A recent Times of Israel poll has found that about two-thirds of Israelis believe the United States now determines the course of Israel Defense Forces operations in Gaza, a perception that underscores widening unease at home and growing international scrutiny. The poll’s results arrive against a backdrop of continued violence in Gaza, humanitarian strain, and heightened diplomatic activity among Muslim-majority states pressing for a halt to hostilities.

The images circulating from the Gaza Strip over the past days have underscored the human toll and bolstered calls for greater outside intervention. On October 30, International Committee of the Red Cross vehicles transported the bodies of two people believed to be deceased hostages handed over by Hamas toward the Kissufim border crossing for transfer to Israeli authorities in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza. Photographs taken the same day from Israel’s border show heavily destroyed buildings across the strip, illustrating the devastation that has driven international appeals for restraint and civilian protection.

Perceptions that Washington is steering Israeli military operations are consequential on several levels. For Israeli leaders, the belief that operational autonomy has been ceded to a powerful ally complicates political calculations at a time when coalition durability depends on demonstrating both security competence and sovereignty. For civil society and bereaved families, the sense that decisions are subject to foreign influence may fuel domestic anger and deepen political fractures.

Internationally, the poll’s findings feed a narrative that the U.S.–Israel relationship — long anchored by military assistance and diplomatic alignment — now includes a degree of operational direction that alarms some Israelis and encourages adversaries and critics to press their case at global forums. The perception risks complicating Washington’s diplomatic positioning: efforts to limit civilian harm or calibrate strikes may be seen at home and abroad either as necessary restraint or as overreaching control.

Diplomatic ripples were immediately visible. On October 31, Turkey announced plans to host several Muslim foreign ministers to coordinate responses amid growing concern about a ceasefire in Gaza. That gathering signals a coordinated push by key regional players to leverage diplomatic pressure on both Israel and its backers to pursue avenues for ending the fighting and addressing humanitarian needs. The meeting also highlights the widening diplomatic array arrayed around Gaza, from Western capitals to regional powers with distinct constituencies and legal frames for intervention.

Humanitarian actors remain central to the unfolding story. The Red Cross operation to return bodies illustrates both the limited avenues for negotiated exchanges and the complex role neutral intermediaries play in wartime, especially where accountability, identification and next-of-kin notifications are concerned. Visual documentation of destroyed neighborhoods further complicates legal and moral debates over proportionality, civilian protection and reconstruction obligations under international law.

As diplomacy accelerates and domestic unease grows, Israeli policymakers face the twin challenges of maintaining operational effectiveness while managing the political fallout of perceived external control. For international actors, the poll serves as a reminder that influence over military decisions carries political costs, and that efforts to shape outcomes in Gaza will continue to reverberate across domestic arenas and diplomatic theaters alike.