Online discourse about Israeli children recently murdered in a bombing reinforces divided public sentiment in the United States. Most discussions focus on the grief and outrage at the loss of life, condemning Hezbollah, and outcry against silence from the Biden administration, particularly Vice President Kamala Harris.

Many Americans fear attacks like this increase the possibility of conflict escalation for a variety of reasons:

• Questions the U.S. president and uncertainty about Biden transferring power to Harris
• The possibility of a terrorist attack during the Olympic games
• Turkey-Israel tensions rising

Double Standards

There are accusations of double standards, accusing the American media of highlighting loss of Palestinian lives, while downplaying Israeli casualties. Critics of Israel's government call it hypocritical, instead saying the U.S. and Israel are overlooking or downplaying Palestinian casualties.

Conversations about children killed in Gaza evoke deep sympathy and anger from anti-Israel groups. The criticism is not just aimed at Israel but also at international actors, including the European Union and the United Nations, for their perceived inaction or bias.

Meanwhile, Israel supporters express intense anger and mourning over the worsening situation and escalating tensions. Descriptions such as “innocent Druze children” and “playing soccer” emphasize the brutality and injustice of the attack. This sense of tragic loss underpins broader discussions, acting as an emotional catalyst.

Those who support Israel contrast American mainstream media coverage of Israeli victims compared to those in Gaza. They say reports and sympathies for Israel are buried while pro-Palestine, often, pro-terror protests get massive coverage.

Anger Toward Hezbollah

Those who are discussing the recent attack focus ire at Hezbollah, describing its actions as “terrorism” and “pure evil.” It is repeatedly framed as an “Iranian proxy,” reinforcing hostile views towards Iran and its influence in the region. Many Americans view Hezbollah as a primary antagonist, promoting Israel's right to self-defense and decisive retaliation.

Substantial frustration is also directed at the Biden administration for its lack of response. A significant number of comments criticize Vice President Kamala Harris for her silence, indicating a broader discontent with the administration's handling of foreign policy concerning Israel. Descriptors like “weak” and “ineffective” are repeatedly employed to characterize the administration, implying a need for stronger leadership.

This hesitancy and silence have sparked claims that the administration's inaction emboldens groups like Hezbollah. Some also draw stark contrasts with former President Trump’s foreign policy.

There’s a noted disdain for political figures perceived as too closely aligned with or supportive of pro-Palestinian and terrorist entities. For instance, mentions of figures like Kamala Harris and her connections to groups like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) spurred critical backlash.

Americans continue to discuss and disagree on geopolitical analysis. For instance, people discuss President of Turkey Erdogan's threats to Israel. Discussions are set against the backdrop of Turkey's geopolitical ambitions and historical hostility.

Conversations draw parallels to historical events like the Iraq War, interpreting them as part of a broader pattern of American and Israeli foreign policy actions in the Middle East. Critics claim Israel's strategic moves, including blaming Hezbollah for the Majdal Shams attack, are tactics to draw the U.S. into a larger regional conflict.

Views of Harris

Many Americans are also angry about the lack of leadership from the White House amid worsening international conditions. Reports that VP Harris is receiving briefings on the situation in Israel draw demands for explanation at Biden’s lack of visibility as President.

.@VP has been briefed and is closely monitoring Hezbollah’s horrific attack on a soccer field in Majdal Shams in northern Israel yesterday which killed a number of children and teenagers. She condemns this horrific attack and mourns for all those killed and wounded.

— Phil Gordon (@PhilGordon46) July 28, 2024

Some voters label Harris as anti-American, associating her with antisemitic and globalist ideologies. Discussions here are deeply negative, accusing both Harris and Biden of failing to deter threats to international stability. People use phrases “utter silence” to describe both Biden and Harris’s response, underscoring frustration at leaders dodging their responsibility.

Discussion largely contrasts Harris’s actions and statements with President Biden's silence. On one hand, Harris's "ironclad" support for Israel, as emphasized by her national security advisor, Phil Gordon, aligns with pro-Israel sentiment. However, many Israel supporters do not feel confident in the genuineness of these statements.

