MIG Reports analysis has identified the recent pro-Palestine protests at Columbia University as part of a growing fracture within the political left’s culture. It also seems to be an ideologically isolating movement, sectioning off its adherents from ostensible allies on other issues.

Reports of anti-Israel protests at Columbia University have sparked significant controversy. Some Americans are outraged by these protests, labeling them as antisemitic and praising the White House for publicly condemning them.

• The arrest of Rep. Ilhan Omar's daughter at one of these protests has further fueled these sentiments.
• As a result of her daughter’s involvement, Omar saw a significant decrease in her public approval.

However, supporters argue the protesters are exercising their right to free speech, drawing parallels with other controversial issues, such as marijuana legalization and police brutality. Some question the actions of Columbia University's administration in response to the protests and argue the arrests of student protesters are excessive.

Many Americans express concerns about the safety of Jewish students amid these protests, with some comparing the situation to historical instances of antisemitism. However, others argue these concerns are overblown and the protests represent a legitimate critique of Israeli government policies, rather than an attack on Jewish people as a group.

In terms of political implications, these protests appear to reflect broader divisions in American society, and more specifically the Democratic Party. Supporters of the protests often align with progressive political movements, while critics of the protests often align with conservative ones.

Culturally, these protests have reignited debates about free speech and the limits of acceptable political discourse. They have also brought renewed attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, prompting Americans to grapple with complex questions of identity, history, and international relations.

How Americans are Reacting to Ongoing Protests

Factors that increase sentiment towards these protests include a sense of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, perceived injustices faced by Palestinians, and the desire for freedom of speech and expression on college campuses. In contrast, elements that decrease sentiment include reactions to antisemitism, violence or intimidation, and the disruption of academic activities.

The top discussions around the protests include debates about freedom of speech versus hate speech, the role of universities in policing student protests, the impact of these protests on Jewish students and the larger Jewish community. People also discuss the political implications, particularly in relation to U.S. foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine.

If current trends continue, protests will continue to increase, along with heightened tensions and potential conflicts in public locations. This could lead to a greater polarization of opinions, with the potential for these protests to become a significant political issue that may hurt Biden’s approval. Increased media attention could further fuel contentions as well, perpetuating friction.

In terms of policy implications, universities may need to develop clear guidelines for student protests. The public and alumni may demand institutions protect freedom of speech while ensuring the safety and well-being of all students. Policymakers and Democrat politicians may also be pressured to address this anti-Israel voter group as the election draws near.

Israel

Public commentary about a foreign aid bill to Israel reveals largely political divisions, with an array of sentiments across different voter groups and demographics.

Republicans

A strong sentiment of support for Israel is evident. Many Republicans express concern about Iran's attacks on Israel and emphasize the need for the U.S. to back Israel. They also highlight the role of the U.S. in ensuring Israel's security and the need for Congress to act in support of Israel.

Democrats

There’s a mixed bag of opinions among Democrats. Some express concern about the U.S. getting involved in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, suggesting it's not in our best interest to get dragged into a potential war. However, other Democrats acknowledge the need for some form of aid to Israel but suggest the U.S. should impose strict political conditions on any such aid. They also express concern about the potential for the situation to escalate into a broader conflict in the Middle East.

Independents

Divided overall, Independents express support for Israel and condemn Iran's actions but also question why the U.S. should be involved in the conflict. There's also an undercurrent of frustration about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, with some Independents suggesting America should stay out of the conflict altogether.

There is also a narrative that connects the situation in Israel with the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, suggesting aid for both countries should be considered simultaneously. Some people express frustration that Ukraine is not receiving the same level of support as Israel.

Among various demographics, there is a correlation between religious beliefs and the level of support for Israel. Some use religious texts to justify supporting Israel, suggesting a strong connection between religious beliefs and political opinions on this issue.

Ukraine

Republicans

The Republicans and conservatives are quite divided. Some still voice strong support for providing aid. However, there are large swaths of right leaning voters who vehemently oppose sending more American tax dollars to Ukraine. Many in this group use strong language to emphasize what they view as a misuse of American funds. They do not want to spend money abroad while domestic issues are being neglected – particularly the crisis at the southern border. They also accuse RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) of betraying their party by supporting more foreign aid.

