Famine is Very Near in Gaza Again

The people of USA are becoming sick and tired of the genocide in Gaza. The poll indicate that Israel's real danger is not Hamas it is losing support of the American people, 60% disapprove.

Here's a rather old poll. I'm sure it's worse now if they ran the same poll again.

32% in U.S. Back Israel's Military Action in Gaza, a New Low
quote:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ approval of Israel’s military action in Gaza has fallen 10 percentage points since the prior measurement in September, and it is now at 32%, the lowest reading since Gallup first asked the question in November 2023. Disapproval of the military action has now reached 60%.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692948/u.s.-back-israel-military-action-gaza-new-low.aspx

 

Controversial take here, but Genocide is bad. I know others may argue otherwise.

 

When you say “the people of the USA,” that’s a broad generalization. There are diverse opinions across the country, and the loudest protests don’t always represent the majority. Groups that dominate social media and street demonstrations often have a disproportionate influence on perception. Many of these protests are driven by activist networks that openly call for the dismantling of Israel and even America itself, which shows this isn’t simply about humanitarian concern but about broader political agendas.
Support for Israel remains strong in Congress, among U.S. leadership, and within much of the population, despite fluctuating poll numbers. Israel’s security concerns don’t vanish because of shifting public sentiment—its primary danger is from terrorist organizations like Hamas, not U.S. opinion polls.

Just a noisy anti-Israel bunch in Detroit.

 

Would you care to explain what aspect of their polling methodology you find flawed?

 

Gallup is probably the most respected polling organization in America. Lerner’s comment about Detroit make zero sense.

 

My opinion, and I can be wrong.
These polls are “accurate” in a statistical sense, they’re a snapshot of perception, not a deep analysis of the conflict or what most Americans truly want long-term.

 

Your own clip says polls are accurate for general opinion. That is exactly what this is!!!! Only 32% support Israel’s military actions in Gaza!! And 60% are opposed!!

Did you read the article? It also strongly confirms an assertion I made earlier about Democrats opinion on the matter that you tried to deny.

 

Bill, polls are a snapshot of opinion, not an absolute moral compass.
As a conservative, I value bipartisan support, but when Democrats shift their stance under the weight of heavily biased media narratives and jihadi propaganda, it doesn’t automatically mean Israel is wrong—it often signals how well anti-Israel messaging has penetrated. Detroit is a prime example, where open calls for America’s destruction were made just days ago.

That said, this should be a wake-up call for Israel’s advocates:

• Media Strategy: Recognize bias and counter it effectively.
  
  
• Bipartisan Outreach: Work with all parties to repair divides and strengthen understanding.
  
  
• Policy Realism: Annexation of Area C could alienate even GOP support, isolating Israel further. But many Israelis see preventing the creation of a hostile Palestinian terror state as necessary, even if drastic measures are required.
  
  
• Future Moves: Reports of the U.S. considering control over Gaza show the geopolitical stakes are high, and Israel must act carefully to maintain U.S. trust.
  

In short: public opinion matters, but survival and security aren’t determined by popularity contests. (Gov support is still strong)
The challenge is turning perception into support through strategy, not appeasement.

 

I never claimed that this poll is a moral compass. Although I firmly believe that Israeli forced famine and genocide are immoral acts. I agree that Trump's support is currently strong. For example, reporting is that he is currently toying with his Gaza Rivera idea and shipping the 2 million Palestinians out of Gaza. On the other hand, Trump can turn on a dime if he decides it is in his personal best interest to be against Israel for some reason.

These kind of opinion polls do mean that Israel is slowly chipping away at American support of Israel. Which is a bad thing for Israel.

Right now Hamas is decimated. You're being overly paranoid if you think Hamas could be a likely existential threat to Israel within the next 10 years or so. Iran is a much more dangerous enemy.

