Aaron Bushnell’s public demonstration and self-immolation outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C. has sparked a broad range of responses and attitudes among Americans. The breadth of these responses and the intensity of the conversations they provoke are indicative of a highly polarized society.

Some Americans are expressing strong anti-establishment sentiments, with a vocal group accusing Google of bias and alleging that its Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are pushing a "woke" or progressive agenda. For these individuals, the self-immolation is seen as a potent symbol of resistance against perceived censorship and manipulation by powerful entities.

Others express sympathy for Bushnell, reflecting on personal experiences of hardship or trauma that may have driven him to such a desperate act. They evoke a sense of nostalgia for a time before the current political and cultural turmoil, reminiscing about past concerts or shared cultural experiences.

There are also numerous comments pointing to a perceived liberal bias in the media, with assertions that stories are framed or reported in a way that supports a particular political agenda.

• Discussion about Bushnell’s demonstration have been trending on Twitter, generating more than 800,000 posts.
• This is nearly double the number of posts referring to “Free Palestine” — another trending topic.
• Bushnell’s name also quickly became one of the most searched terms on Google.

Security Issues

The comments reflect a wide range of beliefs and emotions, from intense sympathy and admiration for Aaron Bushnell's act of protest, to harsh criticism and blunt dismissal of his actions. The narratives can be broadly grouped into four categories.

Support for the Palestinian cause

A significant number of comments expressed solidarity with Bushnell's act, viewing it as a heroic stand against perceived Israeli atrocities in Gaza. These commenters often use the incident to highlight their belief in Israel's alleged genocide against Palestinians, calling for more attention to the conflict and the liberation of Palestine. They also criticized mainstream media outlets for allegedly covering up the incident or not giving it due attention.

Criticism of Bushnell's act

Some commentors disagreed with Bushnell's actions, calling them misguided, extreme, or even foolish. These individuals often attributed his actions as being a result of propaganda or misinformation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Defense of Israel

Other comments defended Israel, arguing that it is not committing genocide and that it has a right to defend itself against Hamas. Some of these commenters questioned the validity of the term "Palestine," suggesting that Palestinians are merely Arabs from other countries. Others suggested that the conflict is more complex than Bushnell's protest suggested, with blame to be shared by various parties, including Hamas and countries that support it.

Criticism of U.S. policy

Some commenters criticized U.S. politicians and policies, suggesting that America is too supportive of Israel or complicit in its alleged abuses. Others expressed concern about the potential implications of the incident for U.S. involvement in the conflict.

Despite trending on Twitter and becoming one of the top Google searches, many news outlets are providing limited coverage or in-depth analysis. Overall, the wide range of responses reflects the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the strong emotions it evokes among Americans. The incident has clearly served as a flashpoint for broader debates about the conflict, U.S. foreign policy, and the role of individual protest in political discourse.

Analyzing the political climate in Brazil and understanding the reasons behind the popularity of Jair Bolosnaro and the unpopularity of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva requires a nuanced understanding of the socio-political dynamics of the country. Additionally, a key factor is the absence of a political race. Without a ballot box to decide on, all Brazilians can voice their discontent to the country’s current leader.

Head to Head - Bolosnaro and da Silva

Talking About - Bolosnaro and da Silva

Sentiment - Bolosnaro and da Silva

Bolosnaro

Jair Bolsonaro has gained popularity for several reasons. Firstly, his tough on crime stance resonates with a significant portion of the Brazilian population, who are tired of high crime rates and corruption. His commitment to reducing bureaucracy and promoting economic liberalization, which includes privatization of state-owned companies and reduction in state intervention in the economy, appeals to the business community and the middle class. Bolsonaro’s nationalist rhetoric, his commitment to traditional family values, and his stance against political correctness also appeal to a significant portion of the Brazilian populace. Furthermore, his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite international criticism, has found support among those who prioritize economic stability over stringent lockdown measures.

