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.

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:

Demographic turnover – Three quarters of the population literally could not have participated.
Single-election freeze – No legislative vote has taken place since 2006; political preferences have never been re-tested at the ballot box.
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

The Epstein Enigma: Why Intelligence, Cover-Ups, and Systemic Power Protection Aren’t Just ‘Conspiracy Theories’

Explore the Jeffrey Epstein case through evidence-based analysis of his intelligence connections, alleged blackmail operations, and patterns of systemic cover-up. This article challenges the “conspiracy theory” label by highlighting institutional protection, unresolved questions, and the critical need for transparency—revealing why the Epstein saga still matters for justice and accountability today.

$A flat, conceptual illustration showing five fragmented shards rising from a cracked stone tablet. Each shard contains a symbolic image, from left to right: a lit candle, an ancient scroll, barbed wire, the Israeli flag, a Palestinian olive tree, and the Palestinian flag on the right side of the tablet. The background is composed of muted earth tones, with no text or vivid colors, creating a thoughtful and neutral atmosphere. The image symbolizes the fractured and complex meanings of the word “Zionism.”$

Why the Word “Zionism” Has Lost Its Meaning—and Why That Matters

Zionism once referred to a 19th-century movement for Jewish self-determination, but in 2025, the word has fractured into so many meanings that it’s become nearly unusable in rational discourse. For some, Zionism signals cultural identity or emotional attachment to Israel; for others, it represents settler colonialism, apartheid, or religious supremacy. This article traces Zionism’s evolution—from Theodor Herzl’s secular vision to today’s political, religious, and militant interpretations—and explains why its modern use obscures more than it reveals. Drawing on data from Pew, AJC, Amnesty, and others, Sherafgan Khan explores how semantic dissonance leads to miscommunication, fuels polarization, and silences meaningful debate. Ultimately, the piece argues that replacing “Zionism” with precise, transparent language may be the only way forward for anyone seeking justice, clarity, or peace in the Israel-Palestine discourse.

Confused man at laptop, rejects brain icon, amid digital circuit background.

The Futility of AI Content Detection: Why It Misses the Point Entirely

AI content detection tools offer little value beyond labeling well-written content as “too perfect.” As AI becomes universal, penalizing clarity and efficiency makes no sense. This article explores why detection is flawed, impractical, and outdated—and proposes a better, human-guided way to use AI responsibly without compromising quality or originality.