Most Americans now disapprove of Israel's military action in Gaza, new Gallup poll finds
The new polling also found that about half of U.S. adults now have an unfavorable view of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the most negative rating he has received since he was first included in Gallup polling in 1997. The poll was conducted from July 7-21, while reports of starvation in Gaza led to international criticism of Israel's decision to restrict food aid but before President Donald Trump expressed concern over the worsening humanitarian situation.
The findings underscore the Israeli government's dramatic loss of support within the U.S. But not everyone is shifting — instead, the war has become more politically polarizing. The rising disapproval is driven by Democrats and independents, who are much less likely to approve of Israel's actions than they were in November 2023, just after Israel expanded its ground offensive in Gaza.
Republicans, on the other hand, remain largely supportive of both Israel's military actions and Netanyahu.
The new poll finds that about 6 in 10 U.S. adults disapprove of the military action Israel has taken in Gaza, up from 45% in November 2023.
Support for the war has been dwindling in Gallup's polling for some time. In March 2024, about half of U.S. adults disapproved of Israel's military action in Gaza, which fell slightly as the year wore on.
In a new low, only 8% of Democrats and one-quarter of independents say they now approve of Israel's military campaign. Some of that decline may be attributed to the change in administration. While former President Joe Biden faced significant pushback from fellow Democrats on his handling of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, they may be even more frustrated by the approach of Trump, a Republican.
Young adults are also much more likely to disapprove of Israel's actions. Only about 1 in 10 adults under age 35 say they approve of Israel's military choices in Gaza, compared with about half of those who are 55 or older.
Gallup senior editor Megan Brenan says the latest figures reflect the enduring partisan divide. Even as Democrats grow increasingly unhappy with Israel's military campaign, Republicans remain supportive.
'We've seen this drop in approval since last fall, and it's really driven by Democrats and independents,' Brenan says. 'Republicans are still willing to be in this for the time being.'
Views of Netanyahu have also grown less favorable over the past few years, with more viewing him negatively than positively in measurements taken since the war in Gaza began.
About half of U.S. adults, 52%, now have an unfavorable view of Netanyahu in the new poll, which overlapped with Netanyahu's recent visit to the U.S. Just 29% view him positively, and about 2 in 10 either haven't heard of him or don't have an opinion.
That's a change — although not a huge one — since December 2023, when 47% of U.S. adults had an unfavorable view of Netanyahu and 33% had a favorable opinion. But it's a reversal from as recently as April 2019, when more U.S. adults viewed him positively than negatively.
Republicans have a much more positive view of Netanyahu than Democrats and independents do. About two-thirds of Republicans view him favorably, which is in line with last year. About 1 in 10 Democrats and 2 in 10 independents feel the same way.
'This is the first time we've seen a majority of Americans, with an unfavorable view of him,' Brenan says. 'All of these questions in this poll show us basically the same story, and it's not a good one for the Israeli government right now.'
More than half of U.S. adults, 55%, disapprove of Trump's handling of the situation in the Middle East, according to a July AP-NORC poll.
But the conflict has not weighed as heavily on Trump as it did on Biden, who watched Democrats splinter on the issue. That's because of Trump's solid support from his base on this issue, further reflected in Republicans' continued approval of Israel's military action. About 8 in 10 Republicans approve of Trump's handling of the situation in the Middle East. By contrast, only about 4 in 10 Democrats approved of Biden's handling of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians last summer, shortly before he dropped out of the presidential race.
In an AP-NORC poll from March, Republicans were significantly more likely than Democrats and independents to say they sympathized more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians in the conflict.