However, there are many factors that have led to a decrease in Bolsonaro's support. His perceived mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, with Brazil having one of the highest death rates in the world, has led to widespread criticism. His environmental policies, particularly his handling of the Amazon rainforest fires, have been controversial both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, accusations of corruption and nepotism within his administration have led to decreased trust and support.

da Silva

As for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, or Lula, his popularity has suffered due to a variety of factors. The largest among these is the corruption charges that led to his imprisonment, tarnishing his image and that of his Workers' Party. Despite overseeing a period of significant economic growth and implementing social programs that lifted millions out of poverty, Lula’s legacy has been overshadowed by the corruption scandal.

However, there are factors that still generate support for Lula. His social programs, including Bolsa Familia, continue to be popular among the lower income population. His ability to maintain economic stability during his tenure is also remembered positively. Furthermore, Lula maintains a strong base of supporters who see him as a victim of political persecution, and his recent legal victories have led to a resurgence of this support.

Holocaust Comments

Analyzing the Brazilian public's reaction to Lula's comments, it's clear that his statements have stirred up significant debate. Lula da Silva, President of Brazil, made a controversial comment comparing the situation in Gaza to the genocide committed by Hitler during the Holocaust. The comments have ignited a passionate response among Brazilians, with the public appearing to be sharply divided.

The narrative reveals that a significant portion of Brazilians agree with Lula, expressing their support for his stance on social media. They argue that Lula's comparison is valid, viewing the conflict in Gaza as a war between a well-equipped military and innocent women and children. These supporters believe that the Israeli government's actions toward Palestinians are akin to genocide, and they are not shy about voicing their opinions. They accuse Globo, a major Brazilian media outlet, of supporting genocide due to its perceived lack of critical coverage of the issue.

However, not all Brazilians agree with Lula's statements. His critics accuse him of trivializing the Holocaust by comparing it to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They argue that Israel has the right to defend itself and that Lula's comments cross a red line. This group believes that Lula's comments are harmful to the Jewish community and, in some cases, have even led to calls for his punishment.

It's important to note that the Israeli government has taken offense to Lula's comments, leading to a diplomatic strain between the two nations.

Lula's detractors accuse him of supporting terrorists and dictators, using the phrase "Lula é" followed by the names of organizations and leaders such as Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Maduro, and others. They argue that Lula is aligning Brazil with these entities, thereby endangering the country's international standing and potentially its safety. They call for Lula's impeachment, citing Article 5 of Law 1079/50, which prohibits acts of hostility against foreign nations that could lead Brazil to war or compromise its neutrality.

These critics also express their support for Israel and the Jewish people, condemning Lula's comments as anti-Semitic and rejecting his comparison of the situation in Gaza to the Holocaust. They argue that Lula is unfairly vilifying Israel while ignoring the actions of Hamas and other groups they view as terrorists.

In conclusion, Lula's comments have sparked a heated debate among Brazilians. While some agree with his comparison of the Gaza conflict to the Holocaust, others vehemently denounce his remarks. This difference in opinion among Brazilians underscores the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its global impact.

Impact to Support - da Silva

Online discussions regarding Ukraine saw an uptick in volume earlier in early February due to the Ukraine spending bill in the Senate. The key themes dominating conversations about Ukraine primarily revolve around a $95 billion aid package designed to support Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The discussions are focused on the advancement of this bill in the U.S. Senate and the political dynamics surrounding it. A few themes from online discussions are:

U.S. Foreign Aid Package

Many discussions are centered around the U.S. Senate's decision to move forward with this substantial aid package. Some users view this as a positive development, highlighting that 18 Republicans backed the legislation despite opposition from former President Trump. This topic increases positive sentiment towards Ukraine as it portrays the country as a beneficiary of bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate.

Political Divisions

The aid package has also stirred debates on political lines. Some Republicans, including Trump, are against the bill, while a significant number of Republicans and Democrats support it. This has led to discussions about intra-party divisions, particularly within the Republican Party. Depending on political leanings, this topic either increases or decreases sentiment towards Ukraine.

International Relations

There are robust discussions around the geopolitical implications of the aid package, especially in relation to Ukraine's position in global politics. Positive sentiments are associated with the perception that the aid package will reinforce Ukraine's diplomatic position and security.

Opposition to Aid

A notable portion of the discussion is from individuals expressing opposition to the aid package. Some argue that the funds could be better used domestically, while others express anti-war sentiments, suggesting the money will be used to fund conflict. This topic tends to decrease sentiment towards Ukraine, as it associates the country with controversial U.S. foreign aid policies.

Role of Trump: Former President Trump's opposition to the aid package is a recurring theme in the discussions. Some users support Trump's stance, while others criticize it. This topic tends to polarize sentiments towards Ukraine along partisan lines.

Talking About - Ukraine

Sentiment - Ukraine

Foreign, or Domestic?

Geopolitical Conflicts

A significant portion of the conversation revolves around expressing concern over Russia's perceived aggression. This includes discussions about the potential for World War III if Russia is encouraged to attack NATO allies, as well as the need to support Ukraine against such aggression.

International Relations

Another key theme is the role of the United States and other countries in assisting Ukraine. This includes debates about the proposed $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, with some voicing support for the aid and others criticizing it.

Domestic Politics

Discussions also touch on the impact of domestic US politics on Ukraine, with comments on senators voting against the aid package and former President Trump's stance towards Russia and Ukraine.

Impact to Support - Ukraine

Sentiment towards Ukraine varies across political affiliations. Republicans tend to express more skepticism towards aid packages and are more likely to support stronger action against Russia. Democrats, on the other hand, are generally more supportive of providing aid and diplomatic solutions to the conflict. Independents show a range of views, reflecting their diverse political beliefs.

Increased sentiment towards Ukraine, both positive and negative, can be triggered by key events such as geopolitical conflicts, proposed aid packages, and statements by political figures. For example, the rescue of Israeli hostages in Gaza sparked discussions about international relations and the role of different countries in resolving conflicts. In contrast, the proposed aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan has fueled debates and possibly negative sentiment about foreign aid and its implications for domestic politics and international relations.

AOC, Illhan Omar, and Cori Bush finds themselves embroiled in chaos of their own doing, as members navigate investigations, defending Biden, and questions of national allegiance. Representative Cori Bush (D-MO) faces a damning DOJ and FEC investigation over misuse of campaign and government funds, while Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) grapples with the fallout from what many have called a “Somalia First” speech, shocking conservatives and globalist Democrats alike. Meanwhile, AOC faces fire from both Israel defenders and Pro-Palestine radicals for defending both Biden and the UN’s shady ties to Hamas.

Cori Bush: Police For Me, Not For Thee

• Rep. Cori Bush, a second-term lawmaker who paved her path to Congress casting herself as an anti-police zealot has found herself in the DOJ’s crosshairs over misuse of government and campaign funds made to her now-husband, who was part of her private security team.
• Bush confirmed her cooperation with the Department of Justice's investigation, but bemoaned that “right wing organizations have lodged baseless complaints against me, peddling notions that I have misused campaign funds”. Yet, the investigation into Bush is also being conducted by the Federal Election Commission, which oversees campaign finance crimes.

What they’re saying

• In part of her defense, Bush argued the security expenses were necessary for her personal safety. Bush’s comments were met with the usual ire seen from right wing voices, with Tomi Lahren telling Fox News radio listeners, “Bush was one of the loudest voices in the BLM fight to “defund the police,” but turns out she only wanted YOUR protection to be reduced.”
  
• Bush’s duplicity was even too much for far left talking heads to ignore. Cenk Uyghur of “The Young Turks", a far left youtube channel with 1.5 million subscribers, echoed Lahren’s comments, telling listeners, “is there a sense of irony here, no protection for you but protection for me?" to which co-host Ana Kasparian quipped back "In situations where you can't rely on police, just hire private police-it only costs hundreds of thousands of dollars".

By the Numbers

• MIG reports found that the perception of disconnect between Bush’s politics and lifestyle is also held by everyday Americans, and it’s sullying the Squad’s reputation as a whole.
  
• MIG’s AI summary analysis found that in discussions surrounding Bush online, “posts link the investigation to Bush's ideological affiliations, particularly her membership in the "Squad." Users online suggest that Bush and her allies are hypocritical and corrupt.”
  
• The negative sentiment circling Bush online registered strongly, with MIG’s data showing the St. Louis rep’s online approval dropping 8% the day after the investigations were announced.

Illhan Omar: Somalia First, not America First

• Congresswoman Illhan Omar threw more fuel into the Squad’s chaos in late January as well. Omar, who has made frequent anti-semitic accusations of “dual loyalty” in Congress to Israel, created doubt over her own loyalty to the U.S. after demanding Somalia come first in US Foreign Policy in a speech in Minneapolis. "The US will do what we want, nothing else.”, Omar declared. “They must follow our orders. That is how we safeguard the interests of Somalia."
  
• Republicans Fire Back: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced a censure resolution aimed at Omar over what the Georgia firebrand called "treasonous statements.". Republican Rep. Tom Emmer added to Greene’s lawfare, announcing an ethics complaint directed at Omar.
  
• MIG online discussion analysis on Omar during this period and found a dramatic drop in her approval levels:
  • Following the January 27th speech, Omar’s approval dropped from 45% to 37%.
    
  • Omar’s approval average in the 10 days prior to the speech rested at 46%, while her approval in the 10 days since the speech averaged 41%.
    
• MIG’s summary analysis discovered strong negative sentiment amongst Americans discussing Omar’s Somalia First speech, finding:
  • “The online discussion about Ilhan Omar is highly polarized and leans mostly negative...participants express dissatisfaction and disappointment with her recent comments, which they interpret as her prioritizing her Somali identity and loyalty to Somalia over her American identity and responsibilities.”
    
  • “They accuse her of having a special relationship with the President of Somalia, referring to him as "our president," which they interpret as a sign of disloyalty to the United States.”
    
  • “Additionally, there are accusations of her supporting Sharia Law and wanting to introduce it to the United States, which is causing further negative sentiment towards her.”
    

AOC Faces Dual Criticism

Adding to the Squad's controversies, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez found herself caught in crossfire, facing criticism from both Palestinian and Israeli supporters. MIG analysis of online discussions directed at the New York Congresswoman revealed multifaceted criticisms:

• Perceived Support for Hamas: “Users criticize AOC for her perceived support for Hamas, a group they consider to be a terrorist organization, by endorsing the restoration of funding to UNRWA, which they believe indirectly benefits Hamas.”
  
• Understanding of Gaza Situation: “Some users express disappointment in AOC, suggesting she lacks a comprehensive understanding of Gaza and arguing that Hamas leaders should provide aid to Palestinians instead of relying on international organizations.”
  
• Accusation of Inconsistency: “Critics accuse AOC of inconsistency, transitioning from tears over funding Israel's Iron Dome to denying genocide, lowering her online sentiment.”
  
• Criticisms Over Support for Biden: “AOC faces negative sentiment from users who disagree with her endorsement of Joe Biden due to their own political disagreements or misalignment of her progressive ideals with Biden's centrist policies.”
  
• MIG’s analysis of the conversations surrounding AOC following her Meet the Press interview found her approval dropped 7%, while earning 37% approval on the topic of Palestine and 38% on the topic of Israel.

Looking Ahead

The ongoing scrutiny engulfing the Squad is another revealing episode that underscores the discrepancy between the supposed voice of the working class left and the reality of politicians that play by their own rules. The attention earned by self imposed chaos will deal significant blows to the image and strategy of the Progressive movement and, by extension, the Democratic Party as a whole. As the far left lawmakers grapple with the fallout of voters realizing the reality of who the Squad is, the Democratic party will continue to face PR challenges of winning over voters in a nation that increasingly demands those that represent them play by the same rules as Americans, regardless of wealth, status, or job title.

The Democratic Party’s divide between its establishment base and progressive branches is growing. Overall, there seems to be a split among Democrats and progressives, with some continuing to support Israel's right to defend itself and others advocating for a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with an emphasis on human rights and international law. There is a strong sentiment of frustration towards the amount of military aid going to Israel, with some suggesting it should be reduced or cut off completely.

Some Democrats are supportive of the US's military aid to Israel, viewing it as necessary to combat threats from Hamas and other destabilizing forces in the Middle East. They believe that Iran, backed by Russia and China, is a significant threat to global peace, and that the US and its allies must remain vigilant. They also argue that Hamas has been a significant contributor to the ongoing conflict and suffering in Gaza, using aid money for military purposes instead of improving the lives of Palestinians.

On the other hand, there are Democrats and progressives who are critical of the US's military aid to Israel. They condemn the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and argue for a reassessment of the US's loyalty to Israel. They are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, accusing Israel of blocking aid and contributing to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Some go as far as calling for an end to US funding for Israel, equating Israel's actions in Gaza to genocide.

Talking About (Democrats)

Some of the more progressive Democrats express a sense of betrayal, calling it a "huge concession" that the bipartisan border-Israel-Ukraine package blocks all funding for UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) from the US. They object to the idea of providing more money for Israel while reducing aid to Palestinian children.

The discussions also reveal a concern among Democrats about the potential implications of not passing the bill. Some users note that failure to pass the bill could lead to direct military confrontations in the Middle East and against Russia, suggesting a fear of escalation.

Ukraine Approval Remains low as overwhelming majority of Americans Focus Instead on Border Security and Immigration Crisis

Recent analysis from the Media Intelligence Group (MIG) offers a comprehensive look into how both American engagement and support for Ukraine remains low, in serious contrast from high levels seen at the start of the Ukraine conflict. These insights reveal that despite ongoing debates in Congress about further aid for Ukraine, American opinion remains unchanged and instead focused on America First principals.

Shifting Focus: MIG's data indicates that online engagement surrounding Global Affairs is viewed increasingly with an America First lens.

• Engagement towards Ukraine is dwarfed by discussions about Border Security or more longstanding priorities like the US-Israeli alliance.
  • MIG found that over the last 30 days, Ukraine averages 1,106 online daily mentions, with a total of 33,185 mentions of Ukraine.
    
  • In contrast, discussions about Border Security and the Migrant Crisis averaged 8,836 daily online mentions, totaling 265,095 online mentions in the last 30 days.
    
  • Similarly, online conversations about Israel and Palestine are even more prominent, with a daily average of 9,072 online mentions and a total of 278,200 online mentions in the last 30 days.

Ukraine Hawks fail to sway Americans:

• Further analysis from the MIG reveals American approval of Ukraine remains consistently below 45%, contrasting sharply with the high levels of backing seen at the start of the conflict.
  
• In late 2023, Gallup found that American support for Ukraine had dropped sharply since the onset of Russia’s invasion.
  
• When Russia forces had first breached Ukrainian defenses, American support for Ukraine stood at 66%. This dropped sharply in Gallup’s subsequent poll in October 2023, when 41% of respondents stated they believed the United States was doing too much for Ukraine.
  
• MIG’s latest numbers from the last 30 days find support for Ukraine hasn’t budged. Despite many Ukraine Hawks in Congress making the case for further aid to Kiev, MIG finds Ukraine’s average approval stuck at 41%.
  
• Worse, Ukraine’s approval reached 44% just three times in the last 30 days, while it fell below 40% for 7 days total.

America First, Here to Stay:

• MIG's data underscores a growing shift in America’s focus in prioritizing an America First global perspective, as online discussions about Ukraine sink into further irrelevancy and are eclipsed by Border Security and Immigration debates.
  
• Notably, these findings are supported by a recent Harvard Harris poll, which found Immigration as the top policy concern amongst Americans, well ahead of foreign policy but even surpassing inflation and the economy.
  
• Despite unending frustrations with a Congress many believe is disconnected from the rest of America, recent comments from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may reveal Americans are forcing D.C. to listen. This week, McConnell told Senate colleagues “When we started this, the border united us and Ukraine divided us” but that “The politics on this have changed.”

Recent MIG data shows that the discussion on the Israel-Hamas war appears to have a mix of both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine comments on platforms like X (formerly Twitter). However, the majority of hashtagged comments tend to lean more towards pro-Palestine sentiments.

On TikTok, pro-Palestine hashtags vastly outweigh pro-Israel hashtags in a way that is inconsistent with other social platforms across the internet. This discrepancy suggests that pro-Palestine content on TikTok may not be completely organic.

In addition, discussion about the Israel-Hamas conflict significantly increased on social media following the October 7 attack. Prior to the 7th, posts about Israel and Palestine on both X and TikTok were negligible and posts and views dramatically increased from October 7 on.

Posts Before and After October 7

Average daily posts on X 15 days before and after October 7

• Posts using the hashtag #israel reached a high of 251,331 on X on October 7.
• Posts using the hashtag #palestine reached a high of 136,498 on X on October 7.

• Posts using the hashtag #israel reached a high of 181,500 on TikTok on October 7.
• Posts using the hashtag #palestine reached a high of 403,872 on TikTok on October 14.

Pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel Hashtags

• Since October 6, 2023, interest levels in pro-Palestine hashtags (#palestine and #freepalestine) have skyrocketed.
• Based on total post counts and TikTok’s proprietary interest score, pro-Palestine posts reached a high of nearly 1 million between October 14-20, 2023.
• In contrast, pro-Israel hashtags on TikTok only reached a high of just over 113,000 between October 7-13, 2023.
• Pro-Palestine content on TikTok vastly outweighs pro-Israel content. Since October 6, there were a total of 10 times as many pro-Palestine hashtags on TikTok as pro-Israel hashtags.

• On X, pro-Israel and pro-Palestine hashtags are much closer in volume. Tracking the hashtags #israel, #standwithisrael, #palestine, and #freepalestine, MIG data shows divided discussions.
• At the end of October, pro-Palestine hashtags on X reached a high of approximately 250,000.
• Pro-Israel hashtags on X reached a high of approximately 83,000 at the beginning of November.
• Pro-Palestine content on X outweighs pro-Israel content, but only by less than double since the end of October.

What People Are Saying

Based on the content of the analyzed discussions online, it is apparent that the comments heavily favor Palestine.

Palestine

• There is a high usage of hashtags such as #FreePalestine, #Gaza_Genocide, and #IsraelisGenocidalState, which indicates strong criticism of Israel.
• Pro-Palestine comments often criticize Israel's actions and policies, accuse Israel of human rights violations, and express sympathy for the Palestinians.
• They also call for a halt to Israel's occupation and the recognition of Palestine's statehood.
• These comments also tend to criticize U.S. politicians and policies that support Israel, and call for solidarity movements for Palestine.

Israel

• Pro-Israel comments, on the other hand, often criticize Hamas and accuse them of terrorist activities.
• They argue that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas' attacks, and some even call for the complete elimination of Hamas.
• These comments also often express concern for Israeli hostages and criticize the UN and U.S. politicians for their perceived support of Hamas.

Potentially Biased Content

The implications of MIG data raise concerns about the potential skewing or bias of content, especially on TikTok.

• Some commentors online suggest TikTok might be purposefully promoting or suppressing certain narratives, possibly as a result of commercial pressures or political influences.
• For example, Elon Musk's reaction to advertisers allegedly trying to influence X content raises questions about the potential for corporate or government influence over the dissemination of information on all social platforms.
• However, it is challenging to definitively determine whether the content is purposefully skewed, based on public comments alone.
• While the discussions suggest possible bias or skewing, they also reflect users' individual perceptions, which may be influenced by various factors.

Further research would be required to definitively establish the extent and nature of any potential skewing of content on TikTok.

A growing rift has emerged among Democrats over the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, according to a new Media Intelligence Report.

• Overall online sentiment toward Israel and Hamas has been split over the past week at 38% and 36% respectively.
• However, among Democrats, sentiment has been more evenly divided between Israel and Hamas
• at 45% each.
• These sentiment indicators highlight growing ideological differences between factions in the Democrat party.

The Dividing Line for Dems

• The MIG report identified a generational divide, with younger Democrats generally more critical of Israel than older members who emphasize Israel's security needs.
• Moderate Democrats urged a balanced approach, condemning Hamas while addressing Gaza's humanitarian plight.
• Some old-school Democrats decry what they see as a shocking increase in antisemitism among college students and far-left Democrats.
• These divisions are causing a rare crack in the normally unified Democrat front.

What Democrats Are Saying

Historically, Democrats tend to move in lockstep, coalescing around a common principle or ideology that drives progressive policy. That is not the case when it comes to Israel.

Support for Israel Among Democrats

• Some Democrats defend Israel's military actions as necessary self-defense against Hamas. They argue that Israel is responding to aggression and criticize Hamas for using civilians as human shields.
• Among these Democrats, there is support for Biden’s $14.5 billion in military aid for Israel, without humanitarian assistance for Gaza.
• Many view Hamas’ actions on October 7 as a “vile atrocity” that requires immediate response.
• Overall, many older and more moderate Democrats seem to be inclined to support Israel compared to younger, extremely progressive Democrats.
• Many in the Jewish community argue that pro-Palestine protestors misunderstand the threat from Hamas and overly simplify the complex history.

Pro-Palestine Democrats

• In contrast, many younger Democrats accuse Israel of war crimes and "genocide" in Gaza. The far left celebrated the terror attack, refused to condemn it, or suggested Israel bears responsibility.
• They call for an end to U.S. military aid to Israel and an immediate ceasefire.
• Recent pro-Palestine protests in Washington DC, suggest a growing sentiment in support of Palestine.
• These individuals argue that Palestinians are being disproportionately targeted and suffer more casualties compared to Israeli civilians.
• Protestors demand the Biden administration take a firmer pro-Palestine stance.
• Some demand steps be taken to hold Israeli leadership accountable for alleged atrocities. Many protesters also express support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

Other Takeaways

• Overall, there seems to be a division over what constitutes antisemitism. Some say criticism of Israel equates antisemitism.
• Others argue that animosity towards Israel is growing, worsening antisemitism.
• Meanwhile, others argue criticism is not inherently antisemitic.
• In sum, the discourse reveals deep divisions not only between different political and ideological groups, but also within them.

As conflict broke out in early October between Israel and Hamas, Black Lives Matter also found itself in the spotlight. The left-wing activist group generated severe backlash and negativity over its public expressions of solidarity with Hamas, which it ostensibly walked back by deleting some X posts.

According to a report from Media Intelligence Group (MIG), online sentiment toward Black Lives Matter has become increasingly polarized following the organization's controversial remarks. While BLM supporters argue that opposing oppression should be a universal cause, a vast majority of Israel supporters see the comments as anti-Semitic and promoting terrorism.

The MIG report revealed that Black Lives Matter quickly became a top discussion subject online following its statements. During the second week of October, there were more than 9,000 people engaging in online debate about the movement daily.

Sentiment also dropped from 45% positive to 37% in the same week as ideological divisions grew more apparent. Since mid-October, discussion of BLM online has subsided but sentiment overall for leftist ideologies remains in the low 40% range.

Recent discoveries of financial mismanagement in BLM chapters have also fueled negative perceptions. The alleged BLM-linked murder of an Antifa activist has further stirred controversy about violence associated with the movement.

Overall, Black Lives Matter's vocal alignment with Hamas has made it a lightning rod issue, costing it support and retaining only vehement supporters. The complex public response reflects the overall contentious ideological debates sparked by the Israel-Hamas conflict.