Emerging pro-Palestinian protests at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago this week indicate complicated political dissent within the Party. These protests primarily target and criticize the Biden-Harris administration’s support for Israel.

Organized by various activist groups, including socialists and Antifa, these protests seek to draw attention to what the protesters describe as U.S. complicity in the "genocide" in Gaza.

Unfolding events at the DNC reveal intense emotions, strategic disruption, and a focus on pushing for systemic change in U.S. foreign policy. A glaring lack of protester criticism aimed at U.S. foreign policy in any other foreign conflict complicates the matter.

Protester silence is deafening on conflicts including but not limited to:

• Russia-Ukraine War
• Syrian Civil War
• Yemeni Civil War
• Insurgencies in Somalia and Iraq

Those who criticize pro-Palestine protesters suggest this lack of outrage over all human rights issues reveals the targeted nature of Palestine protests, specifically against the U.S. and Israel. This, critics say, reveals the anti-American and antisemitic nature of far-left progressive activism in the Democratic party supersedes its stated advocacy for humanitarianism.

Internal Conflict Among Democrats

Protests kicking off at the DNC center around criticizing Democratic leaders, with a particular focus on President Biden and Vice President Harris. Demonstrators are vocal in their accusations, claiming the U.S. government is funding Israeli actions against Palestinians.

Chants and shouts often include the phrase "Free Palestine,” underscoring the movement's stated objective. However, public discourse reveals a deeper complexity, as some question why the protests focus predominantly on the Democratic Party.

Critics argue Republicans, who have historically supported Israel, should also be targets of these protests. Discussions touch on the broader implications of these protests, with some voices expressing concern that the focus on Palestinian issues might come at the expense of other marginalized communities, such as black Americans.

Misaligned Priorities

Pro-Palestine protesters express urgency, anger, and frustration at Democratic leaders. They view the protests as a necessary and immediate response to what they perceive as grave injustices against Palestinians. They demand accountability from Democratic leaders like Biden and Harris.

However, there is also criticism of the protests, with some Democrats labeling the actions as misguided or overly focused on a single issue. This group is concerned about neglecting other important social justice causes.

Some criticize the protesters’ lack of concern for other wars, despite their stated grievance being human rights. The emotionally charged language used by both supporters and critics—featuring terms like "genocide," "shut down," and "Free Palestine"—reflects the divisions among Democrats.

Hidden in the Discourse: Intersectionality

Discourse around pro-Palestinian protests at the DNC reveals a growing awareness of intersectionality among younger voters and members of diverse ethnic backgrounds. These participants express a desire to align the Palestinian cause with broader social justice movements. They emphasize the importance of connecting the struggles of various marginalized groups.

This intersectional approach claims to build a more unified and inclusive activist front, where advocating for Palestinian rights does not overshadow but rather complements the efforts to address other systemic injustices. These injustices often include racial inequality and economic disparity. The emphasis on intersectionality highlights a shift in political activism, where the focus is not solely on a single issue but on a broader coalition that addresses multiple layers of oppression simultaneously.

Kamala Harris faces a complex fracture within the Democratic Party between more traditional, pro-Israel Democrats and progressive, pro-Palestine activists. These tensions in her voter base are generating conversations about whether antisemitism is an ingrained part of progressivism.

Two recent situations have inflamed these discussions. One is speculation that Harris passed over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as her VP pick because he is Jewish. The other contentious incident is Harris’s response to rally attendees who interrupted her campaign speech with pro-Palestine rhetoric.

These events, combined with ongoing intra-party disagreements about the Isarel-Hamas conflict, cause many to ask if the Democratic Party has a problem with antisemitism. Liberal political analyst Van Jones surprised people by saying on CNN that antisemitism has become “marbled into” the Party.

Van Jones admits that Kamala picking Walz was her "caving in to some of these darker parts in the party" in terms of appeasing "anti-Jewish bigots" that have "gotten marbled into this party." pic.twitter.com/UTspmYkFfF

— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) August 6, 2024

Kamala Shushes Hamas Protesters

Conflict exacerbated the controversy when pro-Palestine demonstrators interrupted Kamala Harris during a campaign speech, decrying her stance on Israel. Her response—which some viewed as her true colors—caused a flurry of reactions.

Harris said, “You know what, if you want Donald Trump to win then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking,” then continuing to glare at protestors for nearly 30 seconds. Some pro-Israel Democrats applaud her for maintaining composure and control. Progressives criticize her for treating the protesters dismissively.

🚨 Kamala Harris SNAPS on Pro-Palestine protesters accusing her of supporting Genocide in Gaza: “You know what, if you want Donald Trump to win then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking”

pic.twitter.com/bFcSKbbzDL

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 8, 2024

Sentiment trends among Democrats show a mix of disappointment, anger, and criticism. Anti-Israel activists feel Harris is not doing enough to resolve the crisis in Gaza and is too closely aligned with Israel. This group accuses her being complicit in war crimes or supportive of genocide against Palestinians.

Harris’s recent statements about the need for a ceasefire draw accusations of hypocrisy while she continues to support Israel’s right to self-defense. Progressives view her as aligned with Israeli interests. They cite her unwillingness to impose an arms embargo and her dismissal of pro-Palestinian activists.

However, Harris also faces accusations from pro-Israel voters of being aligned with anti-Israel extremists in her base. They claim she is compliant with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which is moving further left. This group tends to allege Harris bypassed Josh Shapiro as her running mate due to his pro-Israel stance. They say antisemites on the far left would have created too much havoc and she caved to their threats.

Pro-Israel Democrats are not convinced that Harris’s response to protesters was due to disagreement. They point out that she did not reprimand them by saying they are wrong, but rather, if they say it, Trump will win. Some infer Harris has deeper sympathies with far-left progressives but is attempting to tamp down their rhetoric because she needs moderate votes.

Does Antisemitism Define Modern Democrats?

Many overserves on both sides of the political aisle express suspicions that Harris chose Tim Walz over Josh Shapiro to avoid conflict within her Party. There are frequent speculations that progressive backlash overs Shapiro’s Jewish background would have negated any political advantage he offered.

The decision to sideline Shapiro, critics claim, highlights the growing influence of anti-Israel sentiments on Party leaders. Many even suggest the issue is deeper than political or humanitarian opposition to Israel. They suggest the growing strain of anti-Israel rhetoric is driven by a more sinister ideological and religious bigotry—antisemitism.

They also express distrust in Harris's judgment, suggesting her choice of Walz confirms a preference for far-left socialism over moderation. This is particularly alarming to those wary of the Democratic Socialists of America gaining influence. Moderate Democrats cite fears Harris and Walz would enact extreme progressive policies. They fear continued open borders, defunding the police, and Green New Deal-like economic upheavals.

Many view the ideological struggle over Israel versus Palestine as a microcosm of a larger battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. There are feelings that a clash between pragmatic governance and aspirational, ideal-driven policies divide the Party.

This intra-party divide suggests that Harris's candidacy, despite base support, faces intense scrutiny. The balancing act she must perform between retaining progressive support and appealing to a broader electorate is crucial as the election approaches. The sensitive issues of Israel and Palestine will likely be a significant factor in attracting or losing votes.

Sentiment about the Biden-Harris administration's approach to national security and international relations, particularly in the Middle East, is intense and divisive. Online conversations show high anxiety and dissatisfaction among many Americans who fear escalating conflict between Israel and its adversaries. Americans express various critical perspectives and, in rare cases, acknowledge the administration's efforts.

Increasing Wars Increases Chaos

Americans accuse President Biden and Vice President Harris of inadvertently facilitating aggression from Iran and its proxies. Lifting sanctions and releasing funds to Iran, many say, fuels Iran’s military expansions and aggressive postures towards Israel. In addition, Americans are increasingly negative about spending taxpayer dollars on foreign support.

Critics say the Biden administration's approach shows weakness, compromising Israel's, and potentially America’s, security. Sentiments range from claims of betrayal to accusations of outright support for Israel's enemies.

Failure After Failure

A significant theme in voter discussions is Biden’s failure to prevent known threats. Critics note Biden and Harris knew about potential aggressions from Russia, and now Iran, but did not take preemptive actions.

Some express frustration over what they describe as a mismatched focus on domestic and international issues. They say leaders provide substantial military and economic resources foreign nations like Ukraine and Israel, while ignoring Americans. They believe domestic issues like the border and the economy are left unaddressed, worsening every day.

Supporters continue to praise the Biden-Harris administration, though these sentiments are less frequent. One point of recent praise was the successful negotiation for releasing American prisoners from Russia.

Turmoil in American Discourse

From May 31 to July 6, there are minimal changes in the volume and sentiment of voter conversations about international conflict. However, there are significant swings after July 7.

Security Issues

• Discussions of Security Issues dramatically increased by 158%, moving from an average of around 9,300 to a peak of 24,960.

• Sentiment also varied more widely after July 7, fluctuating by 15%.

Israel

• Discussions of Israel increased by 207%, from an average of around 5,400 to peaks of 16,329.

• Sentiment fluctuated by about 20%, indicating more pronounced shifts in public mood.

Iran

• Discussions of Iran increased by 307%, rising from an average of around 350 to peaks of 4,547.

• Sentiment for Iran also moved dramatically, changing by about 22%.

These recent fluctuations suggest increased public engagement and shifting moods, likely due to concerning news and developments during this period.

Sentiment Trends

Voters are predominantly critical towards Israel and Middle Eastern tensions, blaming Biden and Harris for the current situation. People compare Biden’s foreign policy with Trump’s, viewing Trump as a stronger leader. There is a nostalgic mood on foreign policy and people use words like, "strength," "leadership," and "peace.”

Conversations also reflect broader concerns about escalating global conflicts and economic instability. Many fear a global recession, market crashes, and nuclear threats. This suggests American apprehension extends beyond immediate security issues to the potential global ramifications of poor U.S. leadership on the world stage.

A sense of impending doom in the Middle East and threats of escalating conflicts strike Americans with anxiety and dread. The potential for World War III and tensions between Israel, Iran, Hamas, and the U.S. roils concerns about global stability and geopolitical dynamics. Conversations are not just about distant wars but expose American dread about security at home, America’s power on the world stage, and leadership in the White House.

Geopolitical Concerns

One of the dominant trends in these discussions is fear of all-out war in the Middle East, involving multiple countries. Israel's military actions and the responses from Iran and its allies are taking center stage.

Recent assassinations of key figures such as Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr has intensified these debates, with many users expressing concern over the potential for a broader regional war

U.S. Involvement

The role of the United States is a focal point of these conversations, with many questioning America's involvement and support for Israel. There is significant debate over whether Biden's policies are exacerbating tensions.

The discourse often shifts to criticism of U.S. foreign policy. People criticize inadequacies of diplomatic efforts and the potential consequences of military involvement in the Middle East. Both sides of the political aisle express dissatisfaction with current events.

Fear of Global Conflict

The fear of a potential World War III looms large in American minds. People frequently refer to WW3, Iranian retaliation, and global security, showing anxiety about larger-scale conflict.

Concerns are focused on Iran's potential retaliatory strikes against Israel and the involvement of other regional powers like Hezbollah. The narrative suggests current conflict dynamics are a "runaway train," indicating a loss of control that could have devastating global repercussions.

Sentiment Trends

There are strong emotions driving public discourse on international conflict. Progressives condemn Israeli military tactics, with terms like "genocidal" and "war crimes," reflecting outrage over the situation in Gaza. Pro-Israel voice advocate self-defense against existential threats by Hamas and Hezbollah.

This polarization is accompanied by widespread fear over the increasing possibility of war and the perceived inadequacy of international responses.

Many Americans also criticize the Biden-Harris administration, disapproving of how they are handling the crisis. People view the administration as demonstrating a lack of strength and effectiveness in dealing with adversaries like Iran and its proxies. People question who is really in charge of the country, if anyone.

Despite the polarization, there is a shared hope of avoiding conflict. Voters are frustrated with ongoing violence and the financial costs to America, calling to de-escalate tensions. The sentiment trends indicate a mixture of dread, urgency, and a desire for effective solutions to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape.

Impact on Voters

The ongoing conflict and perceived mishandling by the current administration have eroded public confidence in U.S. leadership. This will likely impact voter sentiment, particularly among those who prioritize national security and foreign policy in their electoral decisions. The criticism directed at the Biden-Harris administration also leads to calls for a change in leadership or policy direction.

Fears of escalating conflicts and the potential for World War III will likely influence voter priorities. Especially if things remain heightened or even worsen in the next few months. A possible shift toward Trump may come with emphasis on strong defense measures and effective international relations. Foreign conflicts are shaping the debate on U.S. foreign policy, as public sentiment is increasingly critical of perceived alliances and interventions that may not align with national interests.

With several outlets publishing opinion polls on the presidential matchup of Donald Trump vs Kamala Harris, MIG Reports data shows American are skeptical. This skepticism is especially sharp toward traditional, or establishment, news and media outlets.

While perceptions of political polling's reliability vary greatly, a substantial portion of the public appears to distrust these polls. This skepticism stems from previous experiences where polls have failed to predict actual election outcomes accurately.

Currently, Kamala’s support base, while diverse, shows nuanced characteristics revealing both genuine admiration and reactive support spurred by political attacks. The overarching sentiment among Harris supporters online is a rallying around her in opposition to Trump. This "us versus them" mentality often fuels an online reactionary defense, rather than positive support or a nuanced understanding of policy issues.

Analysis of real-time conversations about Harris’s position on important voter issues betrays an underlying negativity that does not seem consistent with polling.

Border Security

Voter view of Vice President Kamala Harris and her failure at the U.S. border are negative, focusing on harsh criticisms for her policies. The primary sentiment is driven by frustration over her failure to manage immigration issues. People accuse her of being a key figure in allowing an extreme border crisis.

Discussion Highlights

• Increased Illegal Immigration: Critics cite Harris's role in allowing unchecked illegal immigration, alleging 10 million or more illegal entries. They lament the strain on social services and infrastructure.
• Border Wall and Security: There is significant discourse about Harris halting border wall construction and reversing previous policies, with anger over ending agreements like "Remain in Mexico.”
• Impact on Safety and Crime: Many believe increased illegal immigration has led to a rise in crime, including drug trafficking and violence, posing threats to community safety and national security.
• Economic Concerns: Critics accuse Harris policies of causing higher living costs, burdening taxpayers who feel they are supporting illegal immigrants through social services.
• Policy Stance: People view Harris as supporting radical policies, such as abolishing ICE and offering free healthcare to undocumented immigrants, which are massively unpopular.

While support for Harris on border issues is limited, her supporters claim her efforts have been limited to addressing migration's root causes and advocating for comprehensive immigration reform. They view her approach as balancing security with compassion and aligning with American humanitarian values.

Sentiment Trends

• Lack of Leadership: Many express dissatisfaction with Biden-Harris inaction, noting infrequent visits to the border and lack of communication with Border Patrol leaders.
• Legislative Failures: Critics claim her policies have not led to substantive border security reforms and have resulted in bureaucratic inefficiencies and legislative gridlock.

Border Czar Failures

Harris's role as "Border Czar" also garners widespread criticism, along with broader views of border security. Voters express dissatisfaction, accusing her of failing in her leadership position, allowing record illegal crossings and compromising national security. Critics directly link her oversight to increased crime, drug trafficking, and threats to public safety.

This negativity suggests a lack of confidence in her ability to solve critical problems or speak meaningfully to Americans about things they view as important. With border security consistently among the top three critical issues to voters, and Harris’s Border Czar role providing direct oversight, border security serves as a gauge of Kamala’s administrative competence—or lack thereof.

Discussion Highlights

• Negative Sentiment: People view Harris as exacerbating the border situation. They say she has allowed millions of illegal immigrants into the country, citing statistics to support claims of increased crossings and security risks.
• Policy Criticisms: Discussions use phrases like "decriminalized crossing," "funding for ICE," and "border patrol agents," and indicate disapproval for her lack of action.
• Lack of Positive Outcomes: Voters point out a lack of concrete, positive outcomes from Kamala's leadership. Critics often question her qualifications and effectiveness in managing important issues.

International Unrest

A huge focus also places heavy negativity on international security dynamics. Voters on both sides disapprove of Harris’s stance on Israel and Palestine, and her broader foreign policy. The most frequently discussed issues involve her support for Israel, approaches to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, and her strategies for managing threats posed by Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Discussion Highlights

• Us vs. Them: Supporters rally around Harris as the savior from a potential second Trump term, touting her resilience and ability to tackle complex policy issues.
• Support for Israel: Harris’s strong Israel support gains approval, especially with those who see Israel as a critical ally. However, pro-Palestine Democrats express dissatisfaction.
• Bipartisan Unhappiness: Harris's advocacy for increased humanitarian aid to Gaza does not go far enough for pro-Palestine voters, while her support for Israel does not go far enough for pro-Israel voters.
• Diplomatic Strategy: Harris’s theoretical focus on diplomatic solutions over military interventions, particularly regarding Iran, may appeal to a war-weary electorate. However, lack of action or public statements also concerns voters.
• Reactive Support: Much of Harris’s support is reactionary, defending her against Republican criticisms and highlighting her management of issues like the Ukraine conflict and border security.

Sentiment Trends

Support for Harris is strong among those who appreciate her foreign policy positions. However, it is also possible that Democrats and anti-Trump voters project their own foreign desires on a candidate who has outlined very few concrete stances. Harris’s base is energized more by opposition attacks than by affirmative policy positions.

The rapidly increasing potential war between Iran and Israel amid recent assassinations is causing highly charged conversation. Americans are deeply polarized but concern seems to be the dominant point of agreement.

Online voter dialogue reveals strong opinions about recent military actions by Israel, especially the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Iran, and the killing of other senior Hezbollah leaders.

A key determination of the tone of conversation is the lens through which Americans view the situation. This ideological viewpoint disparity has been dividing observers since the initial Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023.

War Focus: Israel Sets the Tone

Public sentiment appears to be divided into distinct camps. There is a significant pro-Israel group who justify Israel's actions as necessary for self-defense and the elimination of terrorist threats. This group emphasizes Israel's right to protect its citizens and the strategic importance of removing high-level adversaries like Haniyeh and threats posed by Hamas and Hezbollah. They often cite the brutality of Hamas' attacks on Israeli civilians as justification for military action.

On the other hand, there is considerable opposition to Israel's military actions, with many seeing the assassinations as provocative and unnecessary escalation. This perspective views Israeli actions as undermining peace efforts and provoking further violence. Critics argue Israel is pushing for broader regional conflict, destabilizing the Middle East further. They often say Israel wants to cause unnecessary civilian suffering. Many in the group regularly call for a ceasefire.

Discussion Trends

The two sides discuss the effectiveness and morality of Israel's military actions, the implications for regional security, the potential response from Iran, the role of international diplomacy, and the influence of U.S. politics on the conflict. There are heated debates on whether the assassinations are justified and whether they will lead to further violence.

There is high engagement and emotional responses to the unfolding events, reflecting a collective uncertainty about the future. Feelings vary sharply based on ideological viewpoints, with conservatives generally supporting the military actions and liberals often opposing them.

Electoral Impact

Conversations suggest moderate voters will likely vote according to their stance on Israel and the potential for war. Those who support a strong, pro-Israel stance and view decisive military action as effective in ensuring security tend to express a preference for Trump. They associate Trump with a strong security posture, citing past examples where no significant conflicts erupted under his watch.

Voters who support Palestine and emphasize a ceasefire or Israel backing down tend to prefer Kamala Harris. However, Harris receives significant criticism for extreme progressives for her perceived insufficient condemnation of Israel. She also gets criticism from the right on her association with groups sympathetic to Palestine.

Israel Focus: Security, or Escalation?

The situation between Israel and Iran is tense and Americans fear direct military confrontation. Iran's Supreme Leader, Khamenei, has reportedly ordered a strike on Israel in retaliation for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

This development highlights the geopolitical volatility of the Middle East, where Israel's actions are viewed both as necessary for self-defense and as potentially provocative. The assassination has sparked debates about the ethics and implications of Israel's advanced cyber warfare tactics.

Electoral Impact

Independent and undecided voters are closely watching these developments, often aligning with broader political affiliations. Those favoring former President Trump argue his policies prevented such escalations, associating his approach with maintaining peace.

Progressive undecideds support Joe Biden and Kamala Harris over Trump. However, Harris faces criticism for perceived leniency on Iran, which some believe emboldens aggression against Israel. Voters who sympathize with the Palestinians advocate for Harris to distance the U.S. from allyship with Israel.

Iran Focus: Diplomacy, or War?

The assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran sparks volatile emotions. This worsens concerns of rising tensions between Israel, Iran, and their allies. The assassination, attributed to an Israeli strike, has provoked both celebration and condemnation on different sides. Many fear this incident could lead to a wider regional conflict, potentially involving America and escalating into a full-scale war.

Electoral Impact

Independent and undecided voters are swayed by these developments. Supporters of strong military actions against groups like Hamas might lean towards Trump, viewing him as a guarantee of assertive foreign policy.

Those who oppose Israel are drawn to Kamala Harris, provided they see her as capable of managing international crises effectively. Sentiments fluctuate between fear of large-scale war and hope for decisive action against perceived threats, influencing political affiliations and voter inclinations.

American views on the recent assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders remain in line with ongoing disagreements about Israel versus Hamas and U.S. involvement. There is strong support for Israel among many, but also increasing concern over escalating violence. Many voters also criticize U.S. foreign policy.

The geopolitical ramifications of these escalations increasingly worry Americans, particularly regarding Iran's influence. Many discussions note Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah challenges U.S. interests and positions in the Middle East. Assassinations, like that of Ismail Haniyeh in Iran, underline the complexities of U.S.-Iran relations. Some say actions against Iranian proxies walk the line between confronting hostility and preventing escalation.

Support for Israel

Those who take Israel’s side say the assassinations are justified acts during war. They argue eliminating high-profile targets like Ismail Haniyeh and Fuad Shukr is necessary after innumerable acts of terrorism and violence. Americans especially include the death of American Marines in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.

Israel defenders emphasize the necessity of Israel's actions in maintaining security a safety. They view the killings as commendable steps toward fighting terrorist networks and preventing future atrocities.

Many view eliminating terrorist leaders as a strategic imperative to protect Israel and its allies from ideologies that seek to destroy both. Supporters laud the precision and intelligence capabilities of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), insisting deterrence against Hezbollah and Hamas is critical.

Terrorist Sympathizers

Progressive, pro-Hamas Americans are alarmed by the aggressive nature of these assassinations. They express fear that such actions will provoke a wider regional conflict that could engulf the U.S. and its allies.

Critics argue Israel’s strikes, especially those carried out in sovereign countries such as Iran and Lebanon, undermine international law and could lead to unmanageable consequences. These concerns are accentuated by Iran’s vow of retaliation, which many believe could spark a larger and more devastating war in the Middle East.

Some apparent terrorist sympathizers mourn leaders like Haniyeh, claiming they only want to resist occupation. The discourse thus encapsulates a significant divide in American views on Middle Eastern geopolitics—which only seems to grow more contentious every day.

U.S. Involvement

Critics also highlight the perceived complicity of the U.S. in these actions, either through direct support or tacit approval. They argue long-standing financial and military aid from the U.S. to Israel emboldens its aggressive policies, leading to further destabilization.

Some compare these tactics to broader patterns of American foreign policy that prioritize military intervention over diplomatic solutions. This, they say, leads to prolonged conflicts and unnecessary casualties.

Voters discuss the implications for U.S. domestic and foreign policy. A growing number of Americans on both the right and left feel frustration over the financial costs associated with supporting Israel. They question using taxpayer dollars to a foreign nation’s military actions.

There are also some concerned about the diplomatic fallout, noting these assassinations might derail hopes for renewed peace negotiations or diplomatic engagements with countries like Iran and Turkey. These fears add to already looming concerns after the suspicious death of Iran’s president earlier this year.

Proponents of U.S. support for Israel emphasize a shared commitment to combating terrorism and defending democratic values. They argue American backing is crucial for maintaining regional stability and sending a strong message against terrorism.

In general, a common sentiment is that Israel is doing the world a favor by eliminating terrorists who pose a global threat. However, there is a concerning sense of impending escalation, with many Americans predicting Hezbollah and Iran will seek severe retribution.

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.

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.