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

Congress eyes rare bipartisan housing win with or without Trump’s help

Published

on

Congress eyes rare bipartisan housing win with or without Trump’s help

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The House has officially shipped a colossal bipartisan housing package to President Donald Trump, and lawmakers are hoping that, at the very least, he doesn’t veto it.

Trump was supposed to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act last week, but his last-minute decision to ghost the signing ceremony with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., put into question whether the bill was dead.

His refusal to sign the bill, which passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support in both chambers, was to leverage the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which doesn’t currently have the votes to succeed in the Senate.

WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON

Advertisement

Trump has refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. (Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Trump appears to be in no hurry to sign the bill, despite Republicans who are hungry for a win in the affordability fight ahead of the midterm elections.

“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”

“Here’s what I would like to sign, much more than a bill that — big deal, it’s a yawn,” he continued. “Some people say it’s wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

GOP INFIGHTING OVER TRUMP’S VOTER ID BILL ERUPTS AS TOP SENATOR CALLS STRATEGY ‘FANTASY’

Advertisement

It’s legislation that is loaded with nearly 60 provisions from both sides of the aisle in both chambers that’s designed to make it easier for homes to be built and for younger Americans to buy their first home. It also includes a ban on hedge funds buying up housing stock that Trump pushed Congress to include during the State of the Union earlier this year.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., one of the architects behind the bill in the upper chamber alongside Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., charged that Congress handed the bill to Trump “on a silver platter.”

“When you ask me what happens next, if he cared about the American people, he’d have already signed the damned thing, and we’d be underway,” Warren said on WCVB’s “On the Record” on Sunday.

But Trump doesn’t have to put his signature on the bill for it to become law.

IRATE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE TRUMP OF HANDING DEMOCRATS A WIN AFTER BLOWING UP HOUSING PACKAGE

Advertisement

The Senate advanced a massive, Trump-backed housing package geared toward lowering the costs of homes and supercharging the housing supply. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., pitched it as legislation to prevent America from becoming a “nation of renters.” (Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Protect Borrowers; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The Constitution grants presidents the ability to veto a bill within 10 days of it being transferred over to the White House. In that scenario, Congress could override a veto of the housing package.

It’s happened before under the Trump administration. In early 2021, Congress overrode Trump’s veto of the annual National Defense Authorization Act — a massive Pentagon funding authorization package that some House Republicans are trying to use as a vehicle to pass the SAVE America Act.

But during that 10-day period, if Trump doesn’t sign the bill, it would automatically become law. That’s unless Congress completely adjourns, in which case a “pocket veto” could happen. The Senate is currently in recess and the House is scheduled to leave town by week’s end, but neither count as a full adjournment.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Johnson, who spent the last few days meeting with Trump at the White House about the housing bill and the SAVE America Act, said: “I hope he does sign it.”

“If he doesn’t, it’s still law,” Johnson said. “We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively. And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

British regulator may challenge Paramount takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery

Published

on

British regulator may challenge Paramount takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery

Britain’s culture minister may challenge Paramount Skydance’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — presenting a potential speed-bump to David Ellison’s plan to wrap up his $111-billion deal by September.

Earlier this month, Paramount secured the U.S. Justice Department’s blessing to buy the Warner assets, which include CNN, HBO, Cartoon Network, Animal Planet and the Warner Bros. film and TV studios in Burbank.

Paramount also must win the approval of British and European regulators, who are known for drilling deeply into media matters because of their influence on society.

Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority took a preliminary step this month by opening an investigation into Ellison’s proposed merger.

On Tuesday, Lisa Nandy, Britain’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, notified Parliament that she was inclined to intervene in the blockbuster deal.

Advertisement

In a written statement, Nandy cited her ability to weigh in on “public interest grounds,” due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market in Britain.

“The UK’s move to intervene in the Paramount–WBD deal confirms what we’ve been saying for months. The real regulatory risk was never in the US — it’s in Europe,” Forrester VP Research Director Mike Proulx said Tuesday in a statement.

While Nandy cautioned she has not made “a final decision on intervention at this stage,” she has invited Paramount and Warner Bros. to respond to her concerns by July 6.

June 2026 photo of Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Lisa Nandy arriving at Downing Street for the weekly Government cabinet meeting in London.

(Alishia Abodunde/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Paramount did not offer immediate comment.

The company owns CBS News, children’s channel Nickelodeon and Channel 5, one of the largest over-the-air television broadcasters in the United Kingdom.

Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, Cartoon Network and TNT Sports, which broadcasts the Olympics, Champions League and Premier League soccer matches.

“I am conscious that the proposed acquisition is global in nature,” Nandy wrote in her statement. “In reaching this decision, my focus has been, and will remain, on the UK public interest and the range of services available to UK audiences, including Channel 5, TNT Sports, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and CNN International, as well as Paramount+ and HBO Max.”

Advertisement

If Nandy decides to intervene, the Office of Communications, known as Ofcom, would launch an assessment of the deal. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also would determine how the merger might reshape the competitive landscape.

Teams from the two companies have been huddling for months to plan for the melding of the two operations as soon as Paramount receives all of its regulatory approvals.

Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Serbia, France and Italy have already given their approvals to the deal.

Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is planning to contribute $10 billion to help the billionaire Ellison family pull off the merger, which would make the Saudi royal family a significant, although passive, equity owner. In addition, the royal families of Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to each contribute $7 billion in equity financing.

The Federal Communications Commission must evaluate the foreign ownership stakes due to Paramount’s holding of CBS broadcast licenses. U.S. antitrust regulators already have concluded the combination would not violate federal anticompetition laws.

Advertisement

Approval had been expected because President Trump — who has friendly ties with Ellison and his father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison — favors the deal.

Trump has been eager for changes at CNN.

The U.S. government stopped short of asking Paramount to make concessions or divestitures. Many expect that Paramount may have to reconfigure its children’s television holdings abroad due to the proposed combination of two large players — Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.

Nandy suggested that Britain also should scrutinize the impact of combining two major streaming services HBO Max, a Warner property, with Paramount+.

HBO programming, including “Game of Thrones,” “Boardwalk Empire,” and “Succession,” has long been popular in Britain.

Advertisement

A coalition of state attorneys general, led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, also is expected to challenge the deal, in part, due to concerns about news media consolidation. Bonta’s office has said the matter remains under review.

Opposition to the deal has been building in the U.S. for months. A group of Hollywood activists — led by actors Jane Fonda and Mark Ruffalo — have spearheaded a “block the merger” campaign that now has support from more than 5,000 entertainment workers.

The group’s open letter calls on Bonta to take action to thwart the Ellison expansion effort. Paramount’s Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim has blasted the campaign, calling it “fear-mongering” and a partisan distortion of antitrust law.

Forrester’s Proulx noted differences in attitudes toward the deal among the various constituencies.

“For US consumers, this merger has become a proxy fight about political influence and control of media,” Proulx said. “In the UK, it’s being treated as a structural competition issue where regulators, not consumers, will decide how this deal plays out and how long it takes.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Fetterman unleashes on ‘dirtbag’ wing of Dems after far-left victories: ‘Orgy of socialism’

Published

on

Fetterman unleashes on ‘dirtbag’ wing of Dems after far-left victories: ‘Orgy of socialism’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., unloaded on his own party on Sunday evening, blasting a series of victories for progressives he called “anti-America.”

“Big night for the dirtbag left,” Fetterman said, referring to New York’s recent primaries, where two members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) won primaries.

“I’ve said the party is becoming an orgy of socialism. Clearly anti-America, anti-Western Civilization,” Fetterman said.

Fetterman’s striking calls give a rare look at how some moderates may view the developments on their far-left flank that have dominated the party’s momentum in recent months, sparking concern that their high visibility is dragging the party further and further left.

Advertisement

FETTERMAN WARNS DEMOCRATS ‘DRIFTING FIRMLY INTO COMMUNISM’ AFTER SOCIALIST PRIMARY WINS

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., speaks to reporters outside the Senate Chamber during votes on Nov. 10, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

His comments come on the heels of a handful of key progressive victories.

In Maine, Graham Platner, a controversial Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, has attracted controversy for denying knowledge of the meaning behind a Nazi-linked tattoo, for off-color comments about race and calling himself a “communist” in a deleted Reddit post.

In New York, one DSA member, Claire Valdez, won a primary on a platform of abolishing ICE and a Green New Deal-style approach to climate change. Similarly, Darializa Avila-Chevalier, another DSA candidate, beat out incumbent Rep. Adriano Espillat, D-N.Y., a high-ranking Democrat and the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Advertisement

WINNERS AND LOSERS EMERGE AFTER SOCIALIST EARTHQUAKE ROCKS NYC PRIMARIES

Graham Platner, Democratic Senate candidate for Maine, speaks at a primary election night event at the Blue Hill YMCA in Blue Hill, Maine, on June 9, 2026. Platner won the party’s Senate primary after a campaign marked by accusations of past misbehavior and voter concerns. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Both Chevalier and Valdez had the backing of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, himself a socialist.

The wins have captured national attention and drawn criticisms from Republicans who have pointed to their success as emblematic of the direction of the Democratic Party.

Fetterman, who has not shied away from confrontations, has been one of the few Democrats to express alarm about the kind of candidates carrying the party’s banner.

Advertisement

“I mean, you look at some of the things that people have said. Abolish prison, abolish the border, abolish ICE, I mean these crazy people — I have colleagues in my caucus that refuse to even call this out,” Fetterman said.

FETTERMAN REACTS TO MAMDANI’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT SUPREME COURT’S IMMIGRATION RULING

U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., walks through the Senate Subway during the Senate War Powers vote on April 22, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Between P-hustle in Maine and some of the other winners in New York, they should form their own party and run on all the things that they’ve had to delete on social media,” Fetterman said, referring to Platner.

Advertisement

“That’s where our party has moved,” he added.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending