Follow us on social

google cta
Benjamin Netanyahu

Another poll shows Americans’ declining support for Israel

And their favorability of Netanyahu is abysmally low

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

The percentage of registered American voters who believe that support for Israel serves the U.S. national interest has fallen sharply over the last 21 months of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, according to the findings of a new survey released by the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Less than half of American voters — 47% — say they believe that support for Israel is in the national interest of the United States, according to the survey, which was based on the responses of 1,276 self-identified registered voters September 18–21.

That was down from 69% in December 2023, three-and-a-half months after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel that launched the war.

Forty-one percent of the survey’s respondents said they believed U.S. support for Israel does not serve the national interest. The remainder offered no opinion.

Opinions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were even more negative. Only 21% of respondents said they had a favorable opinion of Netanyahu, who is scheduled to address the U.N. General Assembly Friday. Nearly half — 49% — said they held an unfavorable view of the Israeli leader, while 31% either refused to answer (3%) or hadn’t hear enough to offer an opinion (28%).

The survey also found nearly as strong disapproval of “the way (President) Donald Trump is handling the Israel-Hamas conflict.” Only 31% of respondents said they approved of his handling of the war, which has been characterized by virtually unconditional U.S. support for Netanyahu. A solid majority of respondents (56%) said they disapproved.

In a survey released August 27, a separate Quinnipiac poll found that no less than 50% of respondents, including one of five self-identified Republican voters, said they believed that Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza.

Meanwhile, significantly more voters, according to the latest survey, believe that supporting Ukraine serves U.S. national interests than those who believe that supporting Israel does. Nearly two in three voters (64%), including 50% of self-identified Republicans, said they believe that supporting Ukraine serves U.S. interests, while only one if four (26%) said they believe U.S. support for Kyiv did not serve the national interest.

One in three respondents (33%), and only 3% of self-identified Democrats, said they approved of Trump’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, while 56%, including 14% of Republicans, voiced disapproval.

The poll’s findings on Israel are consistent with other recent surveys that show unprecedented declines in support for Israel.

A poll released last month by the University of Maryland’s Critical Issues series found for the first time in a national poll that more Americans sympathized with Palestinians (28%) than with Israelis (22%). It also found that 41% of its respondents believed that Israel was committing a genocide or a campaign “akin to genocide” in Gaza.

A Gallup poll released in late July found that public support for Israel’s actions in Gaza had fallen from 50% to 32% over 17 months. It found that support for Israel had hemorrhaged among younger voters, Democrats and self-identified Independents.

The latest Quinnipiac poll found significant differences in views about support for Israel serving U.S. national interests. Three of every four self-identified Republicans said they believe that support for Israel serves U.S. interests, while only 36% of Democrats and 37% of Independents agreed.

Remarkably, more Independents (53%) than Democrats (49%) said they believed support for Israel did not serve U.S. national interests. Nearly one in five Republicans (19%) agreed.

Republicans were also significantly disposed to view Netanyahu favorably (47%), while only 4% of Democrats and 14% agreed. Seven out of ten Democrats (70%) and nearly six of ten (58%) of Independents said they viewed him unfavorably as did one in five (20%) of Republicans.


Top image credti: Gil Cohen Magen / Shutterstock.com
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.