Connect with us

Politics

Do the pro-Palestinian protests signal a generational shift in U.S. attitudes about Israel?

Published

on

Do the pro-Palestinian protests signal a generational shift in U.S. attitudes about Israel?

The relationship between the United States and Israel has been a tight embrace almost ever since the founding of the Jewish-led state 76 years ago.

Israel has relied on U.S. money, weapons and global diplomatic defense to survive and thrive. Until recently, the support was unflagging from a bipartisan core of Congress and American politicians, and generally from U.S. voters as well.

Formed as a refuge for Holocaust survivors, Israel was often portrayed as a victim and an enduring U.S. ally in a tough and dangerous part of the world.

Advertisement

Israel’s seven-month-old war against the Hamas militant group in the Gaza Strip is testing that relationship.

Reacting to tens of thousands of civilian Palestinian deaths, young Americans are protesting at numerous college campuses across the country. While there have been pro-Israel demonstrations as well, the largest and loudest have been in support of Palestinians.

Here’s a closer look at what the protests might mean for the U.S.-Israel relationship, U.S.-Mideast policy and whether the next generation of Americans will chart a different course.

Why are young people suddenly so interested in this issue?

The Palestinian cause — the quest by millions of Palestinians for independence and a sovereign state after massive displacement by the creation of Israel in 1948 — was wholly marginalized during the Trump administration and remained on the back burner as President Biden pursued normalization of Israeli ties with its Arab neighbors.

Then came Oct. 7, 2023. Legions of Hamas militants and allies swarmed from Gaza into southern Israel, killing, torching and taking hostages. Around 1,200 Israelis on several kibbutzim and at a music festival were killed; more than 200 were captured and hauled back to Gaza.

Advertisement

Israel’s retaliation was brutal and massive. More than 34,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have been killed in Israeli airstrikes and land attacks. Most of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million has been forced to flee their demolished homes.

This new, horrific chapter in the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict brought the issue back to the fore.

Which side do younger Americans support?

Even before Israel invaded Gaza following the Oct. 7 Hamas rampage, polls showed a significant amount of unfavorable viewpoints on Israel among young Americans.

In a 2022 survey by the Pew Research Center, only 41% of adults under 30 had a favorable view of Israel, with 56% unfavorable.

By contrast, the majority of all age groups above 50 viewed Israel favorably.

Advertisement

A Pew poll in February found that among young Democrats, support for Palestinians was overwhelming: 47% favored Palestinians compared to 7% for Israel. Support also declined slightly among older Americans, to just under the majority, but it did not translate into support for Palestinians.

Why the difference among age groups?

In addition to the unpopularity of Israel’s counterattack in Gaza, the generational divide is impacted by history and perspective.

“There is a generational replacement,” said Ethan Porter, a professor of media, public affairs and political science at George Washington University in Washington.

Where narratives around Israel and Palestine 30 or so years ago were strong on memories of the Holocaust, today’s activists are more inclined to see Israel not as home to survivors of a genocide but as a colonial occupation power perpetuating one.

Nor do younger Americans have first-hand memories of frightening episodes of Palestinian terrorism, such as airplane hijackings in the 1970s and suicide bombs on buses in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Advertisement

Also, young people — college students in particular — are predisposed to activism on behalf of those seen as oppressed or discriminated against, following the Black Lives Matter and #MeToo movements demanding fairness, justice and civil rights.

Does this mean young U.S. voters care more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Not necessarily.

Polls suggest the Middle East is not top on the minds of a large number of young Americans.

The Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School, which has been surveying young voters for more than two decades, found in a poll this year that among 16 topics of importance to voters under 30, the Israel-Gaza war was in next-to-last place.

The top issues in order were inflation, healthcare and housing.

Advertisement

Is Israel losing the PR battle for young Americans?

Maybe.

Israeli governments over the years have invested much effort in what they call their hasbara, or global PR — pushing the Israeli narrative worldwide.

And it was largely successful. This may be the first episode in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict where the Palestinian cause has driven U.S. discourse.

There are many reasons. The sheer scale of Israel’s assault on Gaza, with massive destruction that wiped out entire families, went beyond previous Israeli offensives and quickly overshadowed the Oct. 7 attacks. It is difficult to put positive spin on tens of thousands of dead.

The evolution of social media into an omnipresent visual force has shown the suffering of Gazans to the world relentlessly.

Advertisement

A new generation of Palestinian activists appears far better organized than their predecessors. The Palestinian PR machine was relatively ineffective in the past.

Today Palestinian activists operate busy WhatsApp chats and can flood the zone on par with Israeli hasbara.

“Social media allows people to see lots and lots of material that affirms what they believe,” Porter said. “The accumulative effect is powerful over time.”

Will the protests change U.S. policy?

That’s the big question.

So far, the college demonstrations, while capturing much attention, show no sign of changing U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

Advertisement

President Biden on Thursday, asked directly if he would alter his approach to Israel in response to the campus chaos, gave a single-word response: “No.”

Several attempts in Congress to condition the billions of dollars in aid the U.S. gives Israel have gone nowhere.

Biden has remained staunchly supportive of Israel’s right to self-defense, but he has also tempered his tolerance of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing government as they consistently rebuff Washington’s efforts to force Israel to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza and allow the entry of more desperately needed food, water, medicine and other humanitarian aid.

It is Netanyahu’s pugnacious presence at the helm of Israel’s government that has also turned off many American voters, including erstwhile supporters of Israel, polls show.

Biden is also confronting a sharp decline in his political support among Arab American voters, especially in swing states like Michigan, which have a large community of descendants from Lebanon and other Arab nations.

Advertisement

Will these passions among younger Americans last?

It is difficult to say whether these sentiments have staying power.

With college semesters coming to a close for summer, it is possible the protests will taper off.

Students evolve into adults with jobs and often become more conservative or mainstream in their politics, as happened with baby boomers.

Another major Palestinian terrorist attack inside Israel, or violent antisemitic attacks in the U.S., could also restore sympathy for Israel.

On the other hand, young people are vowing to take the pro-Palestinian fight to other venues, including the Democratic National Convention scheduled for August in Chicago and the corporate headquarters seen as complicit in financing the Israeli war effort.

Advertisement

Is this an echo of the anti-Vietnam War protests?

Some comparisons have been drawn between today’s wave of protest to the antiwar movement against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s and ’70s, truly a transformation period in U.S. history that began on university campuses and spread throughout the country.

Some of today’s images to evoke images from a generation ago. Occupying academic buildings. Chanting on green university lawns. Scuffles. And getting arrested by cops.

At Columbia University in New York, the same campus building occupied in 1968, Hamilton Hall, was again broken into and seized by activists in recent days.

But Vietnam had a much more direct impact on many more Americans, infused popular culture and dominated national discourse. Tens of thousands of American men and women were dispatched to the jungles of Southeast Asia and killed in combat. A mandatory draft saw that the pain was distributed among families across the country and across society.

“You can see why people are tempted to draw the analogy,” said Bruce Schulman, a history professor at Boston University who specializes in the Vietnam War and other conflicts. “But the differences are all the more striking.”

Advertisement

Namely, among other elements: the acceleration of both the protest and the response.

It was years into the Vietnam War before the antiwar movement gained momentum; the war in Gaza is about to enter its seventh month. Police units to break up campus demonstrations in the Vietnam era were not called until well into the phenomenon, not in the first days.

Furthermore, Schulman said, the medium-term fallout from the massive antiwar demonstrations in the Vietnam era were not at all what protesters sought. At the national level, the Democratic Party fell apart, politics overall became more conservative, Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968, and the war raged on for several more years with some of the bloodiest, deadliest battles to that date.

Advertisement

Politics

Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites

Published

on

Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Iran launched missile and drone strikes targeting U.S. military facilities in multiple Middle Eastern countries Friday, retaliating after coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear-linked sites.

Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan, according to regional officials and state media accounts. Several of those governments said their air defense systems intercepted incoming projectiles.

It remains unclear whether any U.S. service members were killed or injured, and the extent of potential damage to American facilities has not yet been confirmed. U.S. officials have not publicly released casualty figures or formal damage assessments.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) described the operation as a direct response to what Tehran called “aggression” against Iranian territory earlier in the day. Iranian officials claimed they targeted U.S. military infrastructure and command facilities.

Advertisement

Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, pictured above. (Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Adelola Tinubu/U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet )

The United States military earlier carried out strikes against what officials described as high-value Iranian targets, including IRGC facilities, naval assets and underground sites believed to be associated with Iran’s nuclear program. One U.S. official told Fox News that American forces had “suppressed” Iranian air defenses in the initial wave of strikes.

Tomahawk cruise missiles were used in the opening phase of the U.S. operation, according to a U.S. official. The campaign was described as a multi-geographic operation designed to overwhelm Iran’s defensive capabilities and could continue for multiple days. Officials also indicated the U.S. employed one-way attack drones in combat for the first time.

IF KHAMENEI FALLS, WHO TAKES IRAN? STRIKES WILL EXPOSE POWER VACUUM — AND THE IRGC’S GRIP

Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, Feb. 28, 2026. (Reuters)

Advertisement

Iran’s retaliatory barrage targeted countries that host American forces, including Bahrain — home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet — as well as Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base and the UAE’s Al Dhafra Air Base. Authorities in those nations reported intercepting many of the incoming missiles. At least one civilian was killed in the UAE by falling debris, according to local authorities.

Iranian officials characterized their response as proportionate and warned of additional action if strikes continue. A senior U.S. official described the Iranian retaliation as “ineffective,” though independent assessments of the overall impact are still developing.

Smoke rises over the city after the Israeli army launched a second wave of airstrikes on Iran in Tehran on Feb. 28, 2026. (Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Regional governments condemned the strikes on their territory as violations of sovereignty, raising the risk that additional countries could become directly involved if escalation continues.

Advertisement

The situation remains fluid, with military and diplomatic channels active across the region. Pentagon officials are expected to provide further updates as damage assessments and casualty reviews are completed.

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report. 

Related Article

Iraq War flashbacks? Experts say Trump’s Iran buildup signals pressure campaign, not regime change
Continue Reading

Politics

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Published

on

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.

The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.

Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”

But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.

“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.

Advertisement

Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”

Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.

Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.

Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.

Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.

Advertisement

“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”

We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons

— President Trump

The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.

Advertisement

The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.

After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”

Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.

Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.

Advertisement

This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

(Uncredited / Associated Press)

“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.

Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”

Advertisement

There are other signs an attack could be imminent.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.

A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.

The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.

Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.

Advertisement

Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.

Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.

At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.

But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.

Advertisement

After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.

Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.

In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.

“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.

“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”

Advertisement

Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.

“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending