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.

Kyle Rittenhouse, a divisive figure in American public discourse, gave a speech at the University of Memphis, which was met with significant protest. The event was charged with tension as students, evidently more politically active than in previous years, made their opposition to Rittenhouse's presence clear.

Rittenhouse, who was acquitted after shooting three people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020, was invited to speak by Turning Point USA. His speech was met by a wave of protests. These protests show a more active and vocal student body at the University of Memphis, compared to 2018 when conservative speaker Ben Shapiro visited without any significant opposition. This suggests a growing awareness or “wokeness” among the student body, reflecting a shift in political consciousness, or posturing, over the past five years.

The protest against Rittenhouse's speech was part of a larger thread of student activism on the day. Elsewhere, pro-Palestinian students at the University of Kentucky disrupted a speech by British Jewish conservative pundit, Ian Haworth. This was marked by anti-Israel chants and the pulling of the fire alarm. This indicates a broader trend of political activism on campuses, often directed against conservative speakers. It could also suggest a growing divide between the left and the right — and, increasingly, various factions within the left — with each side increasingly intolerant of the other's views.

Previously, high volumes of social commentary on protests have peaked during causes for Palestine, such as:

• 3-month anniversary of the Israel-Palestine War (Jan 7)
• March for Gaza (Jan 13)
• Worldwide protests of the Israeli-Palestine War (Jan 18)
• "Uncommitted Protests” in Democratic Primary (Feb 27)

Protests such as the one targeting Rittenhouse's speech could be seen as an exercise in free speech, a right both the left and right claim to champion. On the other hand, some might argue that these protests demonstrate an intolerance for opposing viewpoints, a criticism often leveled at the left by the right.

Rittenhouse's speech at the University of Memphis was a flashpoint in a broader narrative of increased political activism and polarization on American university campuses. The reaction to his speech is indicative of the heightened political consciousness among students, and of the tensions that can arise when controversial figures are invited to speak. Sentiments seem to be exacerbating a polarized political landscape, where both the left and right are increasingly unwilling to engage with opposing viewpoints.

Since the Michigan primary, a growing movement of those voting “Uncommitted” in Democrat primary races has gained momentum. The organic movement was created out of protest of the Biden administration’s handling the Israeli-Palestinian war. Party infighting between Joe Biden Democrats and Uncommitteds is complex and multifaceted. This analysis will focus on three main areas: reasons for Uncommitted voters, perceptions of Biden, and the influence of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Reasons for Uncommitted Voters

Uncommitted voters in the Democrat Primary may be unwilling to support Biden for a variety of reasons. Some may not align with Biden's perceived moderate political views, preferring more progressive candidates. Others may be skeptical of his ability to enact meaningful change, given his long history in politics. Additionally, some voters may be wary of his age and health, questioning his ability to serve a full second term as president.

Perceptions of Biden

Public perception of Biden varies widely. Some view him as a steady hand with the experience and pragmatism needed to lead the country. Others see him as a career politician, disconnected from the needs of ordinary Americans. His handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict, in particular, has drawn criticism from both sides. More progressive voters believe he is too supportive of Israel, while more traditional Democrats argue he is not supportive enough.

Influence of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

The Israel-Palestine is one of the most significant issues on voter perceptions of Biden. Israel supporters argue Biden's approach to the conflict is too lenient on Hamas. Palestine supporters argue his pro-Israel approach supports genocide. This divide is reflected in the Democrat Party with younger or more progressive voters demanding support for Palestine and older or more moderate Democrats insisting the U.S. supports Israel.

Uncommitted Votes

• Hawaii and Minnesota have received the highest Uncommitted votes so far with 29% and 19%.
• Biden continues to receive critiques from the progressive wing of the Democrat Party, threatening his potential to have a strong showing against Trump in a general election.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer received vocal negative responses following his comments about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Many voters did not approve of his call for new elections in Israel.

Schumer claimed that Netanyahu's government no longer fits the needs of Israel after the events of October 7 and has been too willing to tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza. He also compared Netanyahu to Putin and labeled him as an obstacle to peace.

Many people, including voters and other politicians, are criticizing Schumer for his remarks, saying he was unjustified in his rhetoric.

• Following his comments, discussion about Schumer online increased as his approval decreased.
• In the last two days, discussion about Schumer rose significantly from his average volume to nearly 2000 mentions.
• With the increase in discussion, Schumer’s overall approval also dropped, reaching 43% on the day of his Israel comments.
• Schumer’s support regarding Israel dropped slightly after his comments, while support regarding Palestine slightly increased.

Top Issues Decreasing Schumer’s Support

MIG Reports analysis shows the top influencing factors pushing Schumer’s approval down are related to Israel:

1. The first and most glaring issue causing support for Chuck Schumer to drop is his call for new elections in Israel. He has received considerable backlash for his interference in Israeli politics.
2. Schumer's public criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu has also been a divisive issue. While some agree with Schumer that Netanyahu's government is "stuck in the past," others see this as an unjustified attack.
3. Many critics accuse Schumer of siding with Hamas, a terrorist organization, over U.S. ally Israel.
4. Schumer is losing support for the perception of prioritizing partisan politics over the welfare of American hostages held by Hamas. People argue he should focus on securing their release, rather than calling for new elections in Israel.
5. Some accuse Schumer, who is Jewish, of betraying Israel and the Jewish community with his comments, saying his actions have shown him to be a poor "Guardian of Israel."

Overall, Schumer seems to be losing support among pro-Israel Democrats and much of the Jewish community. There are, however, some who support his comments.

Pro-Palestine Progressives Praise Schumer

A segment of progressive Democrats agreed with Schumer, stating that the Israeli government under Netanyahu has indeed lost its way and has become a pariah state. They also concurred with Schumer's suggestion that the war with Hamas has created a significant political issue for the Democrat Party, potentially costing them in the next election.

A few also applauded Schumer's call for a "fresh debate about the future of Israel" and his insistence on a future two-state solution. His remarks have been described as "remarkable," with praise for Schumer's assertion that Netanyahu's coalition "no longer fits the needs of Israel."

Progressive supporters argue that it's possible to support the Palestinians without supporting Hamas and to support Israel without supporting Netanyahu's government.

Israel Supporters Express Shock at Schumer’s Rhetoric

Many on the right and some of Schumer’s more moderate Democrat constituents vehemently disagree with his remarks about Israel. They say it was inappropriate and out of place for an American leader to involve himself in Israeli politics. For instance, Speaker Johnson called Schumer's comments, "highly inappropriate" and "plain wrong."

Schumer is receiving blowback for what many perceive as interference in Israel's internal affairs. Many say American politicians should let Israel and its people decide their own leadership. Some also suggested that Schumer's comments were primarily aimed at securing support from constituents who are in favor of Palestine.

There are comments labeling Schumer a "fake Jew" and saying honest Jewish people would not make such objectionable and interfering comments. Some voters even suggested a special vote in New York to remove Schumer from his position.

Overall, Schumer’s support seemed to dip because of the comments, highlighting the Democrat split over Israel or Palestine support, which MIG Reports has previously analyzed. Other politicians like John Fetterman have been criticized by the progressive wing of the Democrat Party. Many who were outraged at Schumer’s language accuse him of pandering to the Hamas wing of the Democrat Party.