Democratic support for Biden ticks up on handling of Israel-Hamas war, AP-NORC poll says
Democratic support for Biden ticks up on handling of Israel-Hamas war, AP-NORC poll says
President Joe Biden is getting slightly more support among Democrats for his handling of the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
Democratic views on how President Joe Biden is handling the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians have rebounded slightly, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
The shift occurred during a time in which Biden and top U.S. officials expressed increased concern about civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip, emphasized the need for a future independent Palestinian state and helped secure the release of hostages held by Hamas during a temporary truce.
Fifty-nine percent of Democrats approve of Biden’s approach to the conflict, a tick up from 50% in November. His latest standing is roughly equivalent to Democrats’ 57% approval rating for him on the issue in an August poll, conducted well before the latest war began on Oct. 7 when Hamas attacked Israel.
Still, the issue remains divisive among Democrats, who are less enthusiastic about Biden’s handling of the war than his overall job performance. Seventy-five percent of Democrats said Biden is doing well as president, also up slightly from 69% last month. His approval rating among U.S. adults stands at 41%.
You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
Turns out the less you slob Israel's knob, the more support you get. Who would've thunk?
Well the discovery of an enormous weapons cache near a school and clinic helped realign people's understanding.
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-776786
The testimonials of the rape victims helped realign people's understanding. (obvious TW here)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7050237
Finding out aid groups in Palestine were sitting on hoards of supplies, because Hamas ordered them to, helped realign people's understanding.
Finally, a global rise in antisemitism helped clarify where a lot of the anti-Israel sentiment comes from.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/antisemitism-rise-us-amid-ongoing-israel-hamas-war/story?id=104485604
At its worst, Israel enjoyed the same support levels that Ukraine has. It's really just places with a heavy leftist presence that gives the opposite impression.
This war sucks, and most people would love a change in Israeli policy now and in the future as well as an ouster of Israel's right-wing, but there is clearly one least-bad group here and it ain't Hamas.
Even the most radical person here shouting "genocide supporter" at me later today doesn't support Hamas. They have less than 1% support in the US.
Definition of "least bad of 2 bad choices."
"Least bad group" in this case indiscriminatingly bombing a civilian population seems quite the bar position to get that tag.
Opinion: I don't think the "leftists" are saying that Hamas isn't terrible. The issue is that Israel is either going to create a whole new generation ready to create a new terror group and start the cycle over, or they are going to effectively destroy that generation. Both of which don't really mesh with an idea that it's totally a defensive push.
And hopefully it didn't need pointing out, but there is a weird disconnect with antisemitism vs anti-Israel: the former tends to be far-right individuals not wanting Jewish humans in their country while the latter tends to focus more on anti-Zionist groups within the county of Israel. Far-right groups tend to be much more pro-Israel due to it meaning either end of the world types or just happy they're "no longer in much country."
“Least bad group” in this case indiscriminatingly bombing a civilian population seems quite the bar position to get that tag.
Just because I'm so tired of hearing "indiscriminately