Daily Kickoff
Good Thursday morning.
In today’s Daily Kickoff, we look at how the Democrats vying to succeed Sen. Dianne Feinstein are approaching the Israel-Hamas war, and talk to the former longtime leaders of the Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee about their concerns over Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Natan Sharansky, Rep. Ritchie Torres and William Daroff.
This week’s NYT/Siena poll offered yet another series of data points underscoring the gaping generational gap over support for Israel — particularly among Democrats, writes Jewish Insider Editor-in-Chief Josh Kraushaar. Like other recent polls, the survey showed by more than a two-to-one margin that Israel commands more sympathy among Americans than the Palestinians (47-20%).
But even as Israel won overwhelming support among those over the age of 30, the Gen Z crowd decidedly sided with the Palestinians. By a whopping 63-10% margin, seniors aged 65 and over back Israel over the Palestinians. The margin is similarly decisive among 45-64 year olds (57-14%) and Israel still wins widespread support with millennials aged 30-44 (36-24%).
It’s only the 18-29 year olds that side with the Palestinians, by a 19-point spread (46-27%).
The poll also showed a near-even divide among Americans who want Israel to continue its military operation until Hamas is eliminated even if it means there will be more civilian casualties (39%), compared to those who believe Israel should stop its military campaign to prevent civilian casualties (44%). Those over the age of 45 back Israel’s military campaign against Hamas by double-digits, but those under 30 want Israel to halt its military operation by a 45-point margin.
In a recent Wall Street Journal poll, a similar question drew stronger support for Israel’s military operation. In that survey, a 55% majority approved of Israel’s current military actions against Hamas as necessary, while just 25% said Israel’s actions were disproportionate.
Notably, the poll found that the youngest voters with the most hostility towards Israel are the ones most likely to defect to… former President Donald Trump. Trump is winning 21% of young Biden ’20 voters who sympathize more with Palestinians than Israel — a number that could well be inflated, given Trump’s position on Israel is more hawkish than Biden’s.
Overall, Trump is leading Biden among 18-29 year-old voters, 49-43%, even as Biden is leading Trump among all likely voters by two points (47-45%). Trump holds a two-point lead among registered voters.
Two important takeaways for 2024 from these numbers: One, Biden’s decision to remain publicly supportive of Israel is clearly the smart move politically. Older voters, who are the most reliable, remain solidly behind Israel and Biden would risk creating a bigger rift if he tried to distance himself from Israel’s war against Hamas.
Second, there’s good reason to believe some of the anti-Israel Gen Z voters are expressing their frustration towards Biden by saying they’ll vote for Trump but they’ll come home (or possibly stay home) next November. Biden is effectively calling their bluff and is facing depressed numbers with his base now, but that should rebound when the general election campaign gets underway.
But even as overall support for Israel remains healthy, the bigger concern in pro-Israel circles is a long-term one. Will the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas activism we’re seeing on campuses be a leading indicator of what’s to come from our future political and business leaders? Or has the exposure of the radicalism now raised enough awareness to stem the tide?
The youngest voters have historically migrated to the right as they get older; some of the anti-war McCarthy and McGovern voters in 1968 and 1972 became part of the Reagan revolution a decade later.
What makes our current moment more precarious is the lack of willpower from the adults in the room, unwilling or unable to lead the next generation on the right track. In previous generations, there was plenty of youthful radicalism but also opposition from institutional leadership that held the mainstream line.
As former New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet wrote in the Economist: “Leaders of many workplaces and boardrooms across America find that it is so much easier to compromise than to confront – to give a little ground today in the belief you can ultimately bring people around. This is how reasonable Republican leaders lost control of their party to Trump and how liberal-minded college presidents lost control of their campuses.”
In a year-end press conference on Wednesday, Secretary of State Tony Blinken laid bare the hypocrisy of those who call for a cease-fire and who place the onus only on Israel to end the war in Gaza.
“One of the things that’s striking to me is that, understandably, everyone would like to see this conflict end as quickly as possible,” Blinken said. “But if it ends with Hamas remaining in place and having the capacity and the stated intent to repeat October 7th again and again and again, that’s not in the interests of Israel, it’s not in the interests of the region, it’s not in the interests of the world.”
“What is striking to me,” Blinken continued, “is that even as, again, we hear many countries urging the end to this conflict, which we would all like to see, I hear virtually no one saying – demanding of Hamas that it stop hiding behind civilians, that it lay down its arms, that it surrender. This is over tomorrow if Hamas does that. This would have been over a month ago, six weeks ago, if Hamas had done that. How can it be that there are no demands made of the aggressor and only demands made of the victim?”
california candidates
Porter’s call for cease-fire clears pro-Israel lane in California primary for Schiff

Rep. Katie Porter’s (D-CA) announcement this week of her support for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas likely opens a lane for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) to lock down California’s pro-Israel vote in the three-way Senate primary between Porter, Schiff and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jewish Insider’s Marc Rod reports.
The move: Porter released a statement earlier this week calling for a “lasting bilateral ceasefire,” in part citing concerns about comments from Israeli leaders rejecting the U.S.’s post-war vision for Gaza. Porter said a cease-fire must involve the return of hostages and remove Hamas from “operational control” of Gaza, while also criticizing Hamas’ long-standing deprivation of innocent Palestinians. The statement brings Porter closer in line with the growing consensus among progressives. Earlier in the current war, Porter had taken a more hawkish approach, blaming the Hamas attack partially on the U.S. for taking too soft a line on Iran.
Inside the campaign: A Porter campaign aide denied political motivations influenced her shifting views on a cease-fire, describing it as a response to the changing situation in Israel and Gaza, but said she’s been consistent in calling for the release of hostages and for the end of Hamas’ rule over Gaza. The aide also said Porter has consistently polled in first or second place in the race. The Porter campaign aide accused her opponents of using the war to score political points.
Schiff stats: Schiff, for his part, is sticking to his pro-Israel positions, a posture helping him rack up support among Jewish and moderate voters in the state — and fueling his growing lead in early polling. A new POLITICO/Morning Consult survey shows Schiff with a comfortable lead over Porter and Lee, winning 28% of likely voters in the all-party primary, compared to 17% for Porter and 14% for Lee.
Lee’s criticism: Lee was among the first lawmakers to call for a cease-fire, just 10 days after the Hamas attack. She appeared to reject Porter’s call for a cease-fire as too weak and as politically motivated. “A conditional ceasefire is not a ceasefire at all. We need leaders who set the pace for change — not half-heartedly follow along when it’s politically expedient,” Lee said in an X post. “I’ve always shown up for the side of peace & I’ll take urgent, unwavering action for peace & security in the Senate.” Her campaign added in a statement to Politico that she views the conditions Porter laid out for a cease-fire as “so unlikely to ever be achieved.”