Replication Data for: Liberal Humanitarianism under Fire: Hostage Risks, Military Escalation, and Public Opinion in Israel

How do humanitarian considerations shape public support for military escalation during wartime? While existing scholarship highlights the role of threat perceptions and partisan predispositions, we know far less about how liberal, humanitarian concerns operate under acute security pressure. Focusing on the Israeli case during the 2023–25 conflict, this paper proposes a mechanism that links liberal humanitarianism to reduced support for escalation, drawing on Tomkins’ polarity theory and the price theory of war. This study tests this mechanism using two complementary studies: a framing experiment in August 2024 (Study 1) and an observational analysis of public opinion during the Iran–Israel confrontation (Study 2). Across both studies, perceptions of humanitarian risk—particularly regarding hostages and non combatants—consistently reduce willingness to endorse escalation among liberal respondents, even when threat levels are high. These findings suggest that humanitarian concerns remain politically consequential in wartime and help explain variation in escalation preferences within democratic societies. The paper contributes to international relations by clarifying when and how liberal values constrain hawkish public sentiment under extreme security conditions.