2 ms·

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/04/08/how-americans-view-israel-and-the-israel-hamas-war-at-the-start-of-trumps-second-term/ https://www.pewresearc

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/04/08/how-americans-view-israel-and-the-israel-hamas-war-at-the-start-of-trumps-second-term/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/04/08/how-ameri... Republicans aged 19-49 have are split 50-50 on Israel with a strong and clear trend in the negative direction. That only leaves 50+ Republicans, sure a stretch of 'boomer' to include 50-61 in that but that only means it'll take a bit longer for the 50-61 cohort to hit net negative. This isn't a problem for Israel now but I believe it's existential for them in the future.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
Thank you for the source. > isn't a problem for Israel now but I believe it's existential for them in the future "A slight majority of Americans (53%) now express[ing] a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of Israel" is new, but given "the share of U.S. adults who voice very unfavorable views of Israel" is only "19% in 2025" (up from "10% in 2022"), it's not fair to call the threat existential. If that latter rises into the 30s, one could expect the American-Israeli alliance to start fracturing. (Given the size of Israel's economy and potency of its military, it's also naïve to assume it couldn't replace America as a security partner. What it probably couldn't get from its new friends would be as favourable, deferential terms.)
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  It's a bit weird to say Israel could replace the US as a security partner without giving an example of who that would be. Russia? China? The EU? And what money are they to buy the materials with, their own? American? Who would continue to bribe their neighbors they're not at war with and restrain those they are at war with. What if Iran really does get nukes, what if a 3rd country gives them one. Currently the Americans are trying to figure out how much sovereignty they really have and are discovering that it's indeed effectively none. What do you think that does to a population, especially during a sustained economic recession, where the fed is dropping interest rates, while stocks are at all time highs. It seems like the only thing Americans can agree on is that 'this cannot last', I don't know what'll replace it but there is a reasonably good chance it won't be good for Israel.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > weird to say Israel could replace the US as a security partner without giving an example of who that would be. Russia? China? China, Russia and India come to mind. (The latter two need Israeli weapons expertise and are transactional about their geopolitics. The last is in the growing throes of anti-Muslim ethnonationalism. The first and third import energy.) > what money are they to buy the materials with, their own? Yes. Amercan aid to Israel is less than 1% of its GDP [1][2]. We buy influence with that money, but it's not existential. > What if Iran really does get nukes, what if a 3rd country gives them one ...Israel already has nukes and superior delivery mechanisms to Iran. Also, if Iran gets nukes, I put Israel becoming a regional hegemon protecting the Gulf from a nuclear Iran on the board. > Americans are trying to figure out how much sovereignty they really have and are discovering that it's indeed effectively none This is dumb. America's Israel policy until about 2025 has been broadly popular with the electorate. (Israel could have become unpopular earlier, but nobody particularly likes folks occupying universities and blocking bridges.) [1] https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel
    - cjbgkagh 1y ago
      With regards to sovereignty I was referring to US foreign policy, not dealing with annoying libs. Right now the struggle is between the Restrainers and the Primacists to decide if a war with China should be preceded by a war with Iran. Israel is pushing for the war with Iran because it wants to be the local hegemony. No American gets to vote on this and those who thought they were voting against it actually voted for the person most likely to enable it. Hence zero sovereignty, well maybe that’s negative sovereignty. 1% is absolutely huge with regards to a GDP (money spent). Also that’s not all inclusive, you need to throw in all the other money the US spends on the Middle East. I’m unlikely to change anyone’s mind on this, but I generally am interested in exploring the bounds of others. Unless you have something new and interesting to share I think we’re done here.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

Thank you for the source. > isn't a problem for Israel now but I believe it's existential for them in the future "A slight majority of Americans (53%) now express[ing] a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of Israel" is new, but given "the share of U.S. adults who voice very unfavorable views of Israel" is only "19% in 2025" (up from "10% in 2022"), it's not fair to call the threat existential. If that latter rises into the 30s, one could expect the American-Israeli alliance to start fracturing. (Given the size of Israel's economy and potency of its military, it's also naïve to assume it couldn't replace America as a security partner. What it probably couldn't get from its new friends would be as favourable, deferential terms.)

cjbgkagh 1y ago
It's a bit weird to say Israel could replace the US as a security partner without giving an example of who that would be. Russia? China? The EU? And what money are they to buy the materials with, their own? American? Who would continue to bribe their neighbors they're not at war with and restrain those they are at war with. What if Iran really does get nukes, what if a 3rd country gives them one. Currently the Americans are trying to figure out how much sovereignty they really have and are discovering that it's indeed effectively none. What do you think that does to a population, especially during a sustained economic recession, where the fed is dropping interest rates, while stocks are at all time highs. It seems like the only thing Americans can agree on is that 'this cannot last', I don't know what'll replace it but there is a reasonably good chance it won't be good for Israel.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > weird to say Israel could replace the US as a security partner without giving an example of who that would be. Russia? China? China, Russia and India come to mind. (The latter two need Israeli weapons expertise and are transactional about their geopolitics. The last is in the growing throes of anti-Muslim ethnonationalism. The first and third import energy.) > what money are they to buy the materials with, their own? Yes. Amercan aid to Israel is less than 1% of its GDP [1][2]. We buy influence with that money, but it's not existential. > What if Iran really does get nukes, what if a 3rd country gives them one ...Israel already has nukes and superior delivery mechanisms to Iran. Also, if Iran gets nukes, I put Israel becoming a regional hegemon protecting the Gulf from a nuclear Iran on the board. > Americans are trying to figure out how much sovereignty they really have and are discovering that it's indeed effectively none This is dumb. America's Israel policy until about 2025 has been broadly popular with the electorate. (Israel could have become unpopular earlier, but nobody particularly likes folks occupying universities and blocking bridges.) [1] https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel
  - cjbgkagh 1y ago
    With regards to sovereignty I was referring to US foreign policy, not dealing with annoying libs. Right now the struggle is between the Restrainers and the Primacists to decide if a war with China should be preceded by a war with Iran. Israel is pushing for the war with Iran because it wants to be the local hegemony. No American gets to vote on this and those who thought they were voting against it actually voted for the person most likely to enable it. Hence zero sovereignty, well maybe that’s negative sovereignty. 1% is absolutely huge with regards to a GDP (money spent). Also that’s not all inclusive, you need to throw in all the other money the US spends on the Middle East. I’m unlikely to change anyone’s mind on this, but I generally am interested in exploring the bounds of others. Unless you have something new and interesting to share I think we’re done here.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago