Moral Spectrum Questionnaire: Israel–Palestine

This is not a test of loyalty. It is a test of coherence.

This diagnostic instrument applies the same moral and legal standards to all parties in the conflict. It is designed not to corner one side, but to reveal where your judgments remain symmetrical — and where they become selectively permissive.

Answer each question honestly. There are no “correct” answers — only revealing ones. Your full results, including a review of every answer, will appear immediately after submission.

0 of 18 questions answered

Part A — Foundational Legitimacy

A1. Do you accept Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state within internationally recognised borders?

Tests whether you accept the basic legitimacy of Israel as a political entity.

Yes, unconditionally Yes, but only within pre-1967 borders and with a Palestinian state alongside No — Israel has no legitimate right to exist Unsure / Abstain

A2. Do you accept the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and to a sovereign state?

Tests whether you accept Palestinian national legitimacy.

Yes, unconditionally Yes, but only under certain security or political conditions No — Palestinians do not constitute a people with national rights Unsure / Abstain

A3. Do you believe that both Israelis and Palestinians have genuine historical, cultural, and legal connections to the land between the river and the sea?

Tests whether you acknowledge the legitimacy of both peoples’ claims, or deny one side’s connection entirely.

Yes — both peoples have legitimate connections Only Israelis / Jewish people have a legitimate connection Only Palestinians have a legitimate connection Unsure / Abstain

Part B — Israeli State Conduct

B1. Do you support the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank?

The ICJ ruled in July 2024 that all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law.

Yes — Israel has the right to build wherever it chooses It is complicated; I take no position No — settlements are illegal and should cease Unsure / Abstain

B2. Do you believe the blockade of Gaza — restricting food, medicine, fuel, and building materials to a civilian population of 2.3 million — is justified?

Collective punishment of a civilian population is prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Yes, fully justified as a security measure Partially justified — some restrictions are reasonable No — collective punishment of civilians is never justified Unsure / Abstain

B3. Should Israeli military personnel who kill unarmed civilians or medical workers face criminal investigation and, where warranted, prosecution?

Tests whether the rule of law is applied consistently or whether blanket military impunity is granted.

Yes — no soldier is above the law Only in exceptional or egregious cases No — soldiers acting in wartime should not face prosecution Unsure / Abstain

B4. Do you believe the forced demolition of Palestinian homes and displacement of Palestinian families in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is acceptable?

The UN and ICJ have characterised systematic displacement as potentially constituting forcible transfer under international law.

Yes — Israel has the right to administer these areas as it sees fit In some cases, where security demands it No — forced displacement of civilians is not acceptable Unsure / Abstain

B5. Is there any level of Palestinian civilian casualties that you would consider disproportionate or militarily unjustifiable?

The principle of proportionality is a cornerstone of international humanitarian law.

Yes — proportionality is a binding legal and moral constraint It depends entirely on military necessity — no fixed threshold No — I do not apply such limits to Israeli military operations Unsure / Abstain

Part C — Palestinian and Hamas Conduct

C1. Do you condemn the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023, which killed approximately 1,200 Israeli civilians, including children, and took over 250 hostages?

The deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime under international humanitarian law, regardless of the political context or grievances of the perpetrators.

Yes — the killing of civilians is always condemnable The attacks were a justified response to occupation and oppression I condemn the loss of life but understand the context Unsure / Abstain

C2. Do you believe Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure — hospitals, schools, mosques — for military purposes is acceptable?

Using protected civilian sites for military operations violates international humanitarian law.

Yes — in an asymmetric conflict, all available means are legitimate It is complicated; I take no position No — civilian infrastructure must never be used for military purposes Unsure / Abstain

C3. Do you believe the taking and holding of civilian hostages — including children and elderly individuals — is a legitimate tactic of resistance?

The taking of civilian hostages is explicitly prohibited under Article 34 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and constitutes a war crime.

Yes — hostage-taking is a legitimate tool of leverage in asymmetric conflict I take no position No — taking civilian hostages is never legitimate Unsure / Abstain

C4. Should Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad commanders who deliberately targeted Israeli civilians face criminal prosecution under international law?

Symmetric counterpart to B3 — tests whether the rule of law is applied universally.

Yes — international law applies to all parties equally Only if Israeli commanders are prosecuted first No — resistance fighters should not face prosecution Unsure / Abstain

C5. Is there any level of Israeli civilian casualties that you would consider disproportionate or morally unacceptable as a result of Palestinian armed operations?

Symmetric counterpart to B5 — tests whether proportionality is applied consistently.

Yes — the killing of civilians is always subject to moral limits It depends on the scale of Israeli oppression — no fixed threshold No — I do not apply such limits to Palestinian armed operations Unsure / Abstain

Part D — Universal Principles Applied Symmetrically

D1. Do Israeli children and Palestinian children deserve equal legal protections under international law?

Tests whether universal rights are applied without ethno-national exception.

Yes — all children have equal rights regardless of nationality In principle yes, but context affects how rights are applied in practice No — the two cases are not comparable Unsure / Abstain

D2. Is the deliberate use of starvation or denial of water as a military strategy ever justified — by any party?

Article 54 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. This applies to all parties.

No — never, by any party It may be justified when used by Israel as a security measure It may be justified when used by Palestinians as a resistance tactic Unsure / Abstain

D3. Do you believe that a people living under military occupation have a legitimate right to resist — and if so, does that right extend to armed resistance targeting military personnel (not civilians)?

International law recognises a right to resist occupation. The critical distinction is between targeting military personnel (potentially lawful) and targeting civilians (always unlawful).

Yes — armed resistance targeting military personnel is legitimate; targeting civilians is not Yes — all forms of resistance including targeting civilians are legitimate under occupation Only non-violent resistance is legitimate No right to resist in any form Unsure / Abstain

D4. Should the International Criminal Court have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute war crimes committed by all parties in this conflict?

The ICC issued arrest warrants for both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Hamas leader Sinwar in 2024. Tests whether international legal institutions are accepted universally or only when convenient.

Yes — the ICC must apply equally to all parties Yes, but Israel should be exempt given its democratic character Yes, but Palestinian resistance fighters should be exempt given the occupation No — the ICC has no legitimate jurisdiction here Unsure / Abstain

D5. In your view, what is the only morally and legally acceptable path to ending this conflict?

Reveals the respondent’s political horizon — whether they accept a negotiated, rights-based resolution or hold a maximalist position.

A negotiated two-state solution guaranteeing security and rights for both peoples A single democratic state with equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion or ethnicity Israeli sovereignty over the entire territory, with Palestinians as non-citizen residents or relocated Palestinian sovereignty over the entire territory, with the dismantling of the Israeli state Unsure / No position

Your Moral Spectrum Position

← Palestinian MaximalistConsistent UniversalistIsraeli Maximalist →

Your Answers Reviewed

How to read this questionnaire:
Part A tests whether you accept the legitimacy of both peoples.
Part B tests your evaluation of Israeli state conduct under legal and moral constraints.
Part C tests your evaluation of Hamas and other armed conduct under the same constraints.
Part D tests whether you apply universal principles symmetrically, or selectively.

The centre is not “neutrality” — it is principled consistency.