How Does ASEAN Respond to the Israel-Hamas Conflict? Here Are the views of the Citizens

According to a report by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, more Southeast Asians support ASEAN taking a united stance in promoting a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group.

Support for this stance is particularly strong among citizens of Timor-Leste (44.8%), Thailand (40.4%), and Vietnam (37.5%).

"This underscores the clear hope in these countries for ASEAN to speak with a single diplomatic voice," explained the ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute in its "The State of Southeast Asia 2026 Survey Report".

The second most encouraged approach is supporting the continuation of the ceasefire and ensuring sustainable humanitarian aid.

According to researchers, this perspective is most prominent in Malaysia (40.7%), Singapore (36.6%), Cambodia (34.5%), and the Philippines (31.8%).

"Issuing statements upholding international law and condemning violations by all parties comes next with a figure of 26.3%, and this approach is favored by Indonesia (33.9%)," said the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

Here are the respondents' views on how ASEAN should respond to the Israel-Hamas conflict in 2026:

• ASEAN should take a united stance in supporting a two-state solution through negotiations as the basis for long-term peace: 32.3%
• ASEAN should support the continuation of the ceasefire and ensure sustained humanitarian aid: 28.1%
• ASEAN should issue a statement upholding international law and condemning violations by all parties: 26.3%
• ASEAN should allow each member state to choose their own approach to this issue: 6.9%
• ASEAN should avoid involvement in distant conflicts that do not directly impact regional security: 6.4%

The ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute surveyed 2,008 people aged at least 18 online from January 5 to February 20, 2026 using mixed purposive sampling.

The respondents were spread across 11 Southeast Asian countries. The respondents came from five affiliation categories: (a) academics, members of think tanks, or researchers; (b) private sector representatives; (c) representatives of civil society, NGOs, or the media; (d) government officials; and (e) staff of regional or international organizations.