And while Americans overall were more likely to say it was 'extremely' or 'very' important for the United States to provide humanitarian relief to Palestinians in Gaza than to say the same about providing aid to Israel's military, Republicans said the opposite — more saw military aid to Israel as a higher priority than providing humanitarian relief to the Palestinians in Gaza.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
On The Matter Of So-Called ‘Debanking,' Follow The Regulators
It turns out Republicans buy beer, which is something basketball and brand great Michael Jordan could have told the executives at AB InBev ahead of any influencer agreement with Dylan Mulvaney. In a politically divided country, it's best to keep business out of politics. Banks arguably know this more intimately than any other business sector. Precisely because they're asking individuals to entrust their savings to them, politics and talk of same is the path to losing some of the most hard-won business of all. It's important to think about in consideration of President Trump's assertion on CNBC that 'The banks discriminated against me very badly.' Trump was talking about J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America, but to focus on specific banks is to miss the point. And that's not because Chase has banking relationships with Trump and family going back decades, Trump campaign accounts, and looking ahead, the eventual Trump presidential library. The crucial truth is that banks are in the business of carefully matching the wealth of savers with credible individuals, businesses and governments in need of savings. Which means they're not in the business of turning their noses up to half of the U.S. population of savers, or closing the accounts of savers with wealth to put to work. Some call account refusal or closure 'debanking,' which realistically wasn't even a word until 2023-2024. With good reason. Banks exist to open accounts, not close them. Which requires a pivot. To focus on banks allegedly turning away business for political reasons, or closing accounts similarly for reasons of politics, is for pundits, politicians and even presidents to avert their gaze from the real problem: regulators. On the matter of closed or refused accounts, criticism of banks is a non sequitur. Banks are overseen by regulators that can make life miserable for them via the imposition of 'asset caps,' excessive capital requirements, or worst of all, closure. With the latter and much more well in mind, banks are studious about not finding themselves on the wrong side of regulators. Which is a long or short way of saying that depending on the Party in control in Washington, and by extension the Party that is appointing regulators, banks must at times choose their customers wisely. Regulators will say the choosing is rooted in banks protecting their reputations, but as evidenced by the business that banks are in, no such regulation is needed. More realistically, regulators have too often substituted their politics for sound oversight. Cryptocurrency and crypto adjacent businesses were unpopular during the Biden years, gun and gun manufacturers when Barack Obama occupied the White House, while in Republican leaning U.S. locales like Texas, banks have experienced trouble if viewed as unfriendly to oil & gas interests. The main thing is that debanking has nothing to do with business, and everything to do with the politics that banks studiously try to avoid. See above. Which is why President Trump's broad focus on regulation as the source of so-called 'debanking' is so important. Banks open accounts, regulators force their refusal, closure, or both. With his executive order meant to end the practice of debanking, Trump is correctly making this about overly politicized regulators, not banks attempting to mix politics and business. Which means banks can get back to doing what they do best, all free of the politics that they've long avoided based on a clear-eyed grasp of what Michael Jordan intuited decades ago.
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
House Republican: Johnson needs to ‘show some leadership,' end redistricting ‘chaos'
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) called out Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) over their responses to redistricting efforts across the country, saying the chaos needs to end. 'Ultimately I think that the Speaker needs to step up and show some leadership here because even our own members in states that might in some theoretical way, mathematical way stand to benefit from new maps, they don't like what's going on either,' Kiley told MSNBC's Chris Jansing on Tuesday. 'They don't like the prospect of having their district broken up or having communities they've represented, been voted in by, taken out of their district.' Kiley, who represents a competitive House district, said on Monday he will introduce legislation on Monday that would block states from redrawing their congressional districts prior to the 2030 census. 'It's not a good thing for either Democrats or Republicans. It's certainly not a good thing for the country,' he continued. 'So I think that the Speaker and Leader Jeffries need to show some leadership here to bring this chaos to an end, and I think that the bill that I have offered gives them the opportunity to do just that.' In the same interview, Kiley also criticized California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) efforts to redraw maps in California as a means of fighting back against Republican redistricting efforts in red states. Newsom has said he wants to abolish the state's Independent Redistricting Commission. 'The old saying is that voters should choose their representatives; representatives shouldn't choose their voters,' Kiley said. 'And I think that what's happening right now across the country, and especially in California, is a very unhealthy thing for democracy.' The redistricting fight jumped into overdrive in Texas this week after state Democratic lawmakers fled the Lone Star State for blue states including Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York.
