In July 2017, 43 U.S. Senators proposed a law that would make it a crime for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. The bill would levy large fines and prison time for businesses and individuals who don’t buy from Israeli companies operating in occupied Palestinian territories, and who make statements, including social media posts, saying that they are doing so in order to boycott. The international boycott of Israel was launched in 2006 by Palestinian NGO’s to protest Israel’s “occupation and colonization of Arab lands.” Supporting the…
Read more12% Yes |
88% No |
11% Yes |
75% No |
1% Yes, boycotts against Israel harm one of our most important allies in the Middle East |
13% No, this is a violation of free speech |
See how support for each position on “Israel Boycott” has changed over time for 28.1k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Israel Boycott” has changed over time for 28.1k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@3CYDXFM1yr1Y
No, Israel should always be boycotted.
@8L3J6SS3yrs3Y
No, unless it's fueled by hatred or racisim.
@8D6PSQ54yrs4Y
Don'tknow a lot on the topic.
@8D58JHN4yrs4Y
No, though I believe it is wrong to do that, boycotting is protected by the constitution.
@8D4YK9V4yrs4Y
Of course not, and any right thinking person would boycott Israel until they stop their racist policies against Palestinians.
@8D4RB4Z4yrs4Y
No, and Israel shouldn't receive aid of any kind due to illegal settlements that violate international law and more human rights violations that any single person could keep track of.
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Israel Boycott” news articles, updated frequently.
@ISIDEWITH1wk1W
Iran is operating a clandestine smuggling route across the Middle East, employing intelligence operatives, militants and criminal gangs, to deliver weapons to Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, according to officials from the United States, Israel and Iran.The goal, as described by three Iranian officials, is to foment unrest against Israel by flooding the enclave with as many weapons as it can.The covert operation is now heightening concerns that Tehran is seeking to turn the West Bank into the next flashpoint in the long-simmering shadow war between Israel and Iran. That conflict has taken on new urgency this month, risking a broader conflict in the Middle East, as Iran vowed to retaliate for an Israeli strike on an embassy compound that killed seven Iranian armed forces commanders.Many weapons smuggled to the West Bank largely travel along two paths from Iran through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, the officials said. As the arms cross borders, the officials added, they change hands among a multinational cast that can include members of organized criminal gangs, extremist militants, soldiers and intelligence operatives. A key group in the operation, the Iranian officials and analysts said, are Bedouin smugglers who carry the weapons across the border from Jordan into Israel.The New York Times interviewed senior security and government officials with knowledge of Iran’s effort to smuggle weapons to the West Bank, including three from Israel, three from Iran and three from the United States. The officials from all three countries requested anonymity to discuss covert operations for which they were not authorized to speak publicly.“The Iranians wanted to flood the West Bank with weapons, and they were using criminal networks in Jordan, in the West Bank and in Israel, primarily Bedouin, to move and sell the products,” said Matthew Levitt, director of the counterterrorism program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a research organization, and the author of a study on the smuggling route.The smuggling to the West Bank, analysts said, began about two years ago when Iran started using routes previously established to smuggle other contraband. It is unclear exactly how many weapons have made it to the territory in that time, though analysts say the majority are small arms.
@ISIDEWITH1wk1W
Israel said on Sunday — the six-month mark of the ruinous conflict in Gaza — that it was withdrawing all but one brigade from the south of the enclave, describing the move as an opportunity for troops to rest and retool for the next chapter of the war.The Israel Defense Forces said in a statement that its 98th commando division, which consists of special ground forces, had “concluded its mission” in the city of Khan Younis and left Gaza “to recuperate and prepare for future operations.” The Nahal brigade, made up of ground troops stationed along a corridor that divides northern and southern Gaza, would continue to operate, the army said.The drawdown announcement Sunday seemed to mirror a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza City earlier this year, after the army said it had dismantled Hamas brigades in the north and was pivoting to more targeted operations.On a tour of the IDF’s Southern Command with U.S. ambassador Jack Lew, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said soldiers would now be preparing for the “mission in the Rafah area” along the Egyptian border, home to some 1.4 million displaced Palestinians.Israel has insisted it must invade Rafah to finish off Hamas’s remaining battalions; the Biden administration has said Israeli officials must first come up with a plan to evacuate civilians in the line of fire.“The war in Gaza continues, and we are far from stopping,” Herzi Halevi, IDF chief of the general staff, said in a statement Sunday. “We will not leave any Hamas brigades active — in any part of the Gaza Strip. We have plans and will act when we decide.”Israel’s punishing military campaign, launched after Hamas killed some 1,200 people and abducted 253 more in a surprise attack on Oct. 7, has yet to fully achieve its key objectives. Most of Hamas’s senior leaders are still at large, and more than 100 Israeli hostages are still held by the group.More than 33,000 people in Gaza have been killed in the fighting, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants but says the majority of the dead are women and children. The damage caused by Israel’s air and ground campaign in northern Gaza is so extensive that, in satellite views, whole city blocks resemble wastelands of powdered brown and gray.Humanitarian officials say Israeli restrictions on aid have created famine conditions in northern Gaza more swiftly than anywhere they have worked in decades. Israel denies limiting aid and has accused humanitarian groups of exaggerating the hunger crisis.
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
Protesters in Tel Aviv have called on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resign amid chaotic scenes in the city. Thousands of people have taken to the streets with clashes between demonstrators and police, according to media reports.It comes as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was branded a "narcissist" by a former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) general, who raged: "The sooner he goes, the better it will be for Israel."The Times of Israel has reported that at least one person was arrested by officers, but protesters then attempted to block their car.Two women were also knocked down during the chaos, with images shared online which appear to show them on the ground being tended to by paramedics.Some of the people on the march waved Israeli flags while others raised placards reading "Free Israel from..." with images of Netanyahu and other politicians.
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH3wks3W
In a series of developments that have stirred the political landscape, former President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed the presidential bid of independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., describing it as 'great for MAGA.' Trump's remarks came after Kennedy announced his vice-presidential pick, further intensifying the political discourse. Trump, in his characteristic style, took to social media to express his views, labeling Kennedy as the 'most radical left' candidate in the race and highlighting the liberal credentials of Kennedy's running mate, Nicole Shanahan. Despite his criticism of their political stance, Trump views Kennedy's candidacy as beneficial for his MAGA movement, suggesting it could potentially divide the Democratic vote.Kennedy, a figure who has long been associated with controversial views, particularly on the rule of law and established science, has drawn criticism and concern from various quarters. His decision to run for president and the subsequent endorsement by Trump has sparked a flurry of reactions, with some seeing it as a strategic move that could impact the Democratic Party's chances in the upcoming elections. Allies of President Joe Biden have expressed alarm over Kennedy's bid, fearing it could siphon off crucial votes from the left, thereby posing a significant threat to Biden's reelection efforts.The political dynamics surrounding Kennedy's candidacy and Trump's endorsement underscore the complex and often unpredictable nature of American politics. As the race for the presidency heats up, the strategies employed by candidates and their supporters are coming under increased scrutiny. The potential impact of Kennedy's run on the Democratic vote is a topic of much speculation, with analysts and political observers closely monitoring the situation.Trump's support for Kennedy, despite their ideological differences, highlights the former president's tactical approach to politics. By endorsing a candidate who could potentially weaken his opponents, Trump is playing a strategic game, aiming to maximize his own chances of success. This move has not only added a new dimension to the political landscape but has also raised questions about the future direction of both the Republican and Democratic parties.As the United States gears up for another presidential election, the emergence of candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the reactions they provoke from figures like Donald Trump are indicative of the shifting sands of American politics. With the electorate increasingly polarized, the outcome of the election remains uncertain, and the strategies adopted by candidates will be crucial in determining the path forward.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
Proponents argue that this strategy would bolster national security by minimizing the risk of potential terrorists entering the country. Enhanced screening processes, once implemented, would provide a more thorough assessment of applicants, reducing the likelihood of malicious actors gaining entry.…