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
Los Angeles Times
20 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Netanyahu hints at expanded war in Gaza but former Israeli military and spy chiefs object
JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted at wider military action in devastated Gaza on Tuesday, even as former Israeli army and intelligence chiefs called for an end to the nearly 22-month war. The new pressure on Netanyahu came as Gaza's Health Ministry said the Palestinian death toll had surpassed 61,000. Health officials reported new deaths of hungry Palestinians seeking food at distribution points. As desperation mounts, the Israeli defense body coordinating aid announced a deal with local merchants to improve aid deliveries. Former security officials speaking out included previous leaders of Israel's Shin Bet internal security service, Mossad spy agency and the military — and ex-Prime Minister Ehud Barak. In a video posted to social media this week, they said far-right members of the government are holding Israel 'hostage' in prolonging the conflict. Netanyahu's objectives in Gaza are 'a fantasy,' Yoram Cohen, former head of Shin Bet, said in the video. 'If anyone imagines that we can reach every terrorist and every pit and every weapon, and in parallel bring our hostages home — I think it is impossible,' he said. Netanyahu announced Monday that he would convene his Security Cabinet to direct the military on the war's next stage, hinting that even tougher action was possible. That meeting has begun, according to an Israeli official familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity because there was no formal announcement. Netanyahu said his objectives include defeating Hamas, releasing all 50 remaining hostages and ensuring Gaza never again threatens Israel after the Hamas-led 2023 attack sparked the war. Israeli media reported disagreements between Netanyahu and the army chief, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, on how to proceed. The reports, citing anonymous officials in Netanyahu's office, said the prime minister was pushing the army, which controls about three quarters of Gaza, to conquer the entire territory — a step that could endanger hostages, deepen the humanitarian crisis and further isolate Israel internationally. Various reports have said Zamir opposes this step and could step down or be pushed out if it is approved. Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment on the reports. Egypt is a mediator in ceasefire talks, and its President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi said Israel's war in Gaza has become a 'war of starvation, genocide and liquidation of the Palestinian cause.' El-Sissi said the war no longer aims at achieving political aims or releasing the hostages. He reiterated his call for European governments and President Trump to help stop the war and deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza's over 2 million people. Long lines of trucks waiting to enter Gaza from Egypt have been a recurring image of the war. Egypt has strong security ties with Israel. Health officials in Gaza said Israeli forces opened fire Tuesday morning toward Palestinians seeking aid and in targeted attacks in central and southern Gaza, killing at least 25 people. Israel's military did not immediately comment. The dead included 19 in southern Gaza, 12 of them seeking aid near the Morag corridor and in the Teina area, some 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) from the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation hub east of Khan Younis, according to Nasser Hospital and the Health Ministry. The ministry doesn't distinguish between militants and civilians but says roughly half the dead have been women and children. It operates under the Hamas government. The U.N. and other international organizations see it as the most reliable source of casualty data. Elsewhere in central Gaza, Al-Awda hospital said it received the bodies of six Palestinians who were killed when Israeli troops targeted crowds near another GHF aid distribution site. The GHF said there were no incidents at its sites Tuesday. Several hundred Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since May while heading toward food distribution sites, airdropped parcels and aid convoys, according to witnesses, local health officials and the U.N. human rights office. Israel's military says it only has fired warning shots and disputes the toll. The Israeli defense body in charge of coordinating aid, COGAT, said on social media there will be a 'gradual and controlled renewal of the entry of goods through the private sector in Gaza.' It said a limited number of local merchants were approved for the plan. Mohammed Qassas from Khan Younis said his young children are so hungry that he is forced to storm aid trucks, which rarely reach warehouses these days because they are stopped by hungry crowds. 'How am I supposed to feed them? No one has mercy. This resembles the end of the world,' he said Monday. 'If we fight, we get the food. If we don't fight, we don't get anything.' It has become routine to see men returning from aid-seeking carrying bodies as well as sacks of flour. Yusif Abu Mor from Khan Younis called the current aid system akin to a death trap. 'This aid is stained with humiliation and blood,' he said, adding that aid seekers run the risk of being shot dead by Israel's military or run over by trucks in the chaotic crowds. Israel's blockade and military offensive have made it nearly impossible to safely deliver aid, contributing to the territory's slide toward famine. Aid groups say Israel's week-old measures to allow more aid in are far from sufficient. Families of hostages in Gaza fear starvation affects them too, but blame Hamas. As international alarm has mounted, several countries have airdropped aid over Gaza. The U.N. and aid groups call such drops costly and dangerous for residents, and say they deliver far less aid than trucks. Palestinians gather daily for funeral prayers. 'We are unarmed people who cannot endure this,' shouted Maryam Abu Hatab in the yard of Nasser hospital. Ekram Nasr said her son was shot dead while seeking aid near the Morag corridor. 'I had to go alone to carry my son,' she said, tears in her eyes. 'I collected the remains of my son like the meat of dogs from the streets.' She added: 'The entire world is watching. They are watching our patience, our strength and our faith in God. But we no longer have the power to endure.' Frankel and Shurafa write for the Associated Press. Shurafa reported from Deir Al Balah, Gaza Strip. Josef Federman in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Illinois lt. gov. responds to Texas redistricting: ‘Nothing will be off the table'
Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (D) said on Tuesday that 'nothing will be off the table' in response to the plan by Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional boundaries in a way they hope will give the state five more GOP seats in Congress after the midterms. 'We have a message for President Trump and Gov. Abbott: We are watching you,' Stratton told reporters during a press conference, which included Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Ken Martin, Gov. JB Pritzker (D) and Texas Democrats. 'In Illinois, we don't sit on the sidelines. In Illinois, we don't take kindly to threats, and in Illinois, we fight back. If Trump and Texas Republicans won't play by the rules, we will look at every option available to stop their extreme power grab, and nothing will be off the table,' Stratton, who is running for Senate next year, said. The Texas GOP at the behest of President Trump are redrawing the state's congressional maps to benefit Republicans. Redistricting was not originally on the agenda items for the special session Gov. Greg Abbott called but was added later. The move is a power play in that lines are usually not withdrawn until after a new census. Texas Democrats traveled to Illinois, New York and Massachusetts beginning on Sunday to deny Republicans quorum, or the minimum number of lawmakers needed present to conduct legislative business, as the GOP tries to pass the new congressional lines. Texas lawmakers are in a special legislative session called by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) over redistricting, among other agenda items. A Texas House committee passed the new GOP-friendly map last week, teeing it up for a vote on the House floor. With Democrats out of the state, however, those efforts are stalled. California and New York have signaled that they're exploring their options over how to pass new maps in light of Texas Republicans' move to redraw their map in the middle of the decade; Stratton's announcement suggests more blue states could follow. Though Democrats are criticizing Republicans in Texas for passing an even more gerrymandered map, Democrats have also been criticized for doing the same in states like Illinois and New York — in some cases even seeing their maps struck down because of it. Stratton, Pritzker, Martin and others convened in Illinois one day before the anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act, which has been used to help ensure fair representation for communities of color in election maps. 'Republicans are running scared that voting for this monstrosity will make them lose their majority, and they certainly will, which is why they're trying to disenfranchise Texas voters by packing and cracking them into districts to dilute their voting power, a clear and blatant violation of the Voting Rights Act,' Martin said, referring to Trump's megabill.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
The numbers in Trump's EU trade deal are a joke
President Trump announced a trade deal with the European Union last month, proclaiming a 'generational modernization of the transatlantic alliance' that will 'provide Americans with unprecedented levels of market access' and is 'yet another agreement that positions the United States as the world's preeminent destination for investment, innovation, and advanced manufacturing.' The EU has been criticized heavily for folding to Trump. However, after many years of studying, practicing and teaching negotiations, I am not nearly so critical of the European strategy. Negotiating with Trump inevitably leads to three possible tactics: ignoring, retaliating or capitulating. Everyone goes for one or more of these tactics. But most have ended up at the last one, capitulating. The U.K. (like Columbia University, and perhaps soon Harvard) was much derided when it pioneered the capitulation strategy in May. But it is not necessarily a bad strategy when confronted by Trump. Alan Beattie of the Financial Times perceptively notes that 'Trump likes deals that aren't worth the handshake they're written on.' 'Roll with the punch,' he suggests, 'get the lowest baseline tariff you can, offer him some concessions with good optics but low impact, talk up the importance of the deal for the benefit of his ego and hope he moves on.' And so the EU has done. The U.S.-EU trade 'agreement' is apocryphal. Others have called it delusional. It is both — and thus important to understand. First, some context. In 2015, roughly the end of the Bretton Woods era for trade, the average weighted U.S. tariff against all goods was about 1.7 percent. Against EU goods it was 1.47 percent, versus 1.35 percent on U.S. goods into the EU. America currently imports more than $605 billion a year in goods from the EU. Trump's 'biggest deal ever made,' with a few exceptions, 'reduces' tariffs to 15 percent (steel and aluminum remain at 50 percent). However, it is not technically a deal. It is filled with numerous ' commitments ' such as 'work to address' and 'intend to work together,' or 'intend to address' and, curiously, 'take complementary actions to address.' This is the type of language used in a preliminary phase of a framework agreement, which would be the precursor to a serious trade negotiation. The White House is claiming that, first, that the EU will invest $600 billion directly in the U.S. during Trump's term (three times the rate it has invested in the past). This is, if not delusional, at least fantastical. The second concrete claim by the White House is that 'the EU will double down on America as the Energy Superpower by purchasing $750 billion of U.S. energy exports through 2028.' As Clyde Russell shows clearly in Reuters, these numbers simply do not make sense. But then, they need not. They serve their performative purpose well enough. Chalk up a specious victory and move on. Consider that in 2024, the EU imported 573 million barrels of crude oil from the U.S., which is valued currently at about $40.1 billion. The EU imported U.S. liquified natural gas in 2024 worth about $21.78 billion and bought about $2.67 billion in U.S. coal. So EU energy imports (at $64.55 billion) are about 26 percent of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on American energy each year under the framework agreement. If the EU reaches the $250 billion a year goal, U.S. imports would account for 85 percent of its total spending on those energy commodities. While this appears to be a plus for U.S. producers, it would massively disrupt global energy markets (not to mention violate many long-term supply contracts). But more startling, it would exceed total current U.S. exports. Putting together the value of U.S. exports for all three energy commodities totals $165.8 billion, Russell calculates, 'meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion.' Including nuclear adds a few billion dollars at best. Expanding to refined products, such as diesel? Perhaps another $10 billion. So the EU's commitment to buy $250 billion worth of American energy is entirely unrealistic and unachievable. 'The smart people in the room must know this,' Russell writes, so 'why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number?' The only answer is the obvious one, and the most troubling. Substance doesn't matter, only performance. Where businesses must operate on substance and factual reality, politicians operate increasingly on attention-gaining performance. This may explain why Trump has done so poorly in business and so well in politics (and in the businesses he is generating based on politics). So, despite substantive criticisms of the EU team, they in fact made a perfectly understandable agreement. Specifically, when only attention matters and the substance of the deal is a mere side story of the performance, one can agree to almost anything. In this case, the more fantastical the better. Why didn't EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promise $900 billion? Trump would be even happier and Europe even less likely to uphold the 'agreement.' Smile, suck-up, sign, shrug and move on. The real negotiation is somewhere down the road; perhaps tomorrow afternoon. Well, maybe. Trump's authority even to make such a deal is still being litigated. The one unavoidable fact is that America has abandoned the rules-based trading system it carefully built over three-quarters of a century. It is a brave new world of U.S. trade 'agreements' based on rapid-fire, plainly meaningless commitments — but what a performance! Robert A. Rogowsky is professor of trade and diplomacy at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a former chief economist and director of operations at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