Recent protests in Washington D.C. against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dominated public discussion online. Pro-Palestinian protesters and leftists took to the streets of Washington D.C., the Capitol rotunda, and even the Watergate Hotel. Many recalled memories of 2020 as anti-American sentiment reached the level of fervor similar to riots during the last election cycle.

Conversations primarily focus on themes of justice, legal double standards, and national identity. Many Americans question and criticize the actions of protesters, considering the broader implications on democracy and international relations.

Flag Burning

Many Americans are highly offended and outraged by pro-Hamas protesters publicly burning American flags, defacing monuments, assaulting police offices, and burning Benjamin Netanyahu’s effigy.

Videos of the protesters tearing down and burning American flags and replacing it with a Palestinian flag outside Union Station went viral. Many saw these actions as highly anti-American and antisemitic, stirring strong emotional responses. Public sentiment around the demonstrations largely skews negative, with significant outrage expressed about attacks on American symbols and values.

Liberal positions held by voters and representatives like Rashida Tlaib defend the protesters, emphasizing their right to free expression and sympathizing with their cause. However, this segment is notably smaller and often overshadowed by the louder opposition of pro-America and pro-Israel sentiment.

"Chickens for KFC"

In his speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu's made remarks about prominent "Gays for Gaza" signs, comparing them to "Chickens for KFC.” This comment has also become a focal point of public discussion. Netanyahu’s analogy elicits various reactions from laughter and agreement to anger.

Supporters of Netanyahu view his comments as a poignant critique of perceived hypocrisies within the protest movement. They argue the LGBTQ+ community would face persecution under governance like Hamas's, echoing Netanyahu’s sentiment. Many point out the contradiction of protesters demonstrating on behalf of a regime that would gladly kill them.

Conversely, critics argue Netanyahu’s comments are inflammatory and dismissive, exacerbating tensions rather than fostering dialogue. This group says equating protesters with KFC chickens undermines the legitimate grievances about Israel's policies. Terms like "insensitive," "dismissive," and "offensive" frequently appear in these criticisms.

2024 Riots Echo 2020 Riots

The events also ignite memories of riots across the country related to Black Lives Matter and the January 6 Capitol riot in 2020. The public draws parallels between the scale of the unrest and government responses then and now. People question consistency and justice for different protest groups.

Many voters highlight a perceived double standard in how authorities manage protests concerning different political or social issues. The phrase "two-tier justice" emerges as a recurrent theme, reflecting skepticism about fair treatment under the law depending on the nature of the protest.

Especially on the right, there are accusations that left leaning protesters like those supporting BLM and pro-Palestine causes face little or no consequences for their actions. Meanwhile, right leaning protesters like January 6 attendees and young people peeling out on “Pride” crosswalks face severe criminal charges and even imprisonment.

American Leadership Silence

Another significant element in the public discourse focuses on Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Harris not attending Netanyahu's speech. This is perceived by some as a political maneuver indicative of their stance on Israel-Palestine relationships. Many also criticize VP Harris for failing to comment on the vandalism and violence of the protests.

Misinformation and conspiracy theories also circulate, suggesting Israeli infiltrators staged some actions to provoke hatred against Gaza. Sentiment trends reveal a mix of support for both Israel and Palestine, but are driven by intense emotional responses, inflamed further by personal stories of suffering from both sides. The plight of kidnapped hostages and innocent victims fuels compassionate calls for ceasefire and humanitarian aid.

Discussion trends reveal dominant topics around national identity, free speech, and international diplomacy. The sentiment oscillates between highly charged outrage and staunch defense of either Israel, Palestine, or America. Reasons for these sentiment trends often connect to enduring national traumas, contemporary political divisions, and the pervasive influence of media portrayal of such events.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's popularity in the United States is increasingly polarized. Conversations online highlight a range of opinions influenced by political affiliation, geographic location, and demographics. There is a significant emphasis on Israel's military actions, Netanyahu's political maneuvers, and the implications of U.S. foreign policy.

Lukewarm on Netanyahu

American feelings about Netanyahu and Israel's policies are highly polarized. Discussions show intense emotions, with strong support or vehement opposition, influenced by recent military actions and political statements.

Since the October 7 attacks, there is a discernible shift in sentiment with increased scrutiny and criticism of Israel's military responses. This has led to heightened calls for a ceasefire and a reevaluation of U.S. support for Israel.

Political affiliations greatly influence sentiments. Younger voters and progressive groups, including many within the Democratic Party, display more critical views of Netanyahu's policies. Conversely, conservative and older demographics, particularly within the Republican base, showcase stronger support for Netanyahu and Israel. However, many on both sides of the aisle are growing fatigued with the financial cost of supporting Israel for Americans. 

Keywords

Many Americans view Netanyahu through the perspective of the Israel-Hamas War, therefore, discussion shaping these discussions are centered on the conflict. Common words mentioned include:

• Israel, Gaza, IDF, Hamas: Central to discussions about military actions and regional security.
• Ceasefire, U.S. Aid, Apartheid, ICJ Ruling: Frequent in conversations about international law, human rights, and U.S.-Israel relations.
• Kamala Harris, Netanyahu, Trump: Indicative of political figures' influence on public opinion and policy discussions.

Political Figures and Statements

Figures like Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump frequently feature in these discussions. Harris's refusal to meet Netanyahu upon his arrival in the U.S. and her comments about not dictating Israel's military actions are cited as evidence of a shift in the Democratic Party's stance towards Israel. Trump, on the other hand, is seen by his supporters as a strong ally of Israel, emphasizing his administration's actions such as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Public Protests and Social Movements

Grassroots movements and protests, particularly those led by Jewish groups within the U.S., highlight a growing dissatisfaction with current U.S. policies towards Israel. Protests demanding an arms embargo and an end to military aid to Israel demonstrate a shift in public sentiment and a call for a more balanced approach that considers Palestinian rights.

Israel's Military Actions and the Gaza Conflict

People are talking about Israel's military actions in Gaza, particularly focusing on airstrikes and the resulting civilian casualties. There is a notable dichotomy where one side condemns Israel's actions as overly aggressive and harmful to Palestinians. Ther other side defends them as necessary for national security against Hamas.

International Court of Justice Rulings

There are debates around recent ICJ rulings declaring Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as unlawful and labeling its actions as apartheid. Supporters of the ICJ ruling argue it is a step forward for Palestinian rights and international accountability. Opponents, often pro-Israel, discredit the court's opinions, viewing them as biased and ill-informed.

U.S.-Israel Relations

The relationship between the United States and Israel is another significant topic, with discussions around U.S. military aid to Israel and the perceived political maneuvers within the American political landscape. More voters are beginning to express frustration with continued U.S. support for Israel. Some advocate for a ceasefire and others call for a reevaluation of or halt to aid. Others assert support for Israel remains crucial for regional stability and counterterrorism.

Exclusive MIG Reports data reveals a trend in overall sentiment toward President Joe Biden’s war strategies is predominantly negative. This confirms sharp divisions among American voters and criticisms from various ideological perspectives.

Ukraine Failure

Sentiment about Biden's handling of the Ukraine conflict is overwhelmingly critical. Many believe his approach has either exacerbated tensions or failed to achieve meaningful resolutions. Critics argue Biden's cancellation of PMC (private military company) support to Ukraine and the potential halt in delivering F-16 fighter jets suggests a capitulation to Russian pressure.

American sentiment is fueled by accusations that his administration has been too lenient or ineffective in counteracting Putin’s advances. This is widely interpreted as a sign of weakness or political appeasement. These sentiments were only exacerbated when, during the 2024 NATO summit Biden referred to Ukraine’s President Zelensky as “President Putin.”

HAHAHA Holy sh*t Biden just introduced Zelensky as "President Putin" 🤣😂💀 pic.twitter.com/vAdGXcMQgD

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 11, 2024

• Voter discussions about Ukraine and Israel are both trending negative.
• In the last week, Biden’s approval on Israel dropped to 40% and his approval on Ukraine dropped to 44%.
  

Israel Failure

Another major topic of discussion is Biden’s approach to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Some praise his efforts to broker a ceasefire and acknowledge the progress made towards a ceasefire-hostage release deal. But others view his policies as misguided or insufficient.

There is rampant sentiment, especially among progressives and some isolationists on the right, that Biden’s support for Israel is too strong. This leads to accusations that Biden is facilitating the ongoing violence by enabling Israeli military actions.

Moreover, his claims of having done more for the Palestinian community than previous administrations are met with skepticism and ridicule. Pro-Palestine voters repeatedly point out the ongoing devastation and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

• As the election draws closer, Biden seems to be losing ground on national security approval compared to Trump.
• While Biden enjoyed a lead a week ago, the last few days have seen him sink below Trump’s approval to 39% compared to Trump’s 46%.

Iran and China Disapproval

The sentiment around Biden’s broader foreign policy is further colored by criticisms of his administration’s dealings with Iran and China. Some link his decision to re-enter the Iran nuclear deal framework, and the release of funds to Iran, to increased tensions and conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. Furthermore, there are fears that Russian military data might be shared with China, potentially undermining U.S. strategic advantages.

Home Front Failure and Seeking Change

Biden’s domestic policies, which are impacted by national security, also generates negative sentiment. Critics highlight his failures in border security, saying he’s allowed increased illegal immigration and potential security threats. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan continues to loom large in public sentiment as well, with many seeing it as a blunder that has emboldened America's adversaries.

Rhere is palpable frustration from some quarters regarding media double standards and misinformation. Allegations that mainstream media has been complicit in covering up or downplaying Biden’s failures are constant. This feeds into a broader narrative of mistrust towards government and media institutions, which many believe are becoming increasingly partisan.

Furthermore, MAGA voters tend to frame Biden’s policies as failures when juxtaposed with Trump’s achievements. This group argues, under Trump, the U.S. experienced peace and higher global standing. Under Biden, they say there has been an upsurge in global conflicts and crises.

During the RNC convention, numerous families who lost loved ones in the attack at Abbey Gate, during Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal, shared their personal testimonies and experiences. They talked of losing a loved one under President Biden and subsequently being ignored by the administration.

American reactions to Biden’s failure to acknowledge the Afghanistan Gold Star families reveal significant emotional intensity, anger, grief, and political implications.

Negligent Commander-in-Chief

Discussions center around Joe Biden’s repeated neglect of Afghanistan Gold Star families after his disastrous withdrawal. This offensive unwillingness to acknowledge those who gave their lives for America fuels anger and disappointment. This is especially pronounced among Americans closely tied to military communities.

Sentiment toward Joe Biden on this subject is overwhelmingly negative, marked by feelings of abandonment and disillusionment. Many argue Biden’s refusal to acknowledge these families reflects poorly on his role as Commander-in-Chief. They say it worsens the impact of his administration’s atrocious handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Another closely related topic is the broader critique of how Biden handles military affairs and veterans' issues. Critics use the administration’s neglect of Gold Star families as a springboard to discuss wider failings, including the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and its aftermath. Sentiment remains negative, often laced with strong emotional appeals highlighting the sacrifices of military service members and their families.

Sweeping Critiques of Biden’s Legacy

The discourse often transitions into a broader critique of Biden’s presidency. This includes examinations of his competence, leadership, and policy decisions. Detractors emphasize perceived failings across various domains, extending the criticism beyond military issues to encompass economic, social, and foreign policies. The sentiment across these discussions is again largely negative, albeit framed in a broader political context.

Discussion volume about Gold Star families during the RNC made up a significant portion of political discourse. The discussion was especially large within conservative and military-supportive communities. The volume of these discussions spikes during key events or statements related to military affairs or memorial observances, indicating a high level of engagement on these issues.

Impact on Voters

For undecided and Independent voters, these military issues have the potential to sway opinions. Particularly for those connected to the military or who prioritize national security and veteran affairs.

The emotional resonance of Gold Star family narratives can significantly impact voter sentiment. Independent voters, typically swayed by policy effectiveness and leadership qualities, may find the administration's perceived failings in military matters a critical factor in their decision-making process.

It has been long-established that the point of no return for Biden’s net-negative approval was marked by the Kabul evacuation. This is shown in various polls. Continued discussion, and perhaps focus on the administration writ-large, may continue to erode overall sentiment and approval for Joe Biden and even Kamala Harris.

On July 15, anti-immigration protests regarding taxpayer-funded asylum infrastructure in Coolock, Ireland, became physical. The story also went viral among some groups in the United States.

MIG Reports studied online discussion to track parallels with American conversations about U.S. illegal immigration. Discussions reveal intense emotions and diverging political ideologies among American commenters.

Background

The events in Coolock, Ireland, involved local protests and arson attacks on construction sites intended for migrant centers. Some American commenters use these events as examples highlighting the consequences of lenient illegal immigration policies.

Many point to the imagery and reports from Ireland to underscore broader themes of national sovereignty, safety concerns, and the failures of current immigration policies. In this context, the sentiment is predominantly negative and alarmist, emphasizing fears of cultural and social disruption. Many Americans say, if the U.S. continues its current immigration path, it will face similar consequences as seen in Europe.

Discussion Trends

Among conservative Americans, there is a pronounced effort to link the disorder in Coolock with issues they view as comparable in the United States. A prevailing theme is government incompetence and betrayal by political elites. President Joe Biden and Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are frequently criticized for their immigration policies. Voters argue they have cause similar crises at the U.S. southern border. This portends a sentiment of frustration and urgency for stricter immigration controls and policies more aligned with former President Trump's administration.

Conversely, liberal and progressive commenters often frame the events in Coolock in the broader context of humanitarian concern and the need for compassionate immigration policies. However, they are less likely to highlight the events themselves, instead focusing on criticizing the negative portrayals of immigrants. They often assert there are xenophobic undertones in the conservative discourse.

Sentiment Trends

Among conservative Americans, there is a strong correlation between negative sentiment towards the Biden administration and the heightened focus on illegal immigration as a key electoral issue. People discuss national security, economic strain, and cultural preservation.

Independent and undecided voters often find themselves swayed by these negative portrayals of current U.S. immigration policies, especially when framed around fears of safety and economic hardship. This demographic is critical, as their views on immigration could significantly influence their voting behavior in the upcoming elections.

Discussions often highlight an apocalyptic tone, suggesting a societal collapse due to unchecked immigration. This not only furthers negative sentiment but also activates a call to political action among right-leaning voters. This can potentially galvanize voter turnout in support of politicians who promise stringent immigration reforms.

Causes of Concern

Conversations tend to oscillate between reports of specific incidents involving illegal immigrants and broader claims about systemic problems due to illegal immigration. Sentiment in these discussions is predominantly negative, characterized by fear, anger, and a demand for action. The top issues Americans talk about include:

• Violent crimes involving illegal immigrants
• Economic concerns and resources used on illegal immigrants
• Public safety and health concerns
• Drug and human trafficking and child endangerment

Potential Election Impact

For independent and undecided voters, conversations using Europe as a sketch of America’s future can influence voting decisions. The portrayal of illegal immigration as a source of crime and economic strain can sway Americans toward candidates and policies favoring stronger immigration controls.

The narrative of government mismanagement and failure to protect citizens also continues to erode trust in current administration policies, pushing undecided voters towards change-oriented platforms.

During last week's NATO Summit in Washington D.C., President Joe Biden publicly said, “Ukraine will prevail against Russia.” This comment led to discussions about Biden's involvement in international conflicts and perceptions of poor foreign policy. The comment also seemed to cause repercussions on his already-dropping approval rating.

Sentiment about the Ukraine-Russia war trends towards cynicism and frustration for many Americans. This is particularly acute regarding U.S. aid and strategic outcomes. The contrast between Biden's involvement in Ukraine's defense and his support for Israel's actions against Hamas also stirs emotional and volatile discourse among U.S. voters.

Online conversations about the Ukraine-Russia war continue to generate interest among certain political groups. However, the volume of discussions on the Ukraine-Russia conflict is regularly overshadowed by ongoing concerns about Israel's war with Hamas.

• Consistent but low discussion volume about Ukraine-Russia compared to Israel-Hamas suggests American investment in Ukraine is lower priority.
• Although Ukraine sentiment is higher than sentiment for Russia or Israel, it’s likely more pressing issues will continue to push Ukraine to the back burner.

Ukraine's Battle for the Spotlight

American conversations about the Ukraine-Russia war often touch on global politics, military strategies, humanitarian crises, and economic impacts. There is talk about the effectiveness and moral obligations of international aid, especially from the U.S. and its NATO allies. While these topics generate engagement, the issue of Biden’s stance toward Palestine appears more pressing—especially within the Democratic voter base.

Undecided voter and independent sentiment about the likelihood of Ukraine winning the war is mixed. Many express skepticism about Ukraine’s future, suggesting a consternation over the ongoing scale of destruction and human suffering.

President Biden's assertion that Ukraine will emerge victorious is not universally accepted. Some say his stance is overly optimistic, considering the complex and entrenched nature of the conflict. Many also point out their view that Biden’s leadership does not help Ukraine put on a strong front against Russia. Biden’s efforts to maintain a coalition supporting Ukraine grows dubious amid questions about his reelection bid and Israel’s concurrent conflict.

Conversations around Ukraine often emphasize resilience and determination, albeit tempered with realistic concerns about the prolonged nature of the conflict. Americans point out the toll on Ukrainian civilians and America’s own financial investments.

Israel's War Stirs American Emotions

In contrast, the discourse on Israel's war against Hamas is more intensely charged with high emotions and moral declarations. The narrative is heavily punctuated by graphic descriptions of violence, civilian casualties, and allegations of war crimes on both sides. This conflict intertwines historical grievances with current geopolitical maneuvers, eliciting strong responses from global commentators and ordinary citizens alike.

Public sentiment about Israel versus Hamas is deeply polarized. There is unwavering support for Israel's right to defend itself among some voters. However, another segment of Americans decries the humanitarian impact on Palestinian civilians or U.S. involvement with Israel. The emotive language used in these conversations often intensifies the division, with instances of misinformation and propaganda adding to the complexity.

MIG Reports data shows American reactions to Israel-Lebanon tensions and military operations in southern Lebanon. Israel supporters see these developments as self-defense against threats from groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. They emphasize Israel's need for security since 1948.

Critics view these actions as aggression, citing civilian casualties and using terms like "genocide" and "war crimes." The debate also touches on U.S. support for Israel and media bias. There are significant divisions based on recent events and ideological perspectives. Public sentiment fluctuates, shaped by historical context, international politics, and media narratives.

What Voters Are Saying

Online conversations are highly polarized, frequently oscillating between defense of Israel's actions as necessary measures for national security and severe condemnation of those actions as aggressive and expansionist.

Many progressives and anti-Israel nationalists focus on the humanitarian impact of military operations, using terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing." Those who support Israel and its actions often emphasize the necessity of these measures to counteract terrorist threats from groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Humanitarian Impact

Critics discuss the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the displacement of people, and casualties. They illustrate their points with graphic descriptions or images of the conditions on the ground. Emotional appeals and personal stories are shared to highlight the humanitarian crisis.

Self-Defense vs. Aggression

Debates frequently revolve around whether Israel's actions constitute legitimate self-defense or unprovoked aggression. Supporters argue the necessity of military operations to dismantle terrorist networks and protect Israeli citizens. Opponents view these actions as excessive and part of a broader strategy of territorial expansion.

International Law and War Crimes

References to international law and alleged war crimes are common among critics. This group calls for accountability through international bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). Assertions of "genocide" and demands for war crime investigations are routine in anti-Israel commentary.

Media Representation

Both sides criticize media bias. Pro-Israel advocates argue mainstream media sanitizes and underreports the terrorism Israelis face. Pro-Palestine critics argue media outlets whitewash Israeli military actions and downplay their severity. Accusations of journalistic malpractice are widespread, reflecting the greater distrust toward establishment media.

Geopolitical Implications

Discussions often include the broader geopolitical ramifications, such as the involvement of other countries (e.g., Iran’s support for Hezbollah), and predict significant regional instability. Discussions about future escalations invariably include anxieties about larger regional conflicts involving countries like Iran, Syria, and the broader Middle East.

Political Leaders

Critics of their respective governments express dissatisfaction with the stance of political leaders, including U.S. leadership, accusing them of either inadequate response or hypocritical policies. Accusations against leaders like President Biden include claims that he has handled the situation poorly, compromising American security.

Factors Influencing Support

Support for or against Israeli military operations is heavily influenced by perceived motivations and outcomes. When actions are framed as defensive, aimed at neutralizing immediate terrorist threats, support tends to be higher.

Framing these actions as part of aggressive territorial expansion or indiscriminate retaliation against civilian areas significantly lowers public support. The portrayal of violence and humanitarian crises also plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion, with graphic coverage often leading to increased opposition.

Recent reports that a significant majority of Ukrainians prefer President Joe Biden over former President Donald Trump has sparked diverse reactions among Americans. There is currently a contentious and polarized view of Ukraine in the United States, exacerbating disagreements.

American sentiment toward the Biden administration's foreign policies, particularly regarding financial aid to Ukraine, are generally negative.

What Americans Are Saying

There is growing frustration and opposition among Americans to the U.S. continuing financial support for Ukraine. Many express concerns over taxpayer money being diverted to foreign conflicts while domestic issues within the United States, such as inflation, border security, and crime rates, remain inadequately addressed.

Those who oppose Ukraine aid argue continuing to fund the Russia-Ukraine war contributes to rising inflation and the national debt at home. In turn, this causes greater economic hardships for American citizens.

Critics of Ukraine aid view weakness in Biden's foreign policy and leadership, comparing him to Trump's tougher stance against international adversaries. They say the Obama and Biden administrations both failed to prevent Russia's initial incursions. They view Biden's current policies as ineffective or even encouraging Russian aggression.

There are voices—though they seem less prominent—defending the Biden administration's approach to Ukraine. Supporters emphasize the importance of assisting an ally in its struggle against authoritarian aggression. The view Ukraine aid as a necessary stand for democratic values and global security. They also argue bolstering Ukraine's defense capabilities deters further territorial ambitions by Russia and serves long-term American and allied interests.

Resentment Toward Continued Aid

Partisan viewpoints directly impact discussions on whether to continue or cease funding Ukraine's war effort. The decreasing support for financial aid to Ukraine is particularly strong among conservative and right-leaning constituencies. They advocate for reallocating funds to address pressing domestic issues.

This decreasing support for Ukraine aid also makes critics less likely to acknowledge Ukrainian views of the U.S. presidency. Many Republicans argue that Ukrainians are obviously incentivized to support Biden whose deluge of funding is contingent on his reelection.

Further, Ukraine critics are increasingly suspicious of corruption among those involved in sending a receiving aid. Allegations of money laundering and ulterior motives abound, with some pointing to the Biden family's alleged ties to Ukrainian businesses as evidence of potential conflicts of interest. This amplifies distrust and fosters calls for greater transparency and accountability in U.S. foreign aid payments.

Concerns about fraud, waste, and abuse have been a consistent topic since the beginning of the Ukraine-Russia war. Olena Zelenska, Ukraine’s First Lady, was accused in viral online reporting of purchasing a Bugatti supercar for 4.5 million euros—which is equal to $4,878,000. Immediate fact-checking articles from mainstream media outlets countered these allegations, likely deepening the positions of Americans who oppose Ukraine funding.

The landscape of American public opinion on this matter is complex and shaded with skepticism about foreign interventions. Ukrainians preferring Biden over Trump serves as a catalyst for a broader debate that encompasses economic concerns, national priorities, and profound mistrust toward Joe Biden.