 

Bill, my view is that Hamas can renew firing of rockets an South Israel in a very short time.
Why should Southern Israel be under such a threat?
Children should go to school without hiding in bombshelters. Both Isrseli and Gazan.
Would you allow such if it was on San Diego border, even if it's not existential threat to the USA?
Israeli gov and IDF role is to provide security to all Israel.
As long as such threats bring suffering and undermine security, they need to be eliminated.
US wouldn't tolerate it, nor will other countries, why should Israel be an exception?
Are you suggesting giving Hamas time to rebuild and time to gain even more support?
On another hand war is hurting Israel support, it's obvious media bias gave Hamas strong win.
A recent Harvard/Harris poll, conducted between August 20–21, 2025, surveyed 2,025 registered American voters and revealed a notable generational split: 60% of Americans aged 18–24 said they support Hamas over Israel, while older demographics showed much stronger support for Israel .
To put the number in broader context:
Overall, 74% of Americans support Israel, with just 26% backing Hamas .
Support for Israel increases with age: for example, older age groups—like those 65 and older—show around 89–92% favor for Israel, whereas the 18–24 cohort is the only demographic where a majority supports Hamas .
The poll had a margin of error of approximately ±2.2 percentage points .
It's also worth noting that earlier polls show younger Americans had more divided views. A March 2025 Harvard/Harris poll, for instance, found that 48% of 18–24-year-olds supported Hamas, while the rest presumably favored Israel or were undecided

 

The point was that I believe that Israel can afford to stop the famine and the genocide. The choice is not to either continue famine and genocide or to surrender to Hamas. Netanyahu and his radical far right zealots apparently want to take over Gaza, kick out or kill as many Palestinians as possible, and settle Gaza as part of Israel. I don't agree with that or Trump's idea to turn Gaza into a Rivera like resort.

 

There is no genocide, but the choice is to never allow Palestinian terror to rise again. Not give them time to recover. Only to fight another war later?
To put Israeli children under threat?
I mean yes, there are other treats out there, Yemen with whom Israel is dealing, Lebanon, unfortunately the disarming of Hezbollah was doomed from the start, so there will be another war there. And yes, while Israeli children went to school in the North, it can be disrupted very quickly by Hezbollah.
The reason there are no missiles and rocket flying to the North of Israel is because of IDF. And Lebanon sees Gaza faith. Lebanon government and people don't allow at this point weakened Hezbollah to destroy Beirut, to be like Gaza.
Israel will stop war in Gaza when hostages are back, and Hamas is not a threat of renewal of Terrorist activity on the South and West Bank.
It appears Palestinian Terror is what pushed the possibility of Palestinian state away and the need to increase security according to the Israeli right for settling all the areas of the Land of Israel.
Egypt is another military force that tricked Israel and amassed huge force in Sinai, but last 50 at least on the surface there were no conflicts, 50 years used to develop every strong army. Israel is watching it closely.

 

Another false choice, you say there is no genocide but, many independent organizations say otherwise. Let's put it this way then. Stop the famine and stop killing so many Palestinians. For example, the IDF leaders were suggesting going into Gaza City was a bad idea. I have to assume that they thought that because too many civilians would be killed.

Why did Netanyahu force the IDF to go into Gaza City? I believe because in part he WANTED to kill more Palestinians. Why, probably multiple reasons. Some I've mentioned like Netanyahu has got enough folks like you fooled that he can get away with killing more Palestinians to make it easier to settle Gaza with Jews and make it part of Israel. Other reasons might be because he thinks it might cause the Gazans to put more pressure on Hamas? Another reason might be he doesn't care if the hostages are killed so going into Gaza City doesn't cause that issue to be a concern. He might even think if all the hostages were killed it might reduce some of the political pressure he faces in Israel. Netanyahu probably figures he has Trump for three more years and doesn't have to worry about losing public support in America. He's definitely not concerned with the rest of the world.

