Connect with us

Politics

L.A. Times poll: Younger, older Californians take starkly different views of Israel-Hamas war

Published

on

L.A. Times poll: Younger, older Californians take starkly different views of Israel-Hamas war

Three months of war between Israel and Hamas have sharply split Californians, with stark divisions between the state’s older and younger voters, a new statewide poll finds.

Voters younger than 30 are far more likely to sympathize with Palestinians more than with Israelis, while those older than 65 side with Israel, according to the new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

By 55%-18%, voters younger than 30 say Israel should agree to a cease-fire even if that would mean Hamas remains a force in Gaza.

Among voters older than 65, opinion is almost the reverse: By 52%-32%, those voters believe Israel should keep fighting until Hamas is no longer viable. Twenty-seven percent of the youngest voters and 16% of those over 65 had no opinion, the poll found.

The survey finds similarly sharp divisions along ideological lines, with the state’s most liberal voters overwhelmingly saying Israel is using too much military force in the war, while conservative voters say that the use of force has been about right or too little.

Advertisement

Jen Julian, a 26-year-old progressive voter who lives in Los Angeles, is among those who feel the war has been too costly. The death toll among Palestinians — which health authorities in Gaza say is more than 23,000 — was “too much of a human cost,” she said in an interview.

Israel launched its air strikes and a ground invasion of Gaza after Hamas militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing at least 1,200 people and taking more than 240 hostages.

“I understand Israel was attacked and felt it needed to respond to that, but this is way too much for way too long,” she said.

Joey Johnson, a 68-year-old conservative from Redding, took a different view.

“This is like Israel’s 9/11,” Johnson said. “If America was attacked the way Israel was by terrorists, we also would want to do everything we could to stop it from ever happening again. But of course it is tragic that innocent people are dying in Gaza.”

Advertisement

Two-state solution still dominant

While views are divided sharply about the current war, the poll shows greater agreement among California voters on the future of the conflict.

Separate, independent Israeli and Palestinian states dividing the land remains the most favored option for all but the most conservative voters.

That so-called two-state solution has been official U.S. policy for decades and at various points in the past, at least nominally accepted as a goal by the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, which has limited governing power in the West Bank.

An independent Palestinian state is opposed, however, by right-wing Israelis, who have strong sway in the current government, headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Meantime, Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups reject Israel’s continued existence.

Among California voters, the two-state solution is backed by a large majority of those who have an opinion — 47% prefer two states, while 25% have no opinion and the rest divide among other options.

Advertisement

Two states is what Rabbi Jonathan Klein hopes for.

As the leader of Temple Beth El in Bakersfield and a self-described “lifelong liberal Zionist,” Klein, 55, said he has kept a close watch on news out of Israel and Gaza.

“My community is pretty universally supportive of Israel’s efforts to combat what they see as an existential threat,” Klein said.

“But I recognize that just because Jews have a historic tie to the area doesn’t mean that other people don’t. Do I think co-existence is possible? I hope it is, but I do not know at this point.”

The poll finds significantly less support for an option espoused by some on the left — a unified bi-national state. One in eight voters said they would like to see a single state that would be neither Jewish nor Palestinian. Support for that comes mainly from the left, with just under 1 in 5 of the state’s liberals backing it.

Advertisement

There’s very little support for Hamas’ goal of an Arab state that would control all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. While that idea has been backed by demonstrators at some recent protests, just 3% of the state’s voters support it. Support rises to 7% among those under 30 and 8% of those who identify as strongly liberal.

“Israel is an illegitimate state,” said Reza Nekumanesh, a 47-year-old Iranian American who lives in Fresno. “I don’t believe that means any particular group of people does not have the right to live and exist there in peace and equity and justice,” Nekumanesh said. “But I don’t believe any state should be founded and centered upon an ethnic or religious identity.”

At the other end of the ideological spectrum, 11% of the state’s voters back a single Israeli state controlling all the territory — the goal of the Israeli right.

Netanyahu and his allies have strong backing within Republican ranks, however, and support for Israeli control over the entire region rises to 31% among the state’s Republican voters and 43% of those who identify as strongly conservative.

Divided Sympathies

The poll finds 30% of California voters saying they sympathize more with Israelis than Palestinians in the current conflict and a similar share, 28%, sympathizing with both sides equally.

Advertisement

Mordecai Miller, a 74-year-old resident of Redwood City, said he felt pain for both sides, but felt closer to the plight of Israelis after Oct. 7.

“None of this war would have happened if Hamas had not intentionally attacked Israel and desired to eradicate it,” said Miller. “Israel has been forced to retaliate.”

A slightly smaller share, 24%, say they sympathize more with the Palestinians.

That includes Rami Sultan, a Palestinian American in Santa Clara who has family in Gaza.

The 41-year-old tech worker said he was incensed by what he described as “genocide.”

Advertisement

“This isn’t a war on Hamas at all. This is a clear war against the Palestinian people,” said Sultan.

Sympathies vary dramatically by age and ideology.

Among voters younger than 30, for example, 44% say they sympathize more with the Palestinians, while just 14% say they sympathize more with the Israelis and 21% with both equally.

Among those 65 and older, 46% sympathize more with the Israelis, 13% with the Palestinians and 32% with both equally.

Biden caught in middle

Divided opinion over the war has left President Biden vulnerable to criticism from both left and right.

Advertisement

Overall, 55% of the state’s voters disapprove of Biden’s response, while 33% approve.

But 64% of voters who describe themselves as strongly liberal disapprove of Biden’s response to the conflict, as do 67% of those who identify as strongly conservative.

The sharp division by age is a major factor, with 69% of voters younger than 30 and 65% of those 30-39 disapproving of how Biden has handled the conflict.

Melissa Brown, a 40-year-old conservative voter in San Diego, said Biden “was very strong on Israel at first, as he should have been.”

“He still is strong, but you can see him caving to the pressure from the left, sending messages that Israel needs to tone down its self-defense,” she said. “I disagree.”

Advertisement

Concern over antisemitism, Islamophobia

Despite their differences over the war and the underlying Israeli-Palestinian conflict, large majorities of California voters across party lines share a concern about a rise in anti-Jewish or anti-Arab violence or hate incidents.

Asked about antisemitic incidents, 80% of California voters say they’re concerned about them, 12% were not concerned. Similarly, 75% said they were concerned about anti-Arab or anti-Muslim incidents, compared with 17% who were not concerned.

The poll found very little division along ideological or party lines in concern about antisemitism, but a noticeable partisan difference over anti-Muslim incidents.

Among Democrats, the share who expressed concern about antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate were about equal. Among Republicans, 81% said they were concerned about antisemitism, while 13% were not. But 60% were concerned about anti-Muslim hate, compared to 31% who were not.

The Berkeley IGS poll surveyed 8,199 California registered voters. It was conducted online in English and Spanish on Jan. 4-8.

Advertisement

The results were weighted to match census and voter registration benchmarks, so estimates of the margin of error may be imprecise; however, the results have an estimated margin of error of 1.5 percentage points in either direction.

Politics

Video: Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

Published

on

Video: Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

new video loaded: Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

transcript

transcript

Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

President Trump announced on Monday the construction of new warships for the U.S. Navy he called a “golden fleet.” Navy officials said the vessels would notionally have the ability to launch hypersonic and nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

We’re calling it the golden fleet, that we’re building for the United States Navy. As you know, we’re desperately in need of ships. Our ships are, some of them have gotten old and tired and obsolete, and we’re going to go the exact opposite direction. They’ll help maintain American military supremacy, revive the American shipbuilding industry, and inspire fear in America’s enemies all over the world. We want respect.

Advertisement
President Trump announced on Monday the construction of new warships for the U.S. Navy he called a “golden fleet.” Navy officials said the vessels would notionally have the ability to launch hypersonic and nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

By Nailah Morgan

December 23, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

404 | Fox News

Published

on

Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: ‘It’s a Wonderful ICE?’ Trumpworld tries to hijack a holiday classic

Published

on

Commentary: ‘It’s a Wonderful ICE?’ Trumpworld tries to hijack a holiday classic

For decades, American families have gathered to watch “It’s a Wonderful Life” on Christmas Eve.

The 1946 Frank Capra movie, about a man who on one of the worst days of his life discovers how he has positively impacted his hometown of Bedford Falls, is beloved for extolling selflessness, community and the little guy taking on rapacious capitalists. Take those values, add in powerful acting and the promise of light in the darkest of hours, and it’s the only movie that makes me cry.

No less a figure of goodwill than Pope Leo XIV revealed last month that it’s one of his favorite movies. But as with anything holy in this nation, President Trump and his followers are trying to hijack the holiday classic.

Last weekend, the Department of Homeland Security posted two videos celebrating its mass deportation campaign. One, titled “It’s a Wonderful Flight,” re-creates the scene where George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart in one of his best performances) contemplates taking his own life by jumping off a snowy bridge. But the protagonist is a Latino man crying over the film’s despairing score that he’ll “do anything” to return to his wife and kids and “live again.”

Cut to the same man now mugging for the camera on a plane ride out of the United States. The scene ends with a plug for an app that allows undocumented immigrants to take up Homeland Security’s offer of a free self-deportation flight and a $1,000 bonus — $3,000 if they take the one-way trip during the holidays.

Advertisement

The other DHS clip is a montage of Yuletide cheer — Santa, elves, stockings, dancing — over a sped-up electro-trash remake of Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas is You.” In one split-second image, Bedford Falls residents sing “Auld Lang Syne,” just after they’ve saved George Bailey from financial ruin and an arrest warrant.

“This Christmas,” the caption reads, “our hearts grow as our illegal population shrinks.”