Democrats

A significant portion of Democrats remain strong advocates for providing taxpayer-funded aid to Ukraine. Many express their support or say they’ve signed petitions to get military aid to Ukraine. They criticize hold-ups in Congress and believe that helping Ukraine is essential for democracy.

Independents

Independent views seem to be scattered. Some express concern about escalating tensions and potential war, suggesting the U.S. should refrain from fueling the conflict by sending aid. Others seem frustrated about the U.S. providing aid abroad when there are urgent domestic issues.

Across all groups, there is a growing disapproval for sending tax dollars abroad while economic and border security issues worsen at home. There is also a perceived correlation between aid to Ukraine and Israel, with many seeing these as linked issues. Disparate political opinions about Ukraine and Israel seem to confuse the issue of foreign aid overall.

Some advocate for separate aid packages, depending on which conflict they have more sympathy for. Certain critics question the decision to allocate more aid to Ukraine than to Israel. They express skepticism about Ukraine's governance, citing President Zelensky's background as a comedian and actor and questioning his alleged ties to the CIA.

Taiwan and China

Again, analysis of a proposed foreign aid bill to Taiwan reveals a broad range of viewpoints, falling mostly along political lines. However, these viewpoints largely focus on the geopolitical implications of the proposed foreign aid, with many users discussing the broader context of international alliances and conflicts.

Republicans

Many Republicans seem to favor the aid bill as a means of supporting democratic allies like Taiwan. They express concern about the perceived threats from countries like Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea, with some calling for stronger measures to counter these countries. There is also some criticism of Trump's foreign policy, with some Republicans accusing him of aligning with Putin, which they believe goes against the party's principles.

Democrats

Among Democrats, there is a noticeable lack of online discussion, which may be more indicative of the lack of mainstream media coverage. In 2022, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan was met with enthusiasm and approval from most Democratic voters. It is plausible Democrats may initially support a Taiwan aid bill, but ultimately withdraw support as geopolitical tensions rise (such as future tariffs on Chinese steel). There are also some voices calling for neutrality and peace, criticizing the U.S. for engaging in proxy wars and causing destabilization.

Independents

Independents express diverse views, with some supporting Israel and others siding with Iran. Some call for neutrality, criticizing both Israel and Iran for their actions. Many independents seem to be concerned about the potential for World War III, with some fearing that conflicts involving countries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea could escalate into a larger war.

Following A15 pro-Palestine protests which shut down bridges, airport traffic, and caused chaos in the streets, Americans are discussing disparate law enforcement responses. In places like California and New York, many people feel the police did little to uphold the rule of law. These optics are a sharp contrast to how police dealt with protesters in Florida where arrests were made, and protests quickly dispersed.

Much of the conversation is divided along partisan lines with more liberal and Democratic voters advocating for the protesters’ rights. Those on the right or moderates who value rule of law tend to voice support for the decisive response from law enforcement in red states like Florida.

• Sentiment toward protests on April 15 dropped in Florida to 31% from 43% the day before.
• In California, protest sentiment increased from 38% prior to April 15, to 40%, suggesting more support for the A15 protests.
• Palestine sentiment also decreased in Florida on April 15 and increased in California.

Backlash for Senator Cotton’s Tweet

A tweet from Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton has also sparked discussion about the prudence of civilian action to deal with protesters. Some people called his tweet a tongue-in-cheek call to vigilante action against protesters. Many others, however, took umbrage with the tweet.

I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands to get them out of the way.

It's time to put an end to this nonsense.

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) April 16, 2024

Much of the negative response and disapproval toward Cotton's message came from liberals and progressives who claimed he was calling for violence. Some even went as far as calling for his resignation or even imprisonment.

This group accused him of inciting violence and promoting vigilantism against peaceful protesters. Some use strong language to describe their disgust, calling him a "disgrace" and stating he belongs in prison.

There also seems to be a portion of right leaning voters who agree that blocking roads is inappropriate and potentially illegal, but they disagree with the notion of citizens taking drastic actions. This group cites examples like Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny who both “took matters into their own hands,” and faced severe legal consequences.

Many asked whether Cotton would be prepared to legally defend citizens who intervened, if progressive activists or politicized prosecutors came after them legally.

Other conservative and right leaning voters voiced agreement with Cotton. They said the right to protest does not grant the right to inconvenience others or block public thoroughfares. They argue protesters who do so should face severe consequences, including jail sentences.

Law Enforcement Response in Florida

There's a mix of reactions to pro-Palestinian protests in Florida disrupting traffic. Many express frustrations at the inconvenience, while others focus more on the rationale behind anti-Israel and anti-America demonstrations.

Many Floridians commend police actions and the law-and-order stance under Ron DeSantis's leadership, particularly in dealing with Pro-Hamas protesters. This group often contrasts the response of Florida law enforcement with that of police in New York, California, and other large cities in blue states.

Progressives tend to decry any arrest of pro-Palestine protesters. Some even compare DeSantis to Adolf Hitler, saying his leadership in Florida is authoritarian and racist. However, many of the voices criticizing Florida’s governance also seem to declare their unwillingness to live in or even travel to Florida.

Perceived Inaction by Police in New York and California

Many people online criticize law enforcement in San Francisco and New York City for being passive. They believe police stood by during disruptive protests and did nothing when demonstrators blocked roads and bridges. There is a sense of frustration over disruptions to travel and commerce, accusing the police of failing to maintain order.

There is also frequent criticism for protesters for causing inconvenience and potentially endangering public safety by roads. Many are particularly critical of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protests, accusing them of causing unnecessary disruption, insulting America, and burning American flags.

Some protest supporters and activists who were reacting to the Middle East conflict which now involves Iran, drew attention to police brutality, arguing police officers even in blue cities are too rough with peaceful protesters. This group criticizes those who they believe are more concerned with the disruption caused by protests than with the issue of police brutality itself.

Increasingly disruptive pro-Palestine protests are causing anger and frustration for most Americans. In San Francisco, anti-Israel protestors blocked the Golden Gate Bridge, causing an hours-long traffic disruption. At the same time, similar protests at the Seattle and Chicago airports severely inconvenienced travelers, preventing them from reaching departure terminals.

The protests have been met with severe negative reactions from many criticizing the danger and disruptions to uninvolved civilians and commerce. Online discussions revealed frustration and outrage from those who said protesters were potentially endangering children, emergency responders, or others urgently traveling.

• Following Iran’s attack on Israel, support has dropped across the board for countries involved.
• Palestine sentiment fell to a low of 37% in the last week, generating negativity with the protests.
• Fewer people have been talking about Iran, but a spike in discussion coincided with a sentiment drop to 42%.

Pro-Palestine Messaging

Many of the protesters' messages were directed towards President Biden and other political leaders who show support for Israel. Protesters accuse American politicians of being too easily swayed by overseas interests – succumbing to Israel’s plight. Anti-Israel protesters accuse politicians of being puppets for a foreign power, while others expressed frustration at what they saw as a lack of independent thinking.

There have also been widespread protests involving burning American flags and chanting, “Death to America.” These protesters tend to be pro-Palestine activists of Middle Eastern descent, progressive Americans, and young people.

This group vehemently criticizes the Biden administration and Israel. They represent an increasingly divergent wing of the Democratic Party which is opposing historical Democrat support for Israel.

Disapproval Across the Board

Disapproval over the Biden administration’s handling of the ongoing conflict seems rampant on both sides of the political aisle.

Many American voters are concerned about the escalating tensions between Iran, Israel, and other global powers. There are fears about the potential for a direct military confrontation between these nations, which could lead to a large-scale conflict or even World War III.

As mentioned, far left activists and progressives who support Palestine are intensely critical of Joe Biden for supporting Israel. More conservative voters and some moderate Democrats are unhappy with increasingly dangerous and incendiary pro-Palestine protests that threaten the rule of law.

Many everyday voters are reacting with hostility towards pro-Palestine protesters, particularly those chanting "Death to America." There are calls for these protesters to be deported, and they are seen as un-American.

Some also argue protestors who disrupt traffic or other public services should face criminal charges. They highlight the differences between law enforcement responses in places like New York and California, compared to Florida.

Right leaning voters frequently call recent protests acts of domestic terrorism, expressing a desire for anti-American demonstrators to leave the country.

Potential Consequences for Joe Biden

The Biden administration's response to these protests and the overarching conflict will likely influence voter perceptions in the 2024 presidential election. Many progressive Democrats are unhappy with Biden and have voted “Uncommitted” in Democratic primary races. Moderates and Independents may also feel uninspired to vote for Biden if protests continue to inconvenience travel or threaten public safety.

Progressive and leftist voters may also object to voting for Biden due to his perceived failure to protect human rights. This group argues America's continued support for Israel, despite alleged human rights violations, contradicts the administration's stated commitment to human rights.

The protests themselves may influence public opinion on the broader issue of civil liberties and the right to protest. Many voters have not forgotten the violence and vandalism of 2016 and 2020 protests, seeking to prevent similar situations.

Law enforcement responses may also influence voters who value the rule of law. If people perceive the Biden administration as failing to enforce the law or protect public safety, it could have severe negative consequences for his reelection.

Finally, the protests could also impact Biden's relations with key international partners, including Israel and Arab countries. His administration's response to these protests and the broader Israel-Palestine conflict could influence these relationships, potentially affecting his foreign policy credentials and public perception.

Overall, pro-Palestine protests likely present a significant challenge for Biden, with potential implications for his 2024 Presidential campaign. How he navigates this issue could impact his public image, his standing within the Democratic Party, his appeal to certain voter demographics, and his foreign policy credentials.

Recent conflict escalations between Iran and Israel have generated conversations among Americans about the U.S.'s position on the issue. Some Americans favor a more aggressive stance towards Iran, while others advocate for a balanced approach towards both countries.

Israeli Support vs. Iranian Support

Israel

• Supporters tend to be older, Republican, and Christian.
• There are also strong Israel supporters among Jewish liberals and Democrats.

Support for Israel is driven by a belief in shared democratic values, the historical alliance between the U.S. and Israel, and a sense of obligation to protect an ally from Iranian aggression. Supporters often highlight Israel's right to self-defense and the need for U.S. intervention. They also stress the importance of passing aid packages for Israel. This sentiment appears to be particularly strong among conservative and right-leaning individuals, as well as those of Christian faith who often express religious reasons for supporting Israel.

Iran

• Supporters are generally younger, Democrats, and secular or Muslim.
• This coincides with younger Americans being anti-Israeli and supporting Biden’s nuclear deal efforts with Iran.

Support for Iran appears to increase when the discussion centers around perceived Israeli aggression, the plight of Palestinians, and belief that Israel is in violation of international law. This perspective is often espoused by liberal-leaning Americans, many of whom criticize U.S. support for Israel. Much of this group has become increasingly involved in protests and gatherings to support Palestine. These individuals often cite Israel’s alleged violation of Iran’s sovereignty, such as the bombing of the Iranian consulate, as a reason for their empathy towards Iran.

Discussion Trends

U.S. Military Aid

One of the most common discussion trends concerns U.S. military aid to Israel. Many Americans express support for the aid, particularly in light of recent attacks from Iran. However, some criticize the U.S. for providing aid to Israel while not supporting other nations in conflict, such as Ukraine.

Accountability

There are calls for holding Iran accountable for its actions, with many Americans labeling Iran as a “terrorist nation.” On the other hand, some argue Israel also needs to be held accountable for its actions, accusing them of instigating the conflict.

Peace vs. War

A significant number of Americans advocate for peace in the Middle East. They express fatigue over the continued conflicts and call for an end to hostilities. However, there are also fears of potential escalation into a larger conflict, possibly leading to World War III.

Political Implications

The political implications of the Israel-Iran conflict are a hot topic. Some Americans criticize certain politicians for their stance on the issue, alleging that they are acting against the nation's interests. There are also concerns about the potential impact on U.S. relations with other countries, particularly Russia and China.

Economic Consequences

The economic consequences of the conflict, particularly the cost of military aid to Israel, are also a point of discussion. Some Americans express concerns about the sustainability of such expenditures in light of the U.S. debt situation.

American sentiment towards Ukraine appears to be generally positive among both Republicans and Democrats, based on MIG Reports data. Many individuals express a desire to provide Ukraine with aid and support, particularly in its conflict with Russia. Some see this as a matter of defending democracy and honoring those who served during the Cold War, while others view it as a strategic move to prevent further aggression from Russia.

However, there is a divergence in approval when it comes to funding Ukraine. Some argue against further financial support, citing reasons such as a belief that Ukraine cannot win the war against Russia, the need to prioritize domestic issues, and opposition to "forever wars."

Democratic Views

Democrat voters express a strong sentiment for supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Some emphasize Ukraine's role as a gateway to European countries and the need to support democracy. The mention of Cold War veterans also suggests a sentiment of historical responsibility. There's also a comparison to Israel, with some expressing that Ukraine needs aid more urgently. However, there are also concerns about the U.S. debt and the need to address domestic issues.

Republican Views

Among Republican voters, there are varying sentiments. Some highlight the need to stop funding wars and focus on domestic issues. There are concerns about the U.S. being involved in a proxy war with Russia. However, there's also acknowledgment of Ukraine's plight, with some urging for Congress to pass the aid bill. The connection with Israel also comes up, with some expressing that Israel should fight its own battles, implying that the same should apply to Ukraine.

Dynamic Response

Many people express increased support for Ukrainian funding when considering the potential consequences of inaction, such as the escalation of conflict and potential involvement of U.S. troops. This sentiment seems to be prevalent across both political parties, suggesting that the fear of a larger war outweighs party lines.

There's also a notable sentiment against funding Ukraine, with some arguing the U.S. should not involve itself in foreign conflicts, or that other issues, such as border security, should take precedence. These views appear to be more common among Republicans but are also present among Democrats.

In relation to the association of Ukrainian funding with a larger bill, such as border security, the analysis suggests that this could potentially decrease support among Democrats who may see it as a diversion of resources from a pressing international issue. Among Republicans, the sentiment is more mixed, with some favoring this approach as a pragmatic solution, and others viewing it as a dilution of national priorities.

The level of financial support, lack of oversight, and the type of aid (military vs. financial support for Ukrainian government) all appear to play a role in shaping sentiments towards funding Ukraine. Some express frustration over the amount of money given to Ukraine, suggesting that funds could be better utilized elsewhere. Others express concerns about a lack of oversight and accountability for how these funds are used.

There's also a divide over whether aid should be strictly military or if it should also support other aspects of the Ukrainian government. Some argue providing comprehensive support could help Ukraine more effectively resist Russian aggression, while others believe that aid should be limited to military support to avoid potential misuse of funds.

MIG Reports analysis indicates that inclusion of other issues that Americans care about, such as border security, does not potentially increase support for funding Ukraine.

The sentiment towards Ukraine is often compared with the sentiment towards Israel. Some individuals express frustration with the U.S.'s financial support for Israel, arguing that these funds would be better spent on aiding Ukraine. However, others argue that Israel has the right to defend itself, much like Ukraine.

While the sentiment towards Ukraine is generally positive, approval of funding is a more complex issue, influenced by a variety of factors including the amount of aid, its oversight, the type of aid, and the incorporation of other domestic issues. This may be indicative of general tacit support from Americans, who view Ukraine as an ally. However, without the desire to continue funding a cause which does not benefit the U.S. citizenry.

An accidental strike by Israel in Gaza that hit a group of World Central Kitchen workers has sparked a flurry of reactions online. The issue was trending on twitter with World Central Kitchen and IDF both receiving nearly half a million tweets. Responses to the tragedy tend to fall along party lines, although most people express sympathy and condolences for the loss of life.

Overall, Democrats and progressives are enraged at Israel and the IDF for allowing causing these civilian deaths. They largely blame Israel for unnecessary casualties and take the opportunity to continue pushing for a ceasefire.

Republicans and more pro-Israel moderates general blame Hamas for generating conflict amid civilian territories. They tend to view the tragedy as a heartbreaking reality of war, which Israel does its best to avoid.

• Typical trends of American sentiment on issues related to the Israel-Hamas conflict see approval in the low 40% range.
• After the accidental strike with aid worker casualties, both security issues and Israel-Palestine approval dropped to 39%.
• Discussion about both subjects has remained high, reaching nearly 10,000 mentions daily for the last week.

Democrats Double Down on a Ceasefire

Following the aid worker casualties in Gaza, Democrats are primarily emphasizing human rights violations, condemning the strike as an act of indiscriminate violence. They express deep disgust for what they call a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and call for an immediate ceasefire.

Many who identify as progressives or Democrats also criticize the U.S.'s seemingly one-sided support for Israel and lack of condemnation for civilian casualties. They advocate for a more Palestine-friendly approach that would prioritize the rights and needs of Palestinians.

However, there is an internal divide within the Democratic party. More progressive members tend to be vocal or activist in support for Palestine, calling for Biden and the administration to stop taking an Israel-sympathetic approach. Many of them are even dropping support for Biden and voting "Uncommitted" in Democrat primary elections. Moderate and traditional Democrats are more likely to remain pro-Israel, condemning Hamas and its terror attack on October 7.

Democrats online emphasize the importance of protecting non-combatants in conflict zones. They are criticizing the lack of precision in military operations by the IDF and call for increased oversight and accountability. They are also praising the World Central Kitchen workers, blaming the IDF for stopping them from bringing aid to Gaza.

Most people on the left highlight the proportionality of Israel's response to Hamas. They are quick to condemn the accidental strike, citing it as a clear example of overreaction by the IDF. This group is more likely to criticize Israel's policies and America’s pro-Israel stance in the conflict.

Republicans Lament the Tragedies of War and Terrorism

Republicans and more moderate Democrats are more likely to reiterate their support for Israel. They hold the accidental strike as tragedy and an unfortunate result of Israel's right to self-defense against Hamas terrorism. These voters tend to blame Hamas for initiating the war and for placing civilians needlessly in the crossfire.

Israel supporters argue Hamas uses civilians as human shields, which makes military precision difficult and leads to unnecessary civilian casualties. Some Republicans are also criticizing Democrats for their misguided promotion of Palestinian aggression and misunderstanding the complexities of Middle East conflict.

Republicans tend to lament the unfortunate reality of collateral damage in conflict situations. They stress that the incident underscores a need for decisive action to resolve the conflict and to eliminate conditions which force such operations in the first place.

This group argues the incident is a consequence of Hamas' tactic of using civilian areas for military purposes. Republicans are more likely to support continued U.S. military aid to Israel – although that view is not universally held by more isolationist Republicans.

Many assert the solution to the conflict involves defeating Hamas and other terrorist groups. However, most people express their condolences for the tragic loss of life and hope for a thorough investigation into the incident.

Discussions about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) among Democrat voters in the last few days seem to be increasingly polarizing. After her recent comments calling for the U.S. to cease supporting Israel and to stop the “genocide” being perpetrated on Gaza, many voters are unhappy. AOC is one among several Democrat politicians to draw criticism from voters over the Israel-Palestine conflict — an issue that MIG Reports data suggests will be important for the Democratic Party in this year's election.

Younger and more progressive Democrats tend to align more closely with AOC than more moderate voters. However, even pro-Palestine Democrats sometimes voice disapproval that AOC’s language is not strong enough in condemning Israel.

More traditional and moderate Democrat voters, however, have significant grievances with Ocasio-Cortez's rhetoric, emphasizing the growing divide within the Party.

• In the last seven days, overall support for AOC has averaged 43% with a low of 42%.
• Her approval on the topic of Palestine plummeted to 37% and support regarding Israel reached a low of 38%.

Top Issues Decreasing AOC’s Support

There are conflicting opinions among Democrats which seem to be decreasing support for Ocasio-Cortez. According to MIG Reports data, the most recurring criticisms include:

Her Use of “Genocide”

AOC's use of the term "genocide" to describe Israel's actions has drawn significant criticism. Critics argue the term is inappropriate and exaggerates the situation, which could potentially inflame tensions. This group often accuses her of exaggerating the situation in Gaza by calling it a genocide. They say that while the situation is horrific, it does not meet the definition of genocide.

Failing to Condemn Hamas

Some voters are taking issue with what they perceive as AOC's failure to sufficiently condemn Hamas and other terrorist organizations. They argue her focus on Israel's actions overlooks atrocities committed by Hamas. These critics also criticize AOC for not calling for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

Ignoring Israel's Right to Self-Defense

Critics argue AOC downplays or dismisses Israel's right to self-defense against attacks. They suggest she should make clearer distinctions between the Israeli government's actions and the rights of Israeli citizens.

Accusation of Spreading Misinformation

There are also frequent assertions that AOC engages in spreading misinformation about the situation in Gaza – particularly regarding the amount of aid going into Gaza and the cause of famine in the region. They argue that more aid is going into Gaza now than before the conflict and any so-called famine is caused by Hamas hijacking aid for its own use.

They argue that Israel is not starving Gazans, citing evidence that food enters Gaza daily and suggesting that the situation could be improved if Egypt opened its crossings. They also argue that AOC should call for the surrender of Hamas to end the war.

Perception of anti-Israel bias

AOC also receives frequent accusations of having an anti-Israel bias in her comments and actions, which has alienated more moderate Democrat voters who support Israel.

More General Criticisms of Rep Ocasio-Cortez

There is recurring commentary on AOC’s understanding of complex issues. Some Democrats question her understanding of historical and geopolitical issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict and its underlying causes. They argue that she simplifies the issues and does not have a deep understanding of history, law, or international politics.

Similarly, some critics, often referring to her in derogatory terms, question AOC's general intelligence. They argue she is unqualified for her position and incapable of understanding complicated issues, which could decrease her credibility and support among voters.

Many moderate Democrats are also wary of AOC's political leanings, branding her as a socialist or even a communist. This is seen by some as too radical and a departure from the traditional principles of the party.

Recent online discussion about the terrorist attack in Moscow reveals a great deal of empathy and outrage among Americans. The attack is viewed as a heinous act of violence that has resulted in the loss of innocent lives.

American sentiment towards the attack emphasizes strong condemnation of terrorism, with many expressing their condolences to the victims and their families. There is a clear sense of unity against the act of terrorism, with many calling for an end to such acts of violence.

Prior to resigning, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland promised this type of warfare as well as the assertion that the U.S. does not have a “Plan B” to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Online discussion shows a consensus of disapproval among Americans. The idea of terrorist attacks on civilians is not something that many Americans can condone or accept. While it's clear that there is a need to combat terrorism, the method of resorting to attacks on civilians is generally frowned upon.

Americans are unified in their condemnation of the terrorist attack in Moscow, and there is a strong sentiment towards ending terrorism. The idea of this type of warfare is not well received, and there is a general expectation that efforts should be made to prevent such attacks in the future.

The terrorist attack in Moscow is likely to continue fueling the current state of the Russia-Ukraine war as tense and filled with uncertainty. It has only escalated tensions, and the introduction of French troops to Ukraine also adds another layer of complexity to the situation. There's a pervasive worry about escalation and the potential for the conflict to spiral into a wider war.

While there's no clear consensus among Americans about the war itself, sentiment seems to be trending towards concern and disapproval. The war's ongoing nature, coupled with the recent terrorist attack and the involvement of more countries, could be leading to a decrease in support for the war among American voters.

Politically, it's likely the conflict could influence public opinion toward both President Biden and former President Trump, though it's unclear in what direction. If the situation continues to deteriorate, and the U.S. becomes more involved, it could continue to decrease support for whichever administration is perceived as mishandling the situation – especially with press pressing issues like the border for voters at home.

In conclusion, the current state of both the Russia-Ukraine war is causing a great deal of concern and division among Americans. The impact of this conflict on public sentiment towards political figures like Biden and Trump is still uncertain, but it's likely that their handling of these situations will play a significant role in shaping public opinion.