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Election 2028 is on — Democrats see opportunity and a wide open primary
The big field in the race for the 2028 presidential sweepstakes is already off and running. Two of the top Democrats vying for the job are former Vice President Kamala Harris and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). The election of either one would address the urgency of putting a woman in the White House for the first time. Harris's decision not to run for governor in her home state of California indicates she will make another White House run. But that's not the only sign that the Democratic stampede towards 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has started. Democratic presidential wannabes have already made treks to early primary states like South Carolina and New Hampshire. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has already raised $1.6 million dollars for his leadership PAC. Why has the Democratic presidential primary pursuit started so early? Donald Trump's failed imperial presidency has raised the stakes and the Democratic field is wide open. A Democratic House majority after next year's midterms would slow down Trump's excesses but only a new Democratic president in 2029 can undo the damage. Trump's approval ratings are deep underwater and inflation is sky-high. The 2028 GOP nominee will inherit his weak standing and a troubled economy if the president follows through with his reckless handling of the nation's economy. First-half GDP growth was anemic and job creation cratered in the last few months. Trump's only response was to kill the messenger of the bad news. The 2028 MAGA nominee will bear the same economic burden from an unpopular president that Harris inherited in 2024. Democrats smell blood in the water. Even with Harris' inevitable entry into the 2028 race, there is no strong favorite to win her party's nod. A June survey of Democratic voters by Emerson College indicated that she is simply one of three candidates in the field ranging between 10 and 15 percent of the vote, along with former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Last November just after Election Day, another Emerson poll showed the former vice president far ahead of the rest of the pack, with 37 percent support. The difference between the two surveys demonstrates the fluid nature of the race and the fragility of Harris's support. The former vice president only had 107 days to start and run her presidential campaign which is virtually impossible to do. But she failed to break new ground and separate herself from the unpopular incumbent during her brief effort. Will she be more aggressive in 2028? She needs to do much more than to call for a return to the status quo before Trump 2.0. The former veep must be bold especially on economic issues. Bold prescriptions for the nation's economic woes include trust busting for Big Tech and the mammoth grocery chain cartels. Does Harris have it in her to blaze a new trail for her party? She got off to a good start last week on ' The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.' She said that she needed a vacation from a 'broken' political system, at least for now. The establishment Democrat also criticized the parts of the establishment that she believed capitulated to Trump. I'm sure that Paramount, which owns CBS, caught that remark. The avatar of the progressive movement, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will not run in 2028. He lost his presidential bids in 2016 and 2020, but he received millions of votes and had a profound impact on the ideological direction of the Democratic Party. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and Ocasio-Cortez can fill the void with the base left by Sanders if she runs for president. She is a proud Democratic Socialist and a Democratic Socialist won the party's primary in New York City. Another one is mounting a strong primary challenge to the mayor in Minneapolis. Democratic Socialism isn't big in the must-win suburbs in the battleground Electoral College states. But there are lots of them in the big cities that contribute heavily to the Democratic presidential primary vote. Ocasio-Cortez strongly supported the successful primary campaign of Zohran Mamdani in the Big Apple. But a Mamdani loss to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, running as an independent in November, could take some of the sheen off her presidential profile. Mamdani may have to back off on some of the statements he made in the past, and Ocasio-Cortez may have the same problem if she runs for the nation's highest office. She has supported controversial proposals like Medicare For All during her brief career, but nothing as radical as the things that Donald Trump has actually done in office. A national survey for The Economist last month demonstrated majority support for universal health care compared to little support for Trump's big bad budget bill. Ocasio-Cortez is only 35 years old. Her ascent into the national political pantheon is as much generational as it is ideological. A new generation of young Democrats will demand their place in the sun from the aging baby boomers, like me, who temporarily hold sway in the party. She's a street fighter from New York, like Trump, but she goes to war for progressive ideals instead of outmoded and antiquated policies. The energy within her party is generated on Main Street, not on the boulevards of Washington. She and her mentor Sanders drew enormous crowds during their town hall meetings in crimson red Republican congressional districts across the nation. My party needs to tap her energy and enthusiasm to recover and prosper. Her reputation as a burr in the butt for the Democratic D.C. establishment would serve her well and capitalize on voter hatred for Washington. Most Americans believe the system is terrible and are looking for bold and dramatic change. They got it in a perverse way from Trump. Now it's up to Harris, Ocasio-Cortez and the other Democratic contestants to deliver their own versions of progressive fundamental reform.
