Poll: Number of young Americans who side with Iran over Israel
By
But when age groups were broken down, the youngest respondents sided with Iran the most. Among 18 and 29-year-olds, 22 percent selected Iran, while 41 percent said Israel, whereas 37 percent indicated that they were unsure. Young people have been the most vocal about how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has responded to Hamas ' October 7, 2023 terror attack - by bombing Palestinians living in Gaza.
'Looking at these results it's hard to avoid the conclusion that many young Americans have a problem with the Jewish state of Israel,' J.L. Partners pollster James Johnson said. 'It isn't that young people have a positive view of Iran per se - they don't - but that they have such a negative view of Israel that a significant portion of them are ready to side with almost any entity that is against them,' Johnson added.
Those voters would be more likely to remember the Iranian Revolution during the late 1970s and early 80s, in which the country's pro-Western Shah was pushed out, with the current Islamic Republic taking its place. The Iran Hostage crisis, in which U.S. embassy employees were taken hostage in Tehran, became a pivotal issue in the 1980 presidential election, helping Republican President Ronald Reagan win the race.
Voters between the ages of 30 and 49 came in somewhat in-between their younger and older peers, with 46 percent backing Israel and 15 percent saying they supported Iran. Party identification also showed a split. Among Republicans, 72 percent said they supported Israel, while 5 percent said Iran.
With Democrats - a party that has generally been more critical of Netanyahu and the Gaza war - 44 percent said Israel and 14 percent said Iran, with another 42 percent of Democrats saying they were unsure. When voters were asked to if Iran's 'regime is evil and intent on the destruction of Israel' or Iran 'may have differences with Israel, but is ultimately a friendly actor in the region,' the youngest voting bloc was most likely to choose the latter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
ANDREW NEIL: Labour's hollow drivel can't conceal that the defence of the realm is not safe in their hands
Daddy did it! Donald Trump, designated 'Daddy' by Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte for knocking and Iranian heads together when they were behaving like 'two kids in a schoolyard', pulled off his second triumph of the week when Nato countries committed themselves to massive increases in defence spending. 'You are now flying to another great success in The Hague,' Rutte told Trump, ramping up the sycophancy while the US President was en route to the Nato summit, hard on the heels of the Israeli-Iranian ceasefire he'd engineered.
Sky News
25 minutes ago
- Sky News
Trump's 'giant win' frees him up to push on with his agenda with fewer blocks and barriers
As the president himself said, this was a "giant" of a decision - a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news. The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump. By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president. Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges. The federal judges, branded "radical leftist lunatics" by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration. They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions - thus blocking the Trump administration's policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy frankly," the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room. "Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," he said. In simple terms, this ruling, from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges, frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts. "This is such a big day…," the president said. "It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power. "And it's really going to be... a very monumental decision." The country's most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court". In a statement, Schumer wrote: "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution - it's defacing it. "This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy." 2:57 Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government - the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts). They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful. This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship - that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here. A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deferred its judgement on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges. The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: "As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab - but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. "Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are... (wait for it)... the district courts." Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling. Writing for the majority, she said: "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply 'class action' - to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation. There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers. The ruling ends a giddy week for the president. 0:51 Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire. By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands. At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire "within a week" in Gaza.
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
New Hampshire lawsuit seeks to stop politicization of youth center abuse victims' fund
Lawyers representing hundreds of men and woman who claim they were abused at New Hampshire's youth detention center filed a class action lawsuit Friday seeking to prevent the independent administrator of the state's settlement fund for victims from being replaced with a political appointee. Lawmakers created the settlement fund in 2022, pitching it as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation that would be run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget approved Thursday and signed into law by Gov. Kelly Ayotte on Friday. Under the new provisions taking effect July 1, the governor will have the authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator, and the attorney general — also a political appointee — would have veto power over settlement awards. In affidavits filed with their complaint, the lead plaintiffs said the change amounts to a bait and switch that reignited the skepticism they initially felt about the settlement process but tried to put aside. 'I never would have shared the full story of what happened to me if I did not think I would be heard by someone impartial,' said a woman identified only as Jane Doe, who said she ran away from home to escape sexual abuse only to be further abused in state custody. 'I feel incredibly betrayed by the state's actions, but this is just the latest in a long list of betrayals by the state, so maybe I should not be surprised,' she said. 'This also makes me wonder whether the state will next betray the promise of confidentiality, because it seems like their word does not mean anything to them.' Another plaintiff, Andrew Foley, described being diagnosed with PTSD, not from his time as a combat soldier in Iraq but from the physical and sexual abuse he suffered as a child. 'As I understand it, the State will now decide for itself how much my claim is worth. That is the opposite of a fair process,' his affidavit said. 'As I always believed, the state cannot be trusted.' Neither Ayotte nor Attorney General John Formella responded to requests for comment Friday. More than 1,300 people have sued since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused in state custody as children, most of them at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Only one case has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. Two other cases have been settled for $10 million and $4.5 million. The state also has brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. Many of the alleged victims put their lawsuits on hold and applied to the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. As of March 31, 296 cases had been settled, with an average award of $543,000, according to the most recently available statistics. The lawsuit filed Friday seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the governor from firing the current administrator, former state Supreme Court Chief Justice John Broderick.
