
Analysis: Americans' – and Republicans' – increasingly complicated relationship with Israel
The president who promised to easily and quickly bring about peace has now found himself accounting for yet another major escalation. President Donald Trump had publicly discouraged Israel from striking Iran in recent days, as he pushed to instead secure a deal to curtail Iran's nuclear program.
But it didn't pan out. Israel launched a massive attack overnight that targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and killed high-ranking officials – strikes that Trump told CNN by phone early Friday were 'very successful.'
It all reinforces how the world we live in is much more complex than the one Trump pitched on the campaign trail.
And from a domestic perspective, the situation with Israel is arguably more complex than it has been in many decades.
Multiple indicators suggest Americans' support for Israel has reached historic lows as its war in Gaza has dragged on. And while Republicans are much more likely to back Israel than Democrats, even that is getting more complicated – particularly as influential voices on the right voice skepticism of a hardline approach to Iran.
Much remains to shake out amid the historic escalation in the Middle East. Things will shift. There is a real question about whether Iran is even capable now of the kind of significant retaliation that could lead to a wider war.
But the US decisions that lie ahead aren't as easy as they once might have seemed, politically speaking.
A Quinnipiac University poll released this week – ahead of Israel's strikes – epitomized the shifting landscape.
Polls for decades have asked Americans to choose whether they sympathize more with Israelis or Palestinians, and Israel is almost always the runaway favorite. But this one showed Americans sided with the Israelis by a historically narrow margin: 37% to 32%.
After Hamas' October 2023 terror attack on Israel, that margin had been 61-13% in the Israelis' favor. So a 48-point edge has shrunk to five.
That's not only the lowest advantage for Israel since Quinnipiac began polling this question in 2001, but it appears to be about the lowest since at least 1980 across multiple polls, according to data compiled by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.
Those findings, while telling, don't strictly apply to a conflict between Israel and Iran. But it's also clear that overall support for Israel has waned over the past year and a half.
To wit:
A March poll from the Pew Research Center showed 53% of Americans – a majority – had an unfavorable opinion of Israel. That was up from 42% in 2022, before the current war in Gaza. The same poll showed Americans said by more than a 20-point margin that they lacked confidence in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
A March poll from Marquette University Law School showed Americans evenly split on Israel: 43% favorable to 43% unfavorable.
And a February Reuters/Ipsos poll showed about 4 in 10 Americans leaned toward the idea that Israel's problems are 'none of our business.'
What was particularly striking about that last one: These views were almost completely nonpartisan. It was about 4 in 10 Democrats, independents and Republicans who said Israel's business was none of ours.
That suggests that Trump's injection of non-interventionism in the conservative movement has caught on, even as it relates to our most significant ally in the Middle East.
But it's more than just non-interventionism; there are also plenty of signs that even Republicans have soured on Israel.
The Quinnipiac poll showed the percentage of Republicans who sympathized more with the Israelis than Palestinians dropping from 86% in October 2023 to 64% today. (Almost all of the shift was to a neutral position, rather than to the Palestinians.)
And the Pew poll showed unfavorable views of Israel among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents rising from 27% in 2022 to 37% in March. Most remarkably, right-leaning voters under the age of 50 were about evenly split in their views of Israel.
These modest but significant shifts have come as certain corners of the MAGA movement have adopted a more skeptical view of the American alliance with Israel and cautioned against a hardline approach to Iran.
Those tensions are perhaps best exemplified by an intense and ongoing feud between Fox News host Mark Levin and his former Fox colleague, Tucker Carlson.
Carlson on Friday morning went so far as to say the United States should decouple itself from Israel altogether. He said the Trump administration should 'drop Israel. Let them fight their own wars.'
Carlson said the United States not only shouldn't send troops, but that it shouldn't provide any funding or weapons.
Also this week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard used her personal X account to promote a cryptic video. She urged people to 'reject this path to nuclear war' and said certain 'elite warmongers' were carelessly pushing us toward it, in the knowledge that they personally had nuclear shelters that others didn't.
It's not clear if Gabbard was alluding to the tensions in the Middle East – as opposed to, say, the war between Russia and Ukraine. But she has long advocated a softer approach to Iran. Back in 2020, while she was still a Democrat, she called Trump's killing of a top Iranian commander an unconstitutional 'act of war.'
Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana responded this week that Gabbard should 'change her meds.'
In other words, this isn't even simple on the right anymore. Trump leads a country and a movement that are increasingly torn about the path ahead.
He has landed firmly in Israel's corner thus far. But very difficult decisions could lie ahead.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hawaii student sheltering in Israel amid Middle East bombings
The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran has the entire world on edge, and it is hitting very close to some for Hawaii residents.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Northern California sheriff issues stern warning against violent protests amid ‘No Kings Day'
( — Law enforcement in Northern California is warning about the consequences of violent protests amid nationwide demonstrations planned for 'No Kings Day.' 'In anticipation of upcoming demonstrations in Placer County and across the country, I reaffirm the commitment of the Placer County Sheriff's Office to protecting the rights and safety of all members of our community,' Placer County Sheriff Wayne Woo said on social media. 'Peaceful protest is a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution, and we are committed to safeguarding the First Amendment. We stand in support of individuals exercising their freedoms of speech and assembly in a lawful and respectful manner.' What is No Kings Day? But for people who have plans to be violent, Woo had a different message. 'Any acts that threaten public safety or property will be met with consequences,' Woo said. 'Our priority is to maintain peace and order, and any actions that compromise the well-being of our residents will be dealt with swiftly.' He added, 'We are committed to serving our community with integrity, respect, and professionalism.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A Very Different Anniversary Celebration
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. As tanks roll through Washington today to mark the U.S. Army's 250th birthday—and the 79th birthday of President Donald Trump—Europe is commemorating a different anniversary, not with combat vehicles but with a passenger liner moored near a riverbank. Dignitaries from across Europe are gathering in Schengen, a riparian village in Luxembourg, to celebrate the creation of an international agreement to abolish controls at their countries' common borders. The agreement, signed on June 14, 1985, turned the little-known village into a landmark of European integration; today, Schengen is synonymous with the experiment the agreement spawned—an area of borderless travel that has grown to encompass 29 nations and more than 450 million people. The anniversary celebration in Schengen features artifacts of the treaty-making process, including the MS Princesse Marie-Astrid, the refurbished cruise ship where diplomats from the five original signatory states—France, West Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands—convened on the Moselle River to dismantle border controls. Their aims were practical: The Schengen Agreement was intended to make life more convenient for people—to send a message to workers and vacationers to 'pass, pass, pass,' as one of the signers told me during research for my book about Schengen. 'In principle, you can pass; and we presume that you're honest.' [Read: What Europe fears] But the agreement took on greater symbolic meaning. Schengen embodied the values of liberal internationalism that were ascendant at the so-called end of history, fulfilling the promise of a community of nations where people, goods, capital, and information all would circulate freely. If the Abrams tank is the key symbol of American military might on display today in Washington, the passenger ship anchored in Schengen showcases a very different vision of the international order, one premised on mobility, connection, and cross-border exchange—on the right 'to travel, to migrate, to circulate, to receive and be received,' as one Senegalese migrant in Paris put it in the years after Schengen's founding. Of course, both visions are legacies of the defeat of fascism and the end of the Cold War: a strong United States that vanquished enemies of freedom, a peaceful Europe where erstwhile adversaries worked to eradicate borders that once stood as battle lines. For a time, these visions coexisted. Now they seem to be coming apart. That's all too clear in the contempt that senior members of the Trump administration have expressed for longtime allies; the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, called Europe 'PATHETIC' in a private chat on the Signal messaging app. It's also clear in the administration's escalating crackdown on immigration, and in the deployment of Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles. The vision of free movement animating Schengen is not one shared by Stephen Miller, to say the least. But Schengen is a peculiar creation, in a way befitting our disorienting times. As I explore in my book, the agreement hardly envisioned unrestricted mobility. Instead, it paired the free movement of European citizens with the exclusion of unwanted outsiders, termed 'undesirable' and ranked according to the level of risk they posed to Europe. The agreement assigned participating nations new responsibilities to police the Schengen Area's borders. And it gave them the authority to reintroduce internal controls in the event of a serious threat to 'public policy' or national security. [T. H. Breen: Trump's un-American parade] Nations have done so repeatedly over the past decade, since Europe was jolted by the arrival of an estimated 1.3 million asylum seekers in 2015. A series of deadly terrorist attacks added to the impetus to crack down. Unrelenting emergencies over the past five years—the coronavirus pandemic, Russia's war in Ukraine, and spasms of violence in the Middle East—have put still more pressure on European states to step up border checks. Recently, Germany vowed to maintain controls at all nine of its land borders, citing 'high levels of irregular migration and migrant smuggling,' as well as the country's strained asylum system and the 'global security situation.' The Netherlands closed its borders in part because of the 'pressure on public services' from an influx of migrants and asylum seekers. Multiple Nordic countries, meanwhile, point to the threat of Russian sabotage, among other destabilizing cross-border activities, to justify renewed border checks. Yet 40 years on, the Schengen Agreement is so interwoven into the fabric of European life that nations no longer have the resources or logistical capabilities necessary to seal their borders. There are border checks, at least in some places, but moves to reintroduce controls on a large scale have been mostly symbolic. And for all the opposition to mass migration, which has fueled far-right politics on both sides of the Atlantic, the free movement of people and goods remains one of the European Union's most popular policies. Perhaps that reflects Schengen's origins as an innovation designed to improve everyday life, not a show of force or revolutionary transformation. Or perhaps it reveals that values of peace and pluralism are still deeply held by large parts of Western society. Both, in fact, define the view of Robert Goebbels, who, as Luxembourg's delegate to the negotiations 40 years ago, helped draft the agreement and chose Schengen as the site of the signing ceremony. I wrote to Goebbels, who has since gone on to serve as a government minister and then a member of the European Parliament, on the eve of today's twin anniversary celebrations. Schengen, he told me, is a 'peace project,' binding nations once engaged in bloody conflict and 'offering liberties and well-being to 450 million Europeans.' Trump, meanwhile, 'celebrates himself.' Article originally published at The Atlantic