First published: 21 March 2024 https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12539

Abstract

This study assesses the resilience of Israeli society during the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict and pinpoints factors that influence this resilience in prolonged national crises. A longitudinal study was carried out with two surveys, both using the same questionnaire to gage societal, community, and individual resilience levels, along with hope, morale, distress, perceived threats, and government support. The initial survey was administered 5 days after the war escalated and the second 1 month later. The study's results reveal a decline in societal resilience over time. The regression analysis identified four major associations at both resilience measurement points. The key variables are community resilience and hope, both contributing positively. Attitudes towards government support (specifically being a government supporter vs. an opponent) also played a role. Additionally, there was a negative association with levels of religiosity, particularly distinguishing between ultra-orthodox and secular individuals. In the temporal analysis predicting future resilience (from data at the first time point to predict resilience at the second time point), societal resilience at the first measurement was the strongest forecaster of its resilience at the second measurement. Additionally, the main continuous variable from the previous analysis, community resilience, continued to be an influential and positive forecaster in the time-based analysis. The research suggests that the initial unifying effect of the conflict, similar to a “Rally around the flag” phenomenon, may be short-lived. The study underlines the importance of community strength, hope, government support, and religious considerations in shaping societal resilience in the face of conflict.

INTRODUCTION

Experiencing war ranks among the most harrowing events a person can endure. Such exposure often pushes people to the brink of their capabilities, involving numerous challenges. Wars often expose individuals to diverse vulnerabilities that impact many facets of life, from familial relationships to the risk of physical harm or even loss of life. In certain situations, individuals may find themselves obliged to give up their lives for a greater cause or the protection of their loved ones. The repercussions of war are manifold, including collateral damage, physical and psychological injuries, the destruction of homes and properties, and extensive economic and social repercussions. These are just a few of the many detrimental consequences that arise during times of conflict and war (Kimhi, Kaim, et al., 2023). The effects of war and conflict often reach beyond those directly affected, instilling a sense of threat, fear, and associated psychological distress across the broader population (Slone & Shoshani, 2022).

On October 7, 2023, Hamas, identified as a terrorist organization by numerous countries and located in the Gaza Strip, launched a significant and well-coordinated attack on the southern and central regions of Israel. This aggressive act commenced with widespread rocket fire targeting civilian populations and was coupled with attempts to infiltrate the border near Gaza. This aggressive move led to violent encounters involving the Israeli populace, police forces, and the Israel Defense Forces. The ramifications of this attack are considerable and ongoing. Recent updates reveal that the death toll has surpassed 1,400 Israelis with approximately 5,600 wounded, marking it as one of the deadliest terror attacks in modern history (Peleg & Gendelman, 2023). Moreover, a minimum of 240 persons, including 30 children, have been captured hostage by the organization. The incident has profoundly impacted the country, causing extensive mourning and leaving many people questioning how to react appropriately.

Amidst the continued aggression, orders were given for people in several areas to seek protection in or close to reinforced structures. The intensified attacks near both the southern and northern frontiers, bordering Gaza and Lebanon, led to about 200,000 people being displaced internally by the third week of the conflict, according to records by Peleg and Gendelman (2023). This disturbance has significantly weakened the evacuees' feeling of safety, diminishing their confidence in the state, law enforcement, and military's protective measures. As a result, many homes that were once places of sanctuary are no longer sources of comfort. Nonetheless, a common belief among the populace, informed by past conflict experiences, is a strong trust in the defensive capabilities of the Iron Dome missile defense system, a sentiment supported by Lahav et al. (2019).

Before the conflict erupted on October 7, 2023, Israel was experiencing considerable turmoil socially, politically, and legally. The new government, which came into power on December 29, 2022, made judicial changes a priority, initiating a contentious legal reform agenda. The proposed changes aimed to limit the Supreme Court's authority and change the judicial appointment process, eliciting extensive backlash from the opposition. This era was marked by increased public opposition, with significant protests in major cities against what was seen as an invasion of liberal democratic principles (Roznai & Cohen, 2023). The internal strife over these legal changes, which posed a fundamental challenge to the separation of powers in Israel, prepared the groundwork for a society struggling with profound division and issues of governance and justice as hostilities intensified in October 2023 (Porat, 2023).

Resilience and coping

Resilience is a term with varied definitions in scholarly research, but generally, it describes the ability of individuals, groups, or societies to effectively manage and bounce back from hardships. Métais et al. (2022) highlight this capacity for recovery post-adversity. Previous findings from Israel during periods of conflict, such as the missile attacks in 2011 (Braun-Lewensohn & Sagy, 2014) and in the aftermath of Operation Protective Edge (Elran et al., 2015), as well as during the continuous tensions in the Gaza envelope (Shapira et al., 2020), have characterized Israeli communities as exhibiting notably high resilience levels. The current research focuses on evaluating societal resilience, particularly the ability of a society to cope with the effects of the 2023 Israel-Gaza war and its recovery prospects after the conflict.

In terms of coping indicators, we consider both positive and negative variable measurements. Positive measures like hope (Germann et al., 2015; Snyder et al., 1991), well-being (Medvedev & Landhuis, 2018), and morale (Shaban et al., 2017) reflect effective adversity management and are expected to correlate positively with one another. On the other hand, negative indicators are anxiety and depression symptoms (Cullen et al., 2020), a pervasive sense of danger (Kimhi et al., 2021), and perceived threats (Kruglanski et al., 2021), which collectively reflect challenges in coping with distressing situations such as war.

The primary aim of the current research was to assess levels of societal resilience employed by the Israeli populace during the current conflict, which has an indeterminate end, and to track how these aspects change as the war evolves. Additionally, the study sought to identify what variables are associated with a society's ability to be resilient over a prolonged period, a form of resilience that becomes critical during significant national crises, like the ongoing war. In addition, the study sought to identify variables at timepoint measurement one that could predict the outcomes at the second measurement through the implementation of a longitudinal predictive framework. This study examines three central questions: initially, it seeks to determine the temporal trend of societal resilience—whether it remains constant, declines, or improves over time. Subsequently, the study aims to identify the key factors associated with societal resilience, pinpointing which contribute most significantly. The final question probes into how specific variables, measured at the first time point, can predict levels of societal resilience at a later time point. The hypotheses of this study include the following: first, we hypothesize that the level of societal resilience observed during the initial measurement will be sustained at the following measurement. Second, in line with the findings of Kimhi, Kaim, et al. (2023) in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we expect that hope and governmental support will stand out as primary factors associated with societal resilience. Third, we postulate a positive correlation between higher levels of hope and governmental support with greater societal resilience across both time points. Lastly, we anticipate that hope and governmental support will act as key temporal predictors of societal resilience, illustrating their potential to forecast resilience trajectories over time.

METHODS

Data collection

The current study utilized a longitudinal design with two measurement points, employing an identical questionnaire to track changes over time. The initial measurement was conducted approximately 5 days following the unexpected Hamas assault, from October 11–15, 2023. A representative sample of 2,002 adult Hebrew-speaking Israelis was surveyed during this time. The second measurement occurred roughly 6 weeks after the war commenced and about a month following the first, spanning November 10–15, 2023. In both measurements, the questionnaire was distributed via an online panel company. This study focuses on the subset of respondents who completed all items at both measurement points (N = 1,613) that were anonymously matched using the UID code. See Table 1 for demographic information of study participants.

TABLE 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents (N = 1,613).

To ensure the study's reliability, the online panel company was tasked with administering the questionnaire and maintaining a representative sample by adhering to demographic distributions of gender, age, and geographic location, as aligned with the National Statistics Bureau's standards. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Tel Aviv University, Israel Ethics Committee under approval number 0005985-1 dated January 16, 2023, which was initially provided for the sake of a longitudinal study on societal resilience. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before their inclusion in the study.

Measurements

The scales used in the current study were based on validated structured study tools that were previously used in various studies including during the COVID-19 pandemic (Kimhi et al., 2020) and the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 (Kimhi, Kaim, et al., 2023).

Societal resilience measurement

Societal resilience is measured using a 16-item scale, refined from an original 13-item scale by Kimhi and Eshel (2019). Respondents indicate their level of agreement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), evaluating their confidence in the government's decision-making, societal support for leadership during crises, trust in security forces, patriotism, optimism about the country's future, and trust in national institutions including the police, parliament, media, and armed forces. The Cronbach's alpha values for the initial and subsequent measurement of the Societal Resilience Index are .87 and .86, respectively.

Community resilience measurement

Community resilience was evaluated using 10 questions focused on the community where the participant lives, based on the original scale by Leykin et al. (2013). For instance, one of the items was “I believe that in a crisis, people in my community would help me.” The response options varied from 1, indicating strong disagreement, to 5, signifying strong agreement. The Cronbach's alpha values for the initial and subsequent measurement of the Community Resilience Index are .93 and .93, respectively.

Individual resilience measurement

The Connor–Davidson Resilience 10-item Scale (Connor & Davidson, 2003) was employed to gage individual resilience through a detailed 10-item questionnaire. Respondents expressed their level of concurrence with statements such as “I am capable of adapting to change” using a rating system that ranged from 1 for total disagreement to 5 for complete agreement. The Cronbach's alpha values for the initial and subsequent measurement of the Individual Resilience Index are .91 and .91, respectively.

Hope

The study's hope scale, originally designed by Jarymowicz and Bar-Tal (2006) to measure hope for peace in the Middle East, has been adapted to include five items. These items measure the respondent's hope for personal, familial, community, societal, and national strengthening post-crisis, with responses ranging from 1 (very little hope) to 5 (high hope). The Cronbach's alpha values for the initial and subsequent measurement of the Hope Index are .93 and .94, respectively.

Morale indicator

Morale is assessed with a single item querying respondents about their current morale level, with responses ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good).

Sense of danger scale

Based on Solomon and Prager (1992), this five-item scale ranges from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) and measures perceived personal and national existential threats due to the current war. The Cronbach's alpha values for the initial and subsequent measurement of the Sense of Danger Index are .85 and .84, respectively.

Symptoms of distress

Symptoms of distress, including anxiety and depressive symptoms, are evaluated through an eight-item scale derived from the original nine-item scale by Derogatis and Savitz (2000). Participants rate their recent experiences with nervousness, loneliness, mood, interest levels, hopelessness, tension, restlessness, and feelings of worthlessness on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Due to ethical considerations, the question concerning suicidal thoughts was not included. The Cronbach's alpha values for the initial and subsequent measurement of the Symptoms of Distress Index are .90 and .92, respectively.

Perceived threats scale

Participants rate each potential threat on how personally threatening they find it at present, including security, the Iranian nuclear threat, political, and violence in the Israeli society. Responses range from 1 (not threatening at all) to 5 (extremely threatening).

Support for government

Support for the current government was assessed via one question (scale of 1–5). The answer to this question consisted of five levels (between 1, strongly oppose, and 5, strongly support).

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics, such as frequency, mean, and standard deviation, were used to describe the demographic characteristics of the participants. Descriptive statistics were also utilized to determine the spread tendency and central tendency of the indexes. To evaluate the changes in societal resilience, community resilience, and hope levels over time, a paired sample t test was applied. Furthermore, analyses were conducted to discern associated factors with societal resilience at each time point. Multiple regression analyses for defining the factors associated with “societal resilience” were executed at two separate times with independent variables including community and individual resilience, hope, morale, stress levels, feelings of danger, perceived threat level concerning security matters, political views, the potential impact of a nuclear Iran, violence within Israeli society, demographic factors, and levels of governmental support. Levels of government support were entered as a dummy variable with “opponents” as the reference group. Religiosity was also dummy-coded, with “secular” as the reference. Furthermore, a supplementary linear regression analysis was conducted to assess predictors of societal resilience at the second timepoint (T2), while controlling for first measurement (T1) variables (including societal resilience, community and individual resilience, hope, morale, stress levels, feelings of danger, perceived threat level concerning security matters, political views, the potential impact of a nuclear Iran, violence within Israeli society, demographic factors, and levels of governmental support). Variables (both continuous and categorical) that displayed the top standardized β coefficients in the time-point-specific regressions were further examined. For the top-ranked categorical variables, an ANOVA was conducted with societal resilience as the dependent variable, and any significant differences between groups were explored using Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests. In parallel, Pearson correlations were calculated for the top continuous variables to evaluate their relationship with societal resilience. All statistical procedures were conducted using SPSS version 29, with a significance threshold of p < .05.

RESULTS

Societal resilience level

The findings show that there was a significant reduction from October (4.08 ± 0.80) to November 2023 (4.04 ± 0.76) in societal resilience levels (t[1,612] = 3.479, p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.087). See Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in figure viewerPowerPoint

The mean level of societal resilience across the two measurements: (4.08 ± 0.80) and (4.04 ± 0.76), respectively. Note: Societal resilience index ranges from 1 to 6. *Significant difference between the measurements. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Associations with societal resilience

The regression analyses revealed significant associations with societal resilience that were consistent across both measurement points. At the initial measurement, within the continuous variables, community resilience (β = .312) and hope (β = .300) were identified as the most influential predictors. For the categorical variables, levels of government support, specifically when comparing supporters to opponents of the government, showed a notable association (β = .168). Furthermore, for religiosity, being ultra-orthodox as opposed to secular was inversely related to societal resilience (β = −.131). At the second measurement point, the same variables maintained their significance, ranked by the strength of their association with societal resilience. Among the continuous variables, hope (β = .304) and community resilience (β = .298) were the strongest predictors. In the category of categorical variables, the level of government support again showed a substantial impact, especially when contrasting supporters with opponents (β = .205). Similarly, the degree of religiosity, with ultra-orthodox compared to secular, had a consistent inverse relationship (β = −.148) with societal resilience (refer to Table 2 for detailed regression results). These findings suggest that higher levels of community resilience and hope, as well as being a supporter (versus an opponent) of the government, are associated with increased societal resilience. Conversely, identifying as ultra-orthodox (versus secular) is associated with lower levels of societal resilience. The regression model at the first measurement accounted for 45.6% of the variance in societal resilience, while the model at the second measurement explained 44.8% of the variance.

TABLE 2. Results of regression analysis for associations with societal resilience over the two measurement times.

• Note: The R² values for the regression models corresponding to Measurements 1 and 2 are 0.456 and 0.448, respectively.

Societal resilience and quantitative variables

Community resilience

The findings show that there was a significant reduction from October (3.66 ± 0.77) to November 2023 (3.60 ± 0.79) in community resilience levels (t[1,612] = 3.838, p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.096). The Pearson correlation between societal resilience and hope in the first measurement was r(1,612) = .504, p ≤ .001. In the second measurement, the Pearson correlation between societal resilience and hope was r(1,612) = .501, p ≤ .001.

Hope

The findings show that there was a significant increase from October (3.76 ± 0.92) to November 2023 (3.82 ± 0.87) in hope levels (t[1,612] = −3.526, p < .001, Cohen's d = −0.088). The Pearson correlation between societal resilience and hope in the first measurement was r(1,612) = .528, p ≤ .001. In the second measurement, the Pearson correlation between societal resilience and hope was r(1,612) = .526, p ≤ .001.

Societal resilience and categorical variables

Governmental support

The findings are delineated according to further analysis that probed the fluctuations between the assessments, segmented by respondents' governmental support levels. These groups were categorized as “government opponents—those that indicated 1/2” with 728 respondents in T1, “neutral—those that indicated 3” with 392 respondents, and “government supporters—those that indicated 4/5” with 493 respondents in Measurement 1. In the second measurement, “government opponents” stood at 735 respondents, “neutral” with 377 respondents, and “government supporters” with 501 respondents. Significant differences were found according to post hoc Bonferroni between all three groups (p < .001).

Religiosity

Lastly, the findings are delineated according to further analysis which probed the fluctuations between the assessments, segmented by the respondents' religiosity levels. These groups are identified across both measurements as “secular” with 761 respondents, “traditional” with 501 respondents, “religious” with 214 respondents, and “ultra-orthodox” with 137 respondents. Those in the religious group displayed the highest level of societal resilience as compared to those who identify as traditional, ultra-orthodox, and secular. However, the finding is only significant between those who identify as secular and those who identify as religious (p < .001), those who identify as secular and those who identify as traditional (p < .001), and the ultra-orthodox group and the religious group (p < .01) according to Bonferroni test in both measurements.

Temporal prediction of societal resilience

In the longitudinal analysis, the model predicting societal resilience at the second measurement point based on variables from the first measurement explained 63.1% of the variance. Societal resilience at the first measurement was the strongest forecaster of its resilience at the second measurement, with a beta coefficient of .686. Additionally, the main continuous variable from the earlier analysis, community resilience, continued to be an influential and positive forecaster in the time-based analysis, with a beta coefficient of .071. However, among the continuous variables, hope did not maintain its status as a significant forecaster. Among the categorical variables, both the degree of governmental support and religiosity were found to be non-significant. See Table 3.

TABLE 3. Longitudinal predictors of societal resilience at Time Measurement 2, controlling for measurement one variables.

• Note: The R² value for the regression model was 0.631. The following first measurement variables (T1) were controlled for societal resilience, community and individual resilience, hope, morale, stress levels, feelings of danger, perceived threat level concerning security matters, political views, the potential impact of a nuclear Iran, violence within Israeli society, demographic factors, and levels of governmental support.

DISCUSSION

The investigative analyses have provided crucial insights that surfaced quickly with the commencement of the latest Israel-Gaza war. Comparative data from a study in review by Kaim et al. highlights a surge in societal resilience immediately following the October 7, 2023, circumstances, against a backdrop of public unrest due to proposed legal changes in Israel back in August 2023. However, this analysis has observed a significant dip in societal resilience in its subsequent assessment, contrary to the hypothesis. The initial boost in societal hardiness post-October 7 is consistent with the “rally around the flag” phenomenon, which echoes the similar public Ukrainian reaction to Russia's incursion into Ukraine, as noted by Berlinschi et al. (2022) and Kimhi, Kaim, et al. (2023). Yet, in the current study, this increase in resilience appears ephemeral, with a significant decline emerging just 1 month later. Given the unpredictable duration of the ongoing conflict, it becomes imperative to identify and address the factors leading to this erosion of societal resilience. A strategic focus on these determinants is essential to reverse the downward trend and enhance the resilience of society. Despite this finding, in the temporal analysis, societal resilience at the first measurement was the strongest forecaster of its resilience at the second measurement indicating that the initial measurement of resilience not only reflects a society's current state of robustness and adaptability but also serves as a prognostic tool, indicating its capacity to maintain these qualities over time (Bodas et al., 2022).

The analysis of data from two separate measurements has identified four key significant variables that consistently are associated with societal resilience: community resilience, level of hope, government support (specifically being a supporter of the government versus opposing it), and religiosity (specifically being ultra-orthodox versus being secular). Among these, community resilience has emerged as a particularly strong association, as well as in the temporal regression analysis, with studies from conflict zones in Ukraine and Poland (Kimhi, Baran, et al., 2023) corroborating its high correlation with societal resilience. Community resilience embodies the dynamic interplay between individuals and their communities, reflecting not just the community's capacity to fulfill the needs of its members but also the extent to which individuals draw strength from their communal ties. This has been previously discussed by Shapira (2022) during which community resilience was assessed in Israel during a period of armed conflict, a relatively calm period, and during the covid-19 pandemic. Along that line, Norris et al. (2008) cautioned against assuming that a resilient community is merely an aggregate of resilient individuals, stating that “a collection of resilient individuals does not guarantee a resilient community” (p. 128). This assertion underlines the importance of collective action and social cohesion, which extend beyond individual capacities. Drawing upon this understanding, the evidence suggests a more nuanced association: while individual resilience may not necessarily scale up to the community nor the societal level, the resilience of a community—encompassing its social networks, shared resources, and collective efficacy—can indeed propagate to influence societal resilience. Therefore, if multiple community units within a society demonstrate resilience, this collective robustness can serve as a foundation for the overall resilience of the society. This association is apparent when communities facing adversity successfully mobilize resources, provide mutual support, and maintain their functional integrity, which in turn contributes to the stability and resilience of the society at large. In this way, the resilience of communities acts synergistically, reinforcing and amplifying the resilience of society as a whole. The implication of this finding is significant for policy and intervention strategies: efforts to enhance community resilience are likely to have a cumulative effect, strengthening societal resilience. It is critical, therefore, to invest in community-level initiatives that promote social support, develop communal resources, and encourage collective efficacy.

Moreover, the data suggest that in addition to community resilience, hope stands as the next most significant association (ranked second in the first measurement and first in the second measurement) of societal resilience. This parallels findings from diverse contexts such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Demetriou et al., 2020; Flesia et al., 2023; Gallagher et al., 2021) and extends to the situation in Ukraine and surrounding nations (Kimhi, Kaim, et al., 2023). Hope, as a psychological asset, provides individuals with the motivation and pathway-oriented thinking needed to navigate through adversity and envision the resilience outcome as possible.

In addition to hope, the level of government support has been identified as an additional key associated variable with societal resilience. This influence is evidenced by the notable variance in resilience levels among those who oppose, are neutral towards, or support the government across the two observed time points as well as the regression analysis. The implications of these differences are multifaceted. First, they underscore the importance of the government's role in cultivating a sense of security and stability within a nation, particularly in times of crisis such as the current war. When citizens perceive their government as competent, their confidence in future stability can increase, thus bolstering societal resilience. Conversely, a lack of faith in governmental institutions or the current leadership can lead to a decrease in resilience, making societies more vulnerable to the negative impacts of crises (Bodas et al., 2022; Marana et al., 2019). This finding suggests that government policies, their implementation, and the public's perception of government effectiveness directly influence societal strength (Fukasawa et al., 2020). In times of crisis, visible and effective government support can provide a psychological anchor for the general public, offering reassurance and the promise of order and recovery. Moreover, the variation in resilience levels based on political stance indicates that societal resilience is not merely a byproduct of governmental action but is also shaped by the public's alignment with or trust in their leaders. This aspect becomes particularly important in diverse political landscapes, where government action may be interpreted differently across the political spectrum, affecting societal resilience in complex ways. Expanding upon this, policymakers should consider strategies to unify these disparate perceptions. Building a consensus on key issues, fostering transparent communication, and ensuring that the needs of all community segments are addressed could mitigate polarization and enhance overall societal resilience (Bodas et al., 2022). Furthermore, active community engagement and inclusion in decision-making processes may bridge the gap between government and citizens, leading to more cohesive and resilient societies.

The observed phenomenon where religiosity overall negatively is associated with societal resilience, yet religious groups in Israel display varying levels of resilience, can be understood by considering the unique sociopolitical and cultural context of the country and the current circumstances. In Israel, the term “religious” often refers to those adhering to Orthodox Jewish practices but not the more stringent practices of the ultra-Orthodox community. The religious group may have cultural and social mechanisms that contribute more positively to resilience (Goroshit & Eshel, 2013). This could include strong community support networks, a collective sense of identity, and shared values that provide psychological comfort and practical assistance during crises (Marciano et al., 2020). The ultra-Orthodox, while with high social capital within their community, in Israel are known for their insular nature, with a lifestyle that is highly focused on religious study and observance, often with limited engagement with the secular world (Rier et al., 2008). This separation can result in less access to national resources, information, and support systems that are critical for resilience at times such as the current war (Pinchas-Mizrachi et al., 2021). It might also reflect a reliance on religious leadership for guidance, which could conflict with authorities' crisis management strategies. These elements might contribute to the ultra-Orthodox community displaying lower levels of societal resilience as compared to their religious, traditional, and secular counterparts. Regarding, levels of societal resilience in the secular group may be influenced by a variety of factors, including potentially weaker community bonds or a lack of unifying narratives that can often be provided by a degree of religious belief. This is particularly relevant considering the widespread opposition within the secular community to the judicial reforms proposed as a core structural change to the current judicial institution (Klein, 2023; Porat, 2023). It is essential to recognize that these variations within the same societal context suggest that other mediating factors are at play beyond religiosity itself for societal resilience. The role of religious belief must be interpreted alongside factors such as community structure, socioeconomic status, access to resources, and the relationship between religiosity levels and governmental institutions. Understanding these complex interactions is vital for developing strategies to bolster societal resilience across all segments of Israeli society.

LIMITATIONS

While this study provides valuable insights into societal resilience during the Israel-Gaza war; however, it is important to consider the limitations inherent in its design and execution. First, the longitudinal design with two measurement points may not fully capture the nuanced and potentially rapid shifts in societal resilience that can occur in response to dynamic and evolving events. The 4-week interval between the measurements offers a snapshot of resilience yet changes that transpire outside of this timeframe remain undetected, possibly overlooking longer-term trends and immediate reactions to new developments. Second, the sample's representativeness may be compromised despite attempts to create a demographic balance. The exclusive use of an online panel for survey distribution could inadvertently bias the sample, as it is contingent on respondents having internet access and the willingness to participate in online surveys. This method might exclude those without access to technology or with limited digital literacy, potentially skewing the data towards more technologically engaged individuals. While the study presents a comprehensive analysis of the Israeli population, drawing from a wide-ranging sample across various geographic areas, which by extension includes individuals potentially affected by internal displacement from conflict zones in the South and North, the research does not specifically target or examine in depth the complex personal experiences of those who have suffered personal losses or have been part of communities directly impacted by conflict. It is also possible that individuals who have been deeply affected may choose not to participate in a study of this nature, which could introduce a bias in the results. The nuanced understanding of these personal impacts is vital for a more thorough exploration of resilience dynamics, and it is imperative that future research endeavors focus on these critical aspects to provide a more complete picture. Third, the reliance on self-report measures introduces several potential biases. Participants' responses could be influenced by social desirability, wishing to present themselves in a favorable light or recall bias, particularly when reflecting on experiences during stressful events. These biases could affect the accuracy of reported resilience and psychological states. Moreover, the study's observational design restricts the ability to establish causality. While certain factors are identified as predictors of societal resilience, it cannot be definitively concluded that these factors cause changes in resilience levels. The associations observed might be indicative of correlations rather than direct causal relationships. Finally, the generalizability of the findings is limited. The specific societal, political, and cultural context of Israel during the conflict may not reflect the circumstances of other societies, and thus, the results may not be applicable in different settings or under different stressors. In summary, while the study makes significant contributions to the understanding of societal resilience in the context of conflict, these limitations must be taken into account when interpreting its findings and considering their applicability to other scenarios or longitudinal trends.

CONCLUSIONS

The study conducted amid the Israel-Gaza war provides critical insights into the dynamics of societal resilience during times of conflict. The initial findings indicated a significant increase in societal resilience, resonant with the “Rally around the flag” effect, a phenomenon where national unity is bolstered in the face of external threats. However, a subsequent decline in resilience suggests that such unity may be short-lived, necessitating a deeper understanding of the elements that contribute to or erode societal fortitude over time. Four primary associations of societal resilience were consistently identified: community resilience, hope, government support, and religiosity. Community resilience, in particular, stands out as a vital factor, underscoring the dynamic interactions within communities that contribute to a society's overall robustness. This finding is in line with the notion that resilient communities form a resilient society, not merely as a sum of individual strengths but as a synergistic effect of collective action, social cohesion, and shared resources. Hope also emerged as a significant variable associated with societal resilience, functioning as a psychological asset that motivates individuals and communities to persist through adversity. The level of government support proved congruently critical, indicating that governments and their leadership play a pivotal role in either fostering or undermining collective strength during crises. The study also revealed complex interactions between religiosity and societal resilience. Different religious groups within Israel displayed varying levels of resilience, reflecting the intricate interplay between cultural, social, and political factors. This complexity indicates that religiosity cannot be viewed in isolation but must be considered alongside additional variables. The insights from this study highlight the importance of community initiatives, inclusive governance, and the nurturing of hope to bolster societal resilience. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of resilience, particularly in a diverse sociopolitical context like Israel's, is crucial for formulating policies and strategies that strengthen societal resilience in the face of ongoing war and future adversities.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ETHICS STATEMENT

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Due to ethical considerations, the raw data are not uploaded in a public repository. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES

• Berlinschi, R., Farvaque, E., Fidrmuc, J., Harms, P., Steiner, N. D., Mihailov, A., Neugart, M., & Stanek, P. L. (2022). Rallying around the EU flag: Russia's invasion of Ukraine and attitudes toward European integration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 61(2), 283–301.

  Web of Science®Google Scholar

• Bodas, M., Peleg, K., Stolero, N., & Adini, B. (2022). Understanding societal resilience—Cross-sectional study in eight countries. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 883281. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.883281

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Braun-Lewensohn, O., & Sagy, S. (2014). Community resilience and sense of coherence as protective factors in explaining stress reactions: Comparing cities and rural communities during missiles attacks. Community Mental Health Journal, 50, 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-013-9623-5

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Cullen, W., Gulati, G., & Kelly, B. D. (2020). Mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic. QJM: an International Journal of Medicine, 113(5), 311–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcaa110

  View

  CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Demetriou, L., Drakontaides, M., & Hadjicharalambous, D. (2020). Psychological resilience hope and adaptability as protective factors in times of crisis: A study in Greek and Cypriot society during the COVID-19 pandemic. Available at (3713732). SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3713732

  Google Scholar

• Derogatis, L. R., & Savitz, K. L. (2000). The SCL-90-R and brief symptom inventory (BSI) in primary care. In Handbook of psychological assessment in primary care settings (pp. 310–347). Routledge.

  Google Scholar

• Elran, M., Israeli, Z., Padan, C., & Altshuler, A. (2015). Social resilience in the Jewish communities around the Gaza strip envelope during and after operation protective edge. Military and Strategic Affairs, 7(2), 5–31.

  Google Scholar

• Flesia, L., Adeeb, M., Waseem, A., Helmy, M., & Monaro, M. (2023). Psychological distress related to the COVID-19 pandemic: The protective role of hope. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13010005

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Fukasawa, M., Kawakami, N., Umeda, M., Akiyama, T., Horikoshi, N., Yasumura, S., Yabe, H., Suzuki, Y., & Bromet, E. J. (2020). Long-lasting effects of distrust in government and science on mental health eight years after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. Social Science & Medicine, 258, 113108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113108

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Gallagher, M. W., Smith, L. J., Richardson, A. L., D'Souza, J. M., & Long, L. J. (2021). Examining the longitudinal effects and potential mechanisms of hope on COVID-19 stress, anxiety, and well-being. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 50(3), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2021.1877341

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Germann, J. N., Leonard, D., Stuenzi, T. J., Pop, R. B., Stewart, S. M., & Leavey, P. J. (2015). Hoping is coping: A guiding theoretical framework for promoting coping and adjustment following pediatric cancer diagnosis. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 40(9), 846–855. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsv027

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Goroshit, S. K. M., & Eshel, Y. (2013). Demographic variables as antecedents of Israeli community and national resilience. Journal of Community Psychology, 41(5), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21561

  View

  updatesWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Jarymowicz, M., & Bar-Tal, D. (2006). The dominance of fear over hope in the lives of individuals and collectives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(3), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.302

  View

  Web of Science®Google Scholar

• Kimhi, S., Baran, M., Baran, T., Kaniasty, K., Marciano, H., Eshel, Y., & Adini, B. (2023). Prediction of societal and community resilience among Ukrainian and Polish populations during the Russian war against Ukraine. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 103792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103792

  View

  Google Scholar

• Kimhi, S., & Eshel, Y. (2019). Measuring national resilience: A new short version of the scale (NR-13). Journal of Community Psychology, 47(3), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22135

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H., & Adini, B. (2020). A renewed outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study of distress, resilience, and subjective well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 7743. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217743

  View

  CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H., & Adini, B. (2021). Fluctuations in national resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 3876. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18083876

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Kimhi, S., Kaim, A., Bankauskaite, D., Baran, M., Baran, T., Eshel, Y., Dumbadze, S., Gabashvili, M., Kaniasty, K., Koubova, A., Marciano, H., Matkeviciene, R., Teperik, D., & Adini, B. (2023). A full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022: Resilience and coping within and beyond Ukraine. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being.

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Klein, Z. (2023). Religiosity and views on judicial reform are strongly correlated—Study. The Jerusalem Post|JPost.com. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-746007

  Google Scholar

• Kruglanski, A. W., Molinario, E., & Lemay, E. P. (2021). Coping with COVID-19-induced threats to self. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(2), 284–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220982074

  View

  Web of Science®Google Scholar

• Lahav, E., Shahrabani, S., & Benzion, U. (2019). Emotions, risk perceptions and precautionary actions of citizens during a military operation using a new defense technology: The Israeli case of the iron dome. Defence and Peace Economics, 30(6), 666–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2018.1455132

  View

  Web of Science®Google Scholar

• Leykin, D., Lahad, M., Cohen, O., Goldberg, A., & Aharonson-Daniel, L. (2013). Conjoint community resiliency assessment Measure-28/10 items (CCRAM28 & CCRAM10): A self-report tool for assessing community resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 313–323.

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Marana, P., Eden, C., Eriksson, H., Grimes, C., Hernantes, J., Howick, S., Labaka, L., Latinos, V., Lindner, R., Majchrzak, T. A., Pyrko, I., Radianti, J., Rankin, A., Sakurai, M., Sarriegi, J. M., & Serrano, N. (2019). Towards a resilience management guideline—Cities as a starting point for societal resilience. Sustainable Cities and Society, 48, 101531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101531

  View

  Web of Science®Google Scholar

• Marciano, H., Kimhi, S., & Eshel, Y. (2020). Predictors of individual, community and national resiliencies of Israeli Jews and Arabs. International Journal of Psychology, 55(4), 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12636

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Medvedev, O. N., & Landhuis, C. E. (2018). Exploring constructs of well-being, happiness and quality of life. PeerJ, 6, e4903. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4903

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Métais, C., Burel, N., Gillham, J. E., Tarquinio, C., & Martin-Krumm, C. (2022). Integrative review of the recent literature on human resilience: From concepts, theories, and discussions towards a complex understanding. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 18(1), 98–119. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.2251

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Peleg, O., & Gendelman, L. (2023). Internally displaced people amidst war: The Israeli narrative. The Lancet, 402, 2071–2072. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02521-7

  View

  PubMedGoogle Scholar

• Pinchas-Mizrachi, R., Zalcman, B. G., & Shapiro, E. (2021). Differences in mortality rates between Haredi and non-Haredi Jews in Israel in the context of social characteristics. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 60(2), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12699

  View

  Web of Science®Google Scholar

• Porat, I. (2023). Political polarisation and the constitutional crisis in Israel. Israel Law Review, 56, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223723000213

  View

  Web of Science®Google Scholar

• Rier, D. A., Schwartzbaum, A., & Heller, C. (2008). Methodological issues in studying an insular, traditional population: A women's health survey among Israeli haredi (ultra-orthodox) Jews. Women & Health, 48(4), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/03630240802575054

  View

  PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Roznai, Y., & Cohen, A. (2023). Populist constitutionalism and the judicial overhaul in Israel. Israel Law Review, 56, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223723000201

  View

  Web of Science®Google Scholar

• Shaban, O. S., Al-Zubi, Z., Ali, N., & Alqotaish, A. (2017). The effect of low morale and motivation on employees' productivity & competitiveness in Jordanian industrial companies. International Business Research, 10(7), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v10n7p1

  View

  Google Scholar

• Shapira, S. (2022). Trajectories of community resilience over a multi-crisis period: A repeated cross-sectional study among small rural communities in Southern Israel. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 76, 103006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103006

  View

  Web of Science®Google Scholar

• Shapira, S., Cohen, O., & Aharonson-Daniel, L. (2020). The contribution of personal and place-related attributes to the resilience of conflict-affected communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101520

  View

  Web of Science®Google Scholar

• Slone, M., & Shoshani, A. (2022). Effects of war and armed conflict on adolescents' psychopathology and well-being: Measuring political life events among youth. Terrorism and Political Violence, 34(8), 1797–1809. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2020.1839427

  View

  Web of Science®Google Scholar

• Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.570

  View

  CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

• Solomon, Z., & Prager, E. (1992). Elderly Israeli holocaust survivors during the Persian Gulf war. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149(12), 1707–1710. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.149.12.1707

  View

  CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 19

• Liat Shklarski, Yael Latzer, Zohar Spivak‐Lavi, Carol Tosone, Weathering the Storm Together: Therapists' Experiences Treating War Trauma Survivors While Managing Their Own Concurrent Trauma, Stress and Health, 10.1002/smi.70132, 42, 1, (2026).

  View

• Vidmantė Giedraitytė, Ramunė Miežanskienė, Strategies for Enhancing Civil Participation in National Security: Case of Lithuania, Democratic Resilience in the Baltics, Vol. 2, 10.1007/978-3-032-10146-4_4, (69-89), (2026).

  View

• Ieva Gajauskaite, Defining Societal Resilience as a Defensive Power, Democratic Resilience in the Baltics, Vol. 2, 10.1007/978-3-032-10146-4_1, (3-22), (2026).

  View

• Shir Porat-Butman, Sarit Agam, Shiran Glazer, Eden Hakimi-Pour, Hanna Levenberg, Zohar Nimni, Maya Nissenhaus-Apel, Selin Simrooglu, Yael Shahar, Ariel Reuveni, Nof Vaknin, Einat Levy-Gigi, Who can best support us through cumulative trauma exposure in the media?, Acta Psychologica, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105921, 262, (105921), (2026).

  View

• Julia Brailovskaia, Sami Hamdan, Loneliness mediates the association between addictive social media use and mental health in university students in Germany and Israel, Journal of Public Health, 10.1007/s10389-025-02669-w, (2026).

  View

• Dean Ariel, Hadas Marciano, Shaul Kimhi, Yohanan Eshel, Bruria Adini, Individual Resilience as a Mediator Between Demographic and Sociopolitical Factors, Community Resilience and Psychological Distress: A Five‐Wave Study Following October 7, Stress and Health, 10.1002/smi.70080, 41, 4, (2025).

  View

• Dan Prat, Asaf Bloch, Maya Braun, Adi Givon, Sharon Goldman, Eldad Katorza, Shachar Shapira, Do Gunshot and Explosion Injuries Differ in Severity and Management? A Multicenter Study of Upper Extremity Trauma in the 2023 Israel-Gaza Conflict, Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003618, 483, 11, (2047-2055), (2025).

  View

• Tehila Kalagy, Orna Braun-Lewensohn, Sarah Abu-Kaf, Psychological distress among Israelis during crisis: A comparison between COVID-19 and the Iron Swords War, Psychiatry Research, 10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116491, 348, (116491), (2025).

  View

• Deborah Bergman Deitcher, Raaya Alon, Special Education Preschool Teachers' Stress and Well‐Being During Wartime: Relations With Psychological Capital, Occupational Self‐Efficacy, and Social Support, Psychology in the Schools, 10.1002/pits.23584, 62, 10, (3926-3938), (2025).

  View

• Arielle Kaim, Maya Siman Tov, Shaul Kimhi, Hadas Marciano, Yohanan Eshel, Bruria Adini, Predictors of societal and individual resilience across two and a half years of varied adversities, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-025-00854-1, 15, 1, (2025).

  View

• Stav Shapira, Agat Sold, Tehila Refaeli, The Interplay of Personal and Collective Resilience and Mental Health During Prolonged Conflict: Insights From Young Adults in Israel, Stress and Health, 10.1002/smi.70047, 41, 3, (2025).

  View

• Toshiya Tsujita, Facilitating and Hindering Factors in Developing National Resilience During a Crisis: The Case of Israel, “Fragile Stability” as a Political Background of October 7, 10.1007/978-981-96-2587-1_10, (169-184), (2025).

  View

• Simon Esbit, Arielle Kaim, Shaul Kimhi, Dalia Bankauskaite, Maria Baran, Tomasz Baran, Anatolie Cosciug, Yohannan Eshel, Salome Dumbadze, Manana Gabashvili, George Jiglau, Krzysztof Kaniasty, Alice Koubova, Hadas Maricano, Renata Matkeviciene, Marius Matichescu, Mykola Nazarov, Dmitri Teperik, Nino Kochiashvili, Bruria Adini, Hope and Distress: A Cross‐Country Study Amid the Russian‐Ukrainian War, Stress and Health, 10.1002/smi.70033, 41, 2, (2025).

  View

• Elad Mijalevich-Soker, Orit Taubman – Ben-Ari, Parents’ Experience During Wartime: Vulnerability, Complexity, and Parental Functioning, Journal of Loss and Trauma, 10.1080/15325024.2025.2465388, (1-25), (2025).

  View

• Oleksandr SEMYKRAS, BEHAVIOURAL INSIGHTS AS A MECHANISM FOR BUILDING NATIONAL RESILIENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF HYBRID WARFARE, Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Public Administration, 10.17721/2616-9193.2025/22-13/14, 22, 2, (94-105), (2025).

  View

• Chen Sharon Shmul, Baruch Berzon, Bruria Adini, Navigating crisis: exploring the links between threat perceptions, well-being, individual and workplace resilience among general hospital staff, Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 10.1186/s13584-024-00656-2, 13, 1, (2024).

  View

• Michael V. Joachim, Dana Atia Joachim, Liat Korn, Yair Shapiro, Amir Laviv, Avi Zigdon, Emotional resilience and sense of danger among doctors in hospitals during periods of heightened tensions and warfare in Israel, Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 10.1186/s13584-024-00655-3, 13, 1, (2024).

  View

• Hadas Marciano, Shaul Kimhi, Yohanan Eshel, Bruria Adini, Resilience and coping during protracted conflict: a comparative analysis of general and evacuees populations, Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 10.1186/s13584-024-00642-8, 13, 1, (2024).

  View

• Yuliya Lipshits‐Braziler, Moshe Tatar, Ina Ben‐Uri, Sima Amram‐Vaknin, Profiles of Psychological Capital and Work‐Related Well‐Being Among School Counselors During a Prolonged Emergency, Journal of Counseling & Development, 10.1002/jcad.70028.