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

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

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

War Focus: Israel Sets the Tone

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

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

Discussion Trends

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

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

Electoral Impact

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

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

Israel Focus: Security, or Escalation?

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

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

Electoral Impact

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

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

Iran Focus: Diplomacy, or War?

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

Electoral Impact

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

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

As conversations of the increasing likelihood of global conflict dominate social media, many worry about America's role in global conflicts and other national security concerns. With a firehose of global and political news in the last month, many right leaning Americans wish for Donald Trump to return to X. They say his vocal presence might bolster his political influence, particularly among young, undecided, and Independent voters.

After being banned prior to Elon Musk buying Twitter and rebranding it as X, Donald Trump’s only post on the platform since Musk subsequently reinstated his account was his famous mug shot in 2023. Many MAGA voters say increased visibility and opportunities for direct interaction could amplify Trump's rhetoric and potentially sway voters in his favor.

Supporters argue limiting his posts to Truth Social sacrifices engagement opportunities, especially amid heightened interest in security-related topics. There are also reports about the Kamala Harris campaign account “Kamala HQ” generates significantly more engagement than the “Trump War Room” account.

REPORT: 'Kamala HQ' is crushing the Trump campaign on X, reaching almost 10x as many people as Trump War Room.

'Kamala HQ's' messaging is dominating on X as they are going all in on attacking Vance with their "edgy Gen Z" approach.

Here is how many impressions Kamala HQ… pic.twitter.com/PaC4SYYnWF

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 1, 2024

International Dangers Call for Strong Leadership

Online conversations greatly revolve around U.S. foreign policy, military engagements, and national security strategies. With growing concerns about the U.S. presidency—or lack thereof, Americans want a strong presence from strong leaders.

Many mention fears regarding Israel, Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, and Middle East conflict. Trump's policy positions on these issues, especially his assertive stance on Israel's security and his criticisms of the Biden-Harris administration, resonate deeply with his core supporters. This leads them to call for his voice on X.

Discussion trends indicate Trump’s potential return to X might intensify these divides. Tweets and conversations often highlight major events such as the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, retaliatory actions by Hezbollah, and U.S. military presence in hotspots like Syria and Afghanistan. People often compare Trump and Biden-era foreign policies, reinforcing either support or opposition to Trump's potential political reinvolvement.

MAGA Misses Trump’s Voice on Global Issues

Sentiment trends reveal a fluctuating landscape. Many voice nostalgia for Trump's “peace through strength” doctrine, juxtaposing it with Democratic strategies. This sentiment is particularly strong with those who believe strongman tactics are necessary to counteract global threats and safeguard American interests.

MAGA voters want a return to Trump's hardline policies, viewing his approach as essential for maintaining America's global standing and ensuring national security. They say Trump's strong alliances with Israel, his firm measures against Iran, and his decisive military strategies were effective in keeping threats at bay.

Those calling for Trump to return to X typically blame recent escalations in global conflict zones on the ineffective leadership of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

There are some advocating for restraint in America's military engagements. They press for international cooperation and humanitarian considerations, preferring diplomatic solutions over military interventions. However, this group rarely acknowledges the lack of active conflict under Trump’s administration.

Possible Impact

The analysis of these conversations suggests Trump returning to X could significantly impact political dynamics. The heightened visibility and discourse on security issues might reinforce his appeal to those who prioritize a more assertive national security strategy and potential new supporters. However, it also risks deepening the existing chasms in public opinion, highlighting the complexities of navigating foreign policy in the modern geopolitical landscape.

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

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

Support for Israel

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

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

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

Terrorist Sympathizers

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

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

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

U.S. Involvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Venezuelan election between incumbent Nicolas Maduro and Edmundo Gonzalez were predictably rejected by both candidates as they both declared victory. Demonstrations, protests, and riots shortly followed what everyone called a fascist regime takeover. Americans took notice and went to social media to share their perspectives, often of disapproval and fear of a similar future for the U.S.

Venezuela on Home Shores?

Online, there are rampant accusations of election fraud, the legitimacy of the electoral process, and comparisons with electoral practices in other countries, particularly the United States. Public sentiment towards Venezuelan election integrity predominantly shows skepticism, mistrust, and frustration.

Key keywords that dominate these discussions are "election fraud," "dictatorship," "socialism," "Maduro," "fraudulent election," and "Venezuelan lions." The unrest and resistance from various opposition movements also spread through images and videos.

American discussions often draw parallels between Venezuela's situation and alleged electoral injustices in the United States. People often mention "Georgia election fraud," "Dominion machines," and "Kamala Harris."

The emergence of Venezuelan criminal organizations like Tren de Aragua (TdA) in the U.S. has heightened anxieties. Posts reveal this group's operations, including drug trafficking and violence, are aggressively exploiting the open border situation. This raises alarm about the broader implications of immigration policies on public safety.

This is reportedly an apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado that’s been taken over by a Venezualan gang.

Violent crime has reportedly escalated in Aurora, CO by Venezualans following the stolen election. pic.twitter.com/81ggg7quLd

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 31, 2024

Americans Denounce Maduro

Public sentiment shows massive distrust toward the Venezuelan government. People say, "dictator Maduro has committed a fraud" and consistently reject the election results. Claims that "socialism is always a murderous phenomenon" suggest a broader ideological opposition to the current regime's policies.

There is strong sympathy for the Venezuelan opposition, as supporters encourage Venezuelans with the line, "you are going to get ahead." The rhetoric around free and transparent elections and self-determination emphasizes a call for a democratic process as opposed to the status quo.

Sentiments also reflect dissatisfaction with international responses, particularly criticism towards the Biden-Harris administration for lifting sanctions on Venezuela. There are also calls for renewed sanctions and broader international intervention to support democratic principles.

Many also warn American voters that, if the country is not careful, similar situations could play out at home. Critics of the current U.S. border crisis also point out the severe negative consequences of allowing unchecked illegal immigration.

The presence of violent gangs like Tren de Aragua in American cities has amplified worries about the security risks associated with immigration policies. This sentiment underscores a demand for tighter border controls to prevent criminal elements from crossing into the U.S.

SCOOP: A DHS memo circulating internally is warning officials that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua has given the ‘green light’ to members to shoot US cops.

Cops in Albuquerque, NY, Chicago and Denver are the targets of these threats.

More: https://t.co/ma4rkr7OLW pic.twitter.com/F5A3WZ38CZ

— Jennie Taer 🎗️ (@JennieSTaer) July 30, 2024

American reactions to immigration issues continue to be fueled by frustration, political blame, and appeals for stronger border security. Previous MIG Reports analysis showed American voters understand and relate to the frustration of Irish protesters over illegal immigrant camps.

The recent stabbing of three young English girls has produced similar effect in Southport, England. Again, Americans echo the frustrations of angry British demonstrators. Americans worry about the safety and security of their own communities in the face of increasing violent incidents linked to immigration.

The main points of discussion include America's porous border and the role of political leaders like Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. People debate the consequences of immigration on crime rates and community safety.

• Border security and migrants are consistently high-volume keywords in online discussion. This emphasizes negative feelings about current border policies.

Discussion Trends

"Border security" emerges as a dominant keyword, alongside "illegal immigrants," "crime," and "safety." Many discussions criticize Biden’s handling of border policies, often attributing the rise in illegal crossings and associated crimes to an unwillingness to control the border. Voters argue Democratic open border policies are endangers American families. People discuss increases in illegal crossings in states like Arizona and California under the Biden-Harris administration, compared to decreases in Texas, where state officials are actively opposing federal immigration attitudes with things like migrant bussing, aquatic barriers, and barbed wire.

Kamala Harris, often referred to as the "Border Czar," is a focal point of criticism. Her recent campaign promise to resurrect a border security bill once blocked by Trump have been met with skepticism. Critics highlight her past actions, arguing her policies are negligent, allowing a surge in illegal crossing and spikes in criminal activity.

Voters accuse Harris of opposing increased border patrol agents and enforcing existing laws. They also accuse her of willingly giving migrants access to public funds, which Americans would rather use for citizens.

Kamala Harris supporters say her policies are misunderstood or misrepresented. They emphasize her efforts to address "root causes" of migration, claiming she was never Border Czar. They put blame on Republicans, claiming legislative obstructions and political gamesmanship.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who some consider a dark horse Democratic VP candidate, helped push a narrative that Democrats are stronger on the border than Trump. He claims the failed Border Bill’s rule that asylum cases should be heard within 90 days is a better solution than a wall. However, there is no evidence the U.S. asylum process would be able to cope volume or detect and determine fraud within that timeframe.

Walz on Trump's border wall: "I always say, let me know how high it is. If it's 25 feet then I'll invest in a 30-foot ladder factory. That's not how you stop this." pic.twitter.com/TEftUjJItH

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 31, 2024

Sentiment Trends

Sentiment toward Kamala Harris on border issues is significantly negative compared to Trump. Disapproval toward Biden’s immigration policies carry over to her as Americans demand stricter measures.

Instances of violence, such as the involvement of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang in criminal activities across the U.S., amplify these anxieties. Discussions around "child trafficking" and "fentanyl" further heighten fears, reflecting deep-seated concerns over national security and public safety.

Americans want effective enforcement for existing immigration policies and demand increased law enforcement presence at the border. The public clearly wants a major shift toward proactive measures that prioritize American safety. They are fed up with current leaders who, many say, want America to end up in a similar situation to Europe.

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

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

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

Double Standards

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

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

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

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

Anger Toward Hezbollah

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

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

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

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

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

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

Views of Harris

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

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

— Phil Gordon (@PhilGordon46) July 28, 2024

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

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

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

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

Flag Burning

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

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

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

"Chickens for KFC"

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

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

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

2024 Riots Echo 2020 Riots

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

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

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

American Leadership Silence

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

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

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

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

Lukewarm on Netanyahu

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

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

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

Keywords

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

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

Political Figures and Statements

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

Public Protests and Social Movements

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

Israel's Military Actions and the Gaza Conflict

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

International Court of Justice Rulings

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

U.S.-Israel Relations

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

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

Ukraine Failure

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

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

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

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 11, 2024

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

Israel Failure

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

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

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

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

Iran and China Disapproval

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

Home Front Failure and Seeking Change

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

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

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