 

Hamas is the one who is really killing people in Gaza, Hamas is using Israel to do that.
I personally if had any effect on Israel, government would have stopped the war in 2023.
But besides being 1000s miles away, and voicing opinion, I leave it up to Israel to decide how they manage their security.
Palestinains are the ones who bring the calamity upon themselves, because they allow radicals and Jihadists to lead them.

 

I forgot to mention what is probably the most likely reason that Netanyahu wants more Gazans killed. He's having a hard time finding any country willing to accept Gazan refugees. It would be more likely to get a country to agree to take in Palestinians if the killing gets worse. Also, it would make more Gazans want to accept being shipped out of Gaza to another country.

 

Bill, your comment doesn’t just criticize policy—it assigns malicious motives to Netanyahu without evidence, essentially accusing him of deliberately wanting to kill Palestinians and hostages. That kind of rhetoric doesn’t help peace or understanding; it fuels hatred and dehumanization.
It’s one thing to debate military strategy or criticize leadership decisions, but it’s another to accuse people of intentional genocide, basing it on false data generated by terrorists.
If you want to advocate for Palestinian lives, then same here, but I focus on who really is killing the Gazans.
I think peace requires mutual accountability.

 

Interesting, there is no such thing as unintentional genocide.

Here's a whole long Wikipedia article on many many different definitions of genocide. I admit I only read about half of the article but "intent" is a very very common word in there. I did a search of intent and read many of the other definitions and they used instead words like purposeful. There is no such thing as unintentional genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

 

Bill, you’re misusing the term “genocide” here. Even your own source shows that genocide requires intent—the deliberate plan to destroy a group. Civilian casualties in war, even tragic and high, do not automatically equal genocide.

Israel’s stated goal is to eliminate Hamas as a terrorist threat, not to exterminate Palestinians as a people. That’s why aid still enters Gaza, hospitals are supplied, and evacuation warnings are issued—even during fighting. None of that aligns with an intent to wipe out a population, saying this I personally regret civilian casualties, but out of my control.

Throwing around “genocide” loosely doesn’t just distort reality, it minimizes actual genocides where entire populations were deliberately hunted down and exterminated. If you want to criticize Israel’s policies, do it honestly—without redefining words to demonize.

 

It's hard to believe that you're being serious? If you're being serious then you are not in touch with reality on this subject.

Here's a new independent organization added yesterday to the over dozen that have already concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. This one is especially scholarly.

Leading genocide scholars organization says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza
quote:
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The largest professional organization of scholars studying genocide said Monday that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

The determination by the International Association of Genocide Scholars — which has around 500 members worldwide, including a number of Holocaust experts — could serve to further isolate Israel in global public opinion and adds to a growing chorus of organizations that have used the term for Israel’s actions in Gaza. Israel rejects the accusation and called the resolution an “embarrassment to the legal profession.”

“People who are experts in the study of genocide can see this situation for what it is,” Melanie O’Brien, the organization’s president and a professor of international law at the University of Western Australia, told The Associated Press.

“Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide,” according to group’s resolution, which was supported by 86% of those who voted. The organization did not release the specifics of the voting.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/leading-genocide-scholars-organization-says-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

 

Bill, citing a resolution from an advocacy-driven academic organization doesn’t make this a settled legal fact. The International Association of Genocide Scholars is not a court, and their resolution is a non-binding opinion — not a legal determination. Israel’s actions are being reviewed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has not declared genocide but rather called for precautions while the case is ongoing.

Even within academia, there’s debate: many legal scholars emphasize that “genocide” requires specific intent to destroy a people, which no credible court has found here. Israel’s stated military objective is to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people, which is why humanitarian corridors, aid deliveries, and civilian warnings are still part of the strategy, despite the tragedy of war.

Using “genocide” as a political label instead of a legal term not only undermines international law but also diminishes the meaning of actual genocides, like the Holocaust or Rwanda, where systematic extermination was undeniable.

If we want honest debate, let’s discuss civilian casualties, humanitarian crises, and policy choices—but weaponizing the term “genocide” erodes credibility and fuels polarization, not solutions.