“It’s a Wonderful Life” has long served as a political Rorschach test. Conservatives once thought Capra’s masterpiece was so anti-American for its vilification of big-time bankers that they accused him of sneaking in pro-Communist propaganda. In fact, the director was a Republican who paused his career during World War II to make short documentaries for the Department of War. Progressives tend to loathe the film’s patriotism, its sappiness, its relegation of Black people to the background and its depiction of urban life as downright demonic.

Then came Trump’s rise to power. His similarity to the film’s villain, Mr. Potter — a wealthy, nasty slumlord who names everything he takes control of after himself — was easier to point out than spots on a cheetah. Left-leaning essayists quickly made the facile comparison, and a 2018 “Saturday Night Live” parody imagining a country without Trump as president so infuriated him that he threatened to sue.

But in recent years, Trumpworld has claimed that the film is actually a parable about their dear leader.

Advertisement

Trump is a modern day George Bailey, the argument goes, a secular saint walking away from sure riches to try to save the “rabble” that Mr. Potter — who in their minds somehow represents the liberal elite — sneers at. A speaker at the 2020 Republican National Convention explicitly made the comparison, and the recent Homeland Security videos warping “It’s a Wonderful Life” imply it too — except now, it’s unchecked immigration that threatens Bedford Falls.

The Trump administration’s take on “It’s a Wonderful Life” is that it reflects a simpler, better, whiter time. But that’s a conscious misinterpretation of this most American of movies, whose foundation is strengthened by immigrant dreams.

Director Frank Capra

(Handout)

Advertisement

In his 1971 autobiography “The Name Above the Title,” Capra revealed that his “dirty, hollowed-out immigrant family” left Sicily for Los Angeles in the 1900s to reunite with an older brother who “jumped the ship” to enter the U.S. years before. Young Frank grew up in the “sleazy Sicilian ghetto” of Lincoln Heights, finding kinship at Manual Arts High with the “riff-raff” of immigrant and working-class white kids “other schools discarded” and earning U.S. citizenship only after serving in the first World War. Hard times wouldn’t stop Capra and his peers from achieving success.

The director captured that sentiment in “It’s a Wonderful Life” through the character of Giuseppe Martini, an Italian immigrant who runs a bar. His heavily accented English is heard early in the film as one of many Bedford Falls residents praying for Bailey. In a flashback, Martini is seen leaving his shabby Potter-owned apartment with a goat and a troop of kids for a suburban tract home that Bailey developed and sold to him.

Today, Trumpworld would cast the Martinis as swarthy invaders destroying the American way of life. In “It’s a Wonderful Life,” they’re America itself.

When an angry husband punches Bailey at Martini’s bar for insulting his wife, the immigrant kicks out the man for assaulting his “best friend.” And when Bedford Falls gathers at the end of the film to raise funds and save Bailey, it’s Martini who arrives with the night’s profits from his business, as well as wine for everyone to celebrate.

Immigrants are so key to the good life in this country, the film argues, that in the alternate reality if George Bailey had never lived, Martini is nowhere to be heard.

Advertisement

Capra long stated that “It’s a Wonderful Life” was his favorite of his own movies, adding in his memoir that it was a love letter “for the Magdalenes stoned by hypocrites and the afflicted Lazaruses with only dogs to lick their sores.”

I’ve tried to catch at least the ending every Christmas Eve to warm my spirits, no matter how bad things may be. But after Homeland Security’s hijacking of Capra’s message, I made time to watch the entire film, which I’ve seen at least 10 times, before its customary airing on NBC.

I shook my head, feeling the deja vu, as Bailey’s father sighed, “In this town, there’s no place for any man unless they crawl to Potter.”

I cheered as Bailey told Potter years later, “You think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn’t.” I wondered why more people haven’t said that to Trump.

When Potter ridiculed Bailey as someone “trapped into frittering his life away playing nursemaid to a lot of garlic eaters,” I was reminded of the right-wingers who portray those of us who stand up to Trump’s cruelty as stupid and even treasonous.

Advertisement

And as the famous conclusion came, all I thought about was immigrants.

People giving Bailey whatever money they could spare reminded me of how regular folks have done a far better job standing up to Trump’s deportation Leviathan than the rich and mighty have.

As the film ends, with Bailey and his family looking on in awe at how many people came to help out, I remembered my own immigrant elders, who also forsook dreams and careers so their children could achieve their own — the only reward to a lifetime of silent sacrifice.

The tears flowed as always, this time prompted by a new takeaway that was always there — “Solo el pueblo salva el pueblo,” or “Only we can save ourselves,” a phrase adopted by pro-immigrant activists in Southern California this year as a mantra of comfort and resistance.

It’s the heart of “It’s a Wonderful Life” and the opposite of Trump’s push to make us all dependent on his mercy. He and his fellow Potters can’t do anything to change that truth.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending