Most Americans in favor of Palestinian state, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
Some 33% of respondents did not agree that U.N. members should recognize a Palestinian state and 9% did not answer.
The six-day poll, which closed on Monday, found a pronounced partisan divide on the issue, with 78% of Democrats supporting the idea, far more than the 41% of President Donald Trump's Republicans who agreed.
A narrow 53% majority of Republicans did not agree that all U.N. member nations should recognize a Palestinian state.
Israel has long counted on the U.S., its most powerful ally, for billions of dollars a year in military aid and international diplomatic support. An erosion of U.S. public support would be a worrisome sign for Israel as it faces not only Hamas militants in Gaza but unresolved conflict with Iran, its regional arch-foe.
A widely condemned Israeli settlement plan that would cut across occupied West Bank land which the Palestinians seek for a state received final approval on Wednesday, according to an Israeli government statement.
More: Israel says it has taken first steps of military operation in Gaza City
The poll was taken within weeks of three countries, close U.S. allies Canada, Britain and France, announcing they intend to recognize a Palestinian state. This ratcheted up pressure on Israel as starvation spreads in Gaza.
The survey was taken amid hopes that Israel and Hamas would agree on a ceasefire to provide a break in the fighting, free some hostages and ease shipments of humanitarian assistance into the Gaza Strip.
Britain, Canada, Australia and several of their European allies said last week that the humanitarian crisis in the war-torn Palestinian enclave has reached "unimaginable levels," as aid groups warned that Gazans are on the verge of famine.
The United Nations human rights office said on Tuesday Israel was not letting enough supplies into the Gaza Strip to avert widespread starvation. Israel has denied responsibility for hunger in Gaza, accusing Hamas of stealing aid shipments, which Hamas denies.
More: As Netanyahu expands Gaza war, some reservists grow more disillusioned
SUPPORT FOR FIGHTING STARVATION
Some 65% of the Reuters/Ipsos poll respondents said the U.S. should take action in Gaza to help people facing starvation, with 28% disagreeing. The number disagreeing included 41% of Republicans.
Trump and many of his fellow Republicans take an "America First" approach to international relations, backing steep cuts to the country's international food and medical assistance programs in the belief that U.S. funds should assist Americans, not those outside its borders.
More: One meal a day. $20 for an egg. Choosing which kid gets fed. Starvation stalks Gaza
The war in Gaza began when Hamas-led fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Israel's offensive has since killed more than 62,000 Palestinians, plunged Gaza into humanitarian crisis and displaced most of its population, according to Gaza health authorities.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll also showed that 59% of Americans believe Israel's military response in Gaza has been excessive. Thirty-three percent of respondents disagreed.
In a similar Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in February 2024, 53% of respondents agreed that Israel's response had been excessive, and 42% disagreed.
Officials at the Israeli embassy in Washington and mission to the United Nations did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the poll.
The latest Reuters/Ipsos survey, conducted online, gathered responses from 4,446 U.S. adults nationwide and had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points.
(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle and Jason Lange; editing by Scott Malone, Cynthia Osterman and Mark Heinrich)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US consumer watchdog kicks off redo of 'open banking' rules on customer data
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Thursday kicked off a do-over of its "open banking" regulations governing consumer control over the sharing of personal data between banks and the burgeoning financial technology sector as the two industries feud over proper controls and access. The decision marked an about-face amid public pressure from fintech firms and crypto entrepreneurs whose fortunes have soared since President Donald Trump returned to the White House this year. The watchdog asked numerous questions on how best to implement the consumer data rules -- now 15 years in the making and prescribed as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation -- requiring that banks give consumers access to their own financial data, including account information, transactions, usage and fees "upon request." The regulations were previously completed by the Biden administration, earning a legal challenge from the banking industry who opposed that version, citing risks to consumer data security. Former CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in October that the regulations would let consumers switch banks with the same ease as switching telephone companies, allowing comparison shopping for mortgages and accounts - with data shared free of charge. The Trump administration initially told a court it supported banking industry calls to strike down the Biden regulations but in late July reversed course, saying that due to unnamed "recent events in the marketplace," it would replace the regulations with a version more to the administration's liking. The backpedaling came after politically connected crypto entrepreneurs, including Tyler Winkelvoss and Donald Trump Jr., took to social media to denounce JPMorgan Chase over a Bloomberg report that the bank had informed fintech firms they would in fact have to pay potentially hefty fees for access to depositors' data, even though the pending Biden-era regulations still prevented this. In an earnings call in mid-July, JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon said securely sharing customer data was costly.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sony Hikes PlayStation 5 Price To Cover Tariffs And Gamers Are Furious: 'Trump Is 100% To Blame'
Sony has announced a $50 price hike for all three versions of its flagship video game console, the PlayStation 5, in the United States — and social media is furious. The company previously confirmed President Donald Trump's ongoing trade war could lead to rising prices. Sony's vice president of global marketing, Isabelle Tomatis, broke the news Wednesday. 'Similar to many global businesses, we continue to navigate a challenging economic environment,' she wrote. 'As a result, we've made the difficult decision to increase the recommended retail price for PlayStation 5 consoles in the U.S. starting August 21.' Related: Buyers will now have to shell out $549.99 for a base model, which originally cost $500 when it hit stores in 2020, and spend almost $500 for a 'Digital Edition,' which doesn't contain a disc drive and initially cost $450 — or spend about $750 for the coveted 'Pro' version. Related: The Japanese company didn't mention Trump's tariffs on U.S. imports Wednesday, but it did acknowledge them in May — when Chief Financial Officer Lin Tao confirmed in an earnings call with investors that Sony might 'pass on' the cost of the tariffs to consumers. Gamers on social media were shocked by the ramifications of Trump's trade war. 'The first console generation that I can ever remember in my lifetime where prices of consoles have been raised over time instead of lowered,' one user wrote Wednesday on X, formerly Twitter, with another person commenting: 'Thank a Trump voter for this.' Trump announced a sweeping 10% baseline tariff in April on all imports, with levies on dozens of countries set even higher. While he has defended his tariff policies as a just crusade to revive American manufacturing, they have sparked fears of a global recession — or worse. Trump's executive order imposes a 15% tax on products from Japan and went into effect two weeks ago. 'I want to point out that while trump is 100% to blame, Sony could 1000000% just eat those tariff charges if thats all they're bumping it up to,' one person argued Thursday on X, while another wrote plainly: 'Gamers who voted for Trump did this to you all. Dummies.' Related: The debate seems entrenched in these camps, with one side blaming Sony for passing the buck and another lambasting Trump for his trade war. Another faction, meanwhile, is just plain baffled that a five-year-old console can be so darn expensive in the first place. Related... U.S. Producer Prices Surge In July As Trump Tariffs Push Costs Higher Sony Hikes PlayStation Console Prices, Citing Global Economic Turmoil 'This Is Socialism': Right-Wing Host Short-Circuits Over Trump's 'Terrible' New Move
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
NEW YORK (AP) — An appeals court has thrown out the massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump, ruling Thursday in New York state's lawsuit accusing him of exaggerating his wealth. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost Trump more than $515 million and rock his real estate empire, was 'excessive.' After finding that Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — now exceeds $527 million, with interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron also imposed other punishments, such as banning Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in 'lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.' Her office had no immediate comment after Thursday's decision. Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a monthslong trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, who are both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing in September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contends that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider; he still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. He's also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of President Donald Trump at Jennifer Peltz And Michael R. Sisak, The Associated Press
