very existence of a “Jewish people,” claims of Jewish control over the global economy and American elites, and comparisons between Israel and Nazism, the Crusaders, or various colonial entities. Even in articles that do not mention Jews, Zionism is almost always portrayed as a settler-colonial movement and as the source of Palestinian suffering.
Notably, no significant change was found in the level of antisemitism before and after October 7, 2023.
Hamas and October 7
Attitudes toward Hamas and toward October 7 were examined across three periods, for comparison:
The period prior to October 7, The period from October 7 until the first ceasefire (November 30, 2023)ת The period of continuing war after the first ceasefire In each period, the analysis examined sentiment (very negative, negative, etc.), and whether Hamas was depicted as a legitimate actor.
According to the findings, in most of the opinion columns reviewed, Hamas is portrayed as a negative and illegitimate actor, associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and with Iran. In the period prior to October 7, 62% of the articles on Hamas were classified as “very negative,” 21% as negative, and another 5% as “somewhat negative.” About 10% of the articles were classified as “neutral.” In 82% of the articles, Hamas was described as “illegitimate.”
However, during the first weeks after October 7, there was a temporary moderation in attitudes toward Hamas: In this period, no articles were classified as “very negative,” and only 22% were classified as negative. Sixty-seven percent of the articles in this period were neutral toward Hamas and its legitimacy, and some 11% were classified as “somewhat positive.”
Positive articles on Hamas are rare, and in most cases are couched as calls for national unity under the PLO rather than as direct expressions of support for the organization. After the first wartime pause, the columns returned to sharp criticism and condemnation of Hamas: 47.5% of the articles were classified as “very negative,” 19.5% as negative, and another 12% as “somewhat negative.” Nineteen percent of the articles were classified as neutral. In 76% of the articles, Hamas is portrayed as illegitimate.
Attitudes toward the Events of October 7
Attitudes toward the events of October 7 are also predominantly negative:
About 67% of the articles relating to October 7 present the events in a negative light: 39% of the articles were classified as “very negative,” 21% as negative, and a further 7% as “somewhat negative.” The attitude is neutral in a quarter of the articles (25%); it is positive in only about 7%.
The main criticism does not focus on the mayhem itself, but rather on the claim that the attack “gave Israel a pretext” to expand its military operations and brought severe consequences upon the Palestinians.
As with attitudes toward Hamas, the study found that negative attitudes toward the events of October 7 intensified after the first ceasefire (November 30, 2023).
Attitudes toward a Possible Agreement with Israel
The study also examined how Al-Hayat al-Jadida opinion columns relate to the possibility of an agreement with Israel: in 62% of the articles, the attitude is negative (44% of them classified as “very negative”), with writers portraying Israel as a colonial entity with which no genuine agreement is possible.
In almost a third of the articles (30%), attitudes toward reaching an arrangement with Israel are positive; in 7.5% of the articles, the attitude is neutral.
Researchers’ Conclusions
The study’s authors – Yaakov Katz, Shlomi Breznick, and Eli Kanai of JPPI’s Diane and Guilford Information and Consulting Center – emphasize that the findings reflect the characteristics of official discourse in the Palestinian Authority. The newspaper examined, Al-Hayat al-Jadida, effectively serves as a spokesperson for the PA, maintaining a consistently hostile line toward Israel and Zionism, and is tainted by blatant antisemitism. The harsh criticism of Hamas stems from a rejection of political Islam as part of the power struggle over control of the Palestinian people.
JPPI President Prof. Yedidia Stern: “The findings reveal that the PA’s official newspaper maintains an antisemitic narrative that rejects Zionism; at the same time, it repudiates Hamas and depicts it as an extreme and illegitimate actor. This discourse reflects a profound lack of trust both toward Israel and toward Hamas, which the PA views as a political rival and a threat to its status. Antisemitism, blaming Israel, and discourse delegitimizing Zionism are not incidental – they are part of a fixed normative framing in the PA’s official press. This is a clear reflection of internal discourse that shows how far Palestinian public opinion is from being prepared for reconciliation.”