US support for Israel military in Gaza sinks
The latest poll took place between July 7-21. It comes amid growing international outrage against Israel for a worsening humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, with food crisis experts saying Tuesday there is a 'worst-case scenario' related to famine in the territory.
'Americans supported Israel's actions in Gaza in its initial reading in 2023, taken several weeks after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack. Since then, disapproval has outpaced approval in each survey, peaking at 55 percent in March 2024 before dipping to 48 percent in two readings later in the year,' Gallup said.
While 71 percent of Republicans approve of Israel's military actions in Gaza, the wide divergence among political parties is viewed as threatening the longstanding bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Monday he would vote against any military support for Israel amid the hunger crisis in Gaza. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Friday introduced a joint resolution of disapproval to block certain weapons shipments to Israel, reportedly to block the sale of thousands of fully automatic assault rifles.
In April 2024, Congress approved more than $14 billion in security assistance to Israel, and under the Biden administration, approved more than 100 separate foreign military sales, the Washington Post reported.
President Biden was criticized for slow-walking deliveries to Israel under pressure from Democrats to hold back sending some of America's most destructive weaponry. The Trump administration said in March it was expediting 'the delivery of approximately $4 billion in military assistance to Israel.'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, asked earlier this month whether he was worried about declining support for Israel in the Democratic Party, said he was 'certainly interested in maintaining the great support that Israel has had' and blamed a 'concerted effort to spread vilifications and demonization against Israel in social media.'
The Gallup poll also recorded a majority of Americans disapprove of Netanyahu, at 52 percent, his highest unfavorable rating since 1997.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Nadler facing Gen Z primary challenger
Nonprofit CEO and activist Liam Elkind launched a primary challenge against longtime Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday, citing the issue of age. In a two minute launch video, Elkind, 26, noted that he appreciates Nadler's, 78, service in office and noted that he grew up voting for him. 'But we need new leaders to meet this moment because we can't wait.' Elkind said. 'We can't wait to fight Trump, end corruption, ban corporate PAC money, impose term limits, build more housing and serve our neighbors in need.' In the same spot, Elkind says 'the Democratic Party is dying,' showing media coverage of Democratic lawmakers who have died recently. 'And the leaders who got us here are refusing to retire with devastating consequences,' he continues. 'In the last five months three House Democrats have passed away, allowing Trump's billionaire bill gutting healthcare and food stamps for millions of people to go through by one vote.' Elkind's primary challenge against Nadler, who was first elected to Congress in 1992, comes as there have been more conversations about age particularly among Democrats. Former President Biden came under scrutiny for initially running for reelection amid questions about his own fitness for office, while a number of Democratic lawmakers, most recently Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) have died in office. Additionally, former Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg made waves when he launched his group Leaders We Deserve in an effort to elect a new generation of lawmakers and drew headlines for the group's $20 million effort to primary safe House Democrats. Nadler has a strong record of defeating past primary challengers and won reelection in 2022 after he faced off against another incumbent following redistricting. 2024 Election Coverage Elkind told CNN that he was motivated to run for Congress after he approached Nadler at an event earlier this year and asked him what the plan was going forward for Democrats under a second Trump administration. According to Elkind, Nadler told him that Trump's tariffs would crash the economy and help Democrats in the midterms. Elkind told CNN that he felt Nadler's comments were an 'unstrategic take.' A spokesman for Nadler told CNN there was not time to talk strategy at the event. 'Congressman Nadler will stake his record of accomplishments against anyone,' Rob Gottheim told the network. 'Unfortunately, with this individual, I don't think there's any record to speak of.'
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Sanders rips Netanyahu: ‘Disgusting liar'
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) slammed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for denying the food crisis in Gaza. 'He is a disgusting liar,' Sanders said Tuesday night during an appearance on CNN's 'The Source with Kaitlan Collins.' 'Israel had a right to defend itself from the terrible Hamas attack. But I think everybody understands that in the last [one] and a half years, they have been waging a brutal, horrific, almost unprecedented type of war, not just against Hamas, but against the Palestinian people,' the Vermont senator added. On Saturday, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said they would resume aid airdrops in the Gaza Strip. Israel has been accused by a UN official, among others, of blocking aid into the region. The IDF denied reports of starvation as a 'false campaign by the Hamas terrorist organization.' However, Sanders said hundreds of thousands are suffering at the hands of the Israeli government. 'They have virtually completely destroyed the entire infrastructure of Gaza, virtually all of the schools, the health care system, over 70 percent of the housing, the water system. And now, as you mentioned, over the last period of time, they have prevented humanitarian aid coming in,' Sanders told Collins. 'And there is now mass malnutrition and children are starving to death,' he added. In response to the crisis, Sanders said he would introduce a joint resolution on Wednesday to condemn U.S. arms sales to Israel. 'We cannot continue to provide military aid to the extremist, racist, Netanyahu government that is starving the children of Gaza,' Sanders said. Sanders also slammed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for promoting false narratives about the crisis in Gaza. 'So you have a super PAC called AIPAC that spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to defend the Netanyahu government. And if you vote for a Sanders resolution or you stand up in other ways in opposition to Netanyahu, they're prepared to fund a whole lot of money against you,' the senator said. 'But I think the time is now when members of the Senate have gotta start listening to their constituents back home, and the American people do not want to spend billions and billions of dollars supporting this horrific war.'
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Harvard's $500 million surrender to Trump heralds an end to US academic freedoms
I was never fortunate enough to attend Harvard. Yet after the school's stunning surrender to President Trump's $500 million shakedown on Monday, I'm not sure the nation's most venerated university has much to teach anyone. Back in April, Harvard President Alan Garber drew praise from civil society groups for urging the university to ' stand firm ' against Trump's brazen extortion scheme. Harvard's resolve didn't even last the summer. Harvard's elite administrators may think it's easier to simply pay off the strongman at their gates, but giving the bully your lunch money only invites him to demand more. Harvard's full-on retreat is the latest in a string of high-profile payments the White House has extracted from institutions it views as left-leaning, and its half-billion-dollar protection payment won't be the biggest or the last. With a $53 billion endowment and towering cultural standing, Harvard had plenty of resources to challenge Trump's lawless demands in court and in the press. Instead, university leaders kept the cash and sold out the students, teachers and administrators who counted on them to take a stand. Americans across the political spectrum are realizing that for-profit universities and media outlets are anything but 'independent,' despite what they might claim in press releases. That's driving a historic collapse in public trust for the media and higher education — and making it easier for Trump to divide and conquer what were once the nation's most-trusted safeguards of free expression and critical thought. It's hard to blame the 56 percent of Americans who have lost confidence in higher education as a positive force in our culture. After all, if the best-funded independent university in the world can't or won't defend itself against blatant Republican authoritarianism, what good is its alleged independence? From the beginning it's been clear that Harvard didn't actually violate any laws, but institutions seen as left-leaning by the MAGA movement don't need to do anything wrong to be targeted. Just ask Columbia University, which sent Trump a $221 million payoff after he threatened to cut off their federal funding, or Paramount, whose browbeaten executives gave Trump $16 million for airing news that offended him. But the size of Harvard's payment boggles the mind. Half a billion dollars. For what? Trump has deployed his claims of antisemitism on college campuses against any university that criticizes him, regardless of truth. If pressed in court, there was a strong chance Harvard would have emerged victorious and provided a framework for future university resistance to government extortion. Instead, they chose to pay up and avoid the headache. That those hefty payments were voluntary only strengthens Trump's bogus claim that those institutions knew they were doing something wrong. The American experiment is grounded in the founding myth that we can and should trust strong institutions to protect us from the turmoil of political passions and extremism. The Constitution was a triumph not because it was a compromise, but because that compromise favored a strong government of laws and institutions that were meant to outlast any single administration and any single lifetime. Our founders praised the free press and free academic inquiry as on par with free elections in safeguarding the republic. Some, including Pennsylvania's Dr. Benjamin Rush, Virginia's George Wythe and New Jersey's John Witherspoon, were themselves respected academics and classroom professors. They spoke with passion about protecting universities from federal pressure because they understood that the first act of an autocrat is to exert state control over the production of ideas. What's unfolding at Harvard represents perhaps their worst nightmare — an American president trampling the intellectual freedom of his own people. As Trump's pressure campaign against higher education shows, that threat is just as real today as it was when Rush used his academic post at the University of Pennsylvania to promote controversial ideas like the emerging science of vaccination. Prominent academics today are right to wonder whether their universities will stand behind them if their research angers the White House. The result will be a chilling effect that makes our country less intellectually dynamic and more susceptible to Trump's dangerous illiberalism. In the 160 years since the end of the Civil War, American institutions have largely fulfilled their job of protecting our republic by serving as vibrant, free spaces of intellectual thought, cultural criticism and political accountability. Harvard's massive concession to Trump is a sign that the long era of American academic independence is drawing to a close. The cost of freedom — academic or otherwise — is constant vigilance. Harvard gave up the perception of its independence without a fight. More serious universities should resist the urge to follow their humiliating lead.
