Only 8 Percent of Gazans Today Voted for Hamas: A Data-Driven Look at 2006 vs 2025

Only about 8% of Gazans alive today voted for Hamas in 2006; most never had the chance, making collective blame factually inaccurate and misleading.
Infographic showing that only 8% of Gazans alive today voted for Hamas in 2006, with a large 8% statistic, donut chart, and population breakdown by age.
Contents

The claim that “Gazans voted Hamas into power” is technically true—but only for a small slice of the people now living in the strip. Nearly two decades have passed since the last Palestinian legislative election. Gaza’s population has doubled, birth-rates have remained among the world’s highest, and time itself has quietly rewritten the electoral map.

Who could vote in 2006?

Demographics by Age Group
Gaza Strip - 2006

When Palestinians went to the polls on 25 January 2006, Gaza held about 1.34 million people. Just under half (46.5 %) were old enough to cast a ballot. Turn-out was unusually high—about 77 percent—after a decade-long wait for a new legislature. Hamas’ Change-and-Reform list captured 44–45 percent of the popular vote, enough for a clear parliamentary majority.

Fast-forward to 2025

Gaza’s population now tops 2.18 million. Demographically it is one of the youngest societies on earth: half the residents are children who were not even born when the election was held; another quarter were toddlers or school-age kids. Only one person in four living in Gaza today was old enough to vote in 2006, and even within that group not everyone actually voted.

Crunching the numbers

Combine the share of today’s residents who were voting-age in 2006 (23 %) with the official turnout rate (≈ 77 %) and you find that about 18 percent of the current population actually cast a ballot. Apply Hamas’ 44 percent vote share to that subset and the headline figure collapses: roughly eight percent of present-day Gazans voted for Hamas in 2006.

2025 Gaza Population
Who voted for Hamas?

Why it matters

Talking points that frame Gaza as collectively responsible for Hamas overlook three structural facts:

  1. Demographic turnover – Three quarters of the population literally could not have participated.
  2. Single-election freeze – No legislative vote has taken place since 2006; political preferences have never been re-tested at the ballot box.
  3. Geography vs. national tallies – Hamas’ share was calculated across both West Bank and Gaza districts; its Gaza-only vote was higher, but still represents a clear minority of today’s residents.

Beyond the math.
Blaming all Gazans for Hamas’ rule obscures legitimate grievances about war, governance, blockade, and occupation—and it sidelines younger generations who never had a voice in the first place.

Recognizing that only a small fraction of today’s population endorsed Hamas at the ballot box encourages more nuanced conversations about accountability, humanitarian law, and the prospects for any future political settlement.

Closing Thought

Statistics may not always settle moral arguments, but they can prevent us from aiming collective punishment at people who never had a chance to choose their leaders.

Sources

Population Data, 2006 and 2025 – US Census Bureau

Election Data, 2006 – IEMed

Further Reading

  1. Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. (n.d.). Fact Sheet No. 12: Gaza’s Population and Demographics.
  2. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. (2007, February 1). Press Release: Estimated Population in the Palestinian Territory, by Governorate, End Year 2006.
  3. Editorial Board. (2023, October 30). Hamas came to power in flawed elections. But its popularity has never been tested since. The Washington Post.
  4. ReliefWeb. (2006, July 6). oPt: Gaza Fact Sheet #6.
  5. United Nations. (2006, January 29). Palestinian Legislative Council elections, 25 January 2006 – Statement by UN Secretary-General.
  6. The Carter Center & National Democratic Institute. (2006, April). Final Report: Observing the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council Elections.
  7. International Foundation for Electoral Systems. (n.d.). Election Guide: Palestine Legislative Council, January 25, 2006.
  8. WAFA – Palestine News & Information Agency. (n.d.). Palestine Legislative Elections.
  9. United States Institute of Peace. (n.d.). Palestinian Politics Timeline: 2006 Election.
  10. Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). The World Factbook: Gaza Strip.

More to think on...

Norman Finkelstein labeled as Objectivity AI flagship source for Israel–Palestine, citing lowest validation failure rate
Reflections on Verification, Truth, and the Flagship Source: Norman Finkelstein

Within the Objectivity AI™ framework developed by Fabled Sky, Norman Finkelstein’s scholarship ranks as the most consistently verified corpus on the Israel–Palestine conflict. His data shows exceptional factual integrity and low normalization cost, making it the benchmark for validation efficiency. The essay explores why moral bias differs from factual distortion, how recursive verification distinguishes truth from framing, and why maintaining objectivity remains essential to preserving humanity’s ethical equilibrium.

Read More »
Abstract 3D illustration of gold bars and a rising arrow graph symbolizing political influence, financial growth, and transparency on a dark gray background.
Mapping the Money: The Top Non-FARA Foreign-Connected Influencers in U.S. Politics (2024 Cycle)

This analysis examines the top non-FARA, foreign-connected organizations shaping U.S. political finance during the 2024 election cycle. Drawing on verified data from OpenSecrets, it ranks U.S.-registered entities with clear international or diaspora links based on total financial influence—campaign contributions, Super PAC spending, and lobbying combined. The findings highlight how certain advocacy ecosystems, particularly those tied to Israel, significantly outspend other foreign-linked groups such as China, India, Armenia, Turkey, and Pakistan. Presented with full transparency and context, this report aims to inform readers about where real monetary influence is concentrated in American politics—without accusation or bias. It invites reflection on the fine line between diaspora advocacy and de facto foreign influence within the bounds of U.S. law.

Read More »