Do Escalating Conflicts Bridge or Deepen Internal Political Divides? Empirical Evidence from the Israel-Hamas War

During escalating conflict with an external group, heightened tensions can profoundly transform the internal social dynamics of the ingroup. External threats can either intensify polarization and reinforce political identities or foster unity and dialogue across divides. These competing dynamics are particularly significant in divided societies, where the interplay between internal cohesion and external threats shapes patterns of social interaction and collective decision-making. Moments of crisis demand social interaction and effective communication across political divides. Such interactions not only allow opposing factions to collaborate on critical decisions but also foster tolerance and diminish biases toward those with differing perspectives. By promoting mutual understanding, these dialogues strengthen democratic values like pluralism and open discourse. Conversely, the absence of such engagement risks deepening divisions, entrenching polarization, and obstructing collective problem-solving efforts essential for navigating crises. Does external conflict deepen internal divisions, or does it foster unity and cooperation across ideological lines? Research offers constricting expectations with distinct implications for interpersonal interactions. On the one hand, external threats can amplify emotional polarization, reducing the willingness to engage with ideological opponents as political differences become sources of fear and distrust. On the other hand, external conflicts may create a shared sense of purpose, reframing dialogue as a necessary tool for addressing collective challenges and fostering cooperation across divides. Against this backdrop, the current study explores a pressing and unresolved question: how does external conflict shape individuals' willingness to engage with politically dissimilar others? To investigate this, we focus on the severe escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that began on October 7, 2023, with the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war. Israel's deep internal polarization between political factions, alongside its longstanding conflict with an outgroup, was profoundly altered by the war. The conflict intensified external tensions while potentially reshaping internal group dynamics, creating a unique opportunity to examine how external threats influence communication within polarized societies. Engaging with politically dissimilar others requires addressing the complexities of political identity, which encompasses ideological blocks, policy positions, and party preferences. To disentangle these factors, we utilized a conjoint design, enabling the simultaneous analysis of multiple attributes influencing engagement preferences. This approach offers a nuanced and multidimensional perspective on how individuals navigate political identity and prioritize its aspects during heightened conflict. Our findings indicate that during heightened conflict, individuals demonstrate a clear willingness to engage with those holding opposing political positions. Moreover, we find no evidence of ideological or partisan resistance. This notable openness suggests that individuals are more willing to engage across divides than theories of polarization might predict. This openness, especially when focused on policy disagreements rather than partisan identities, reveals a shift from identity-driven barriers to substantive, issue-oriented dialogue. These findings challenge assumptions about the inevitability of polarization dominating political discourse and highlight the importance of context in shaping cross-partisan interactions. By examining these dynamics in a high-stakes, real-world conflict, the study expands our understanding of the conditions under which dialogue across divides is not only possible but can thrive, even in politically diverse and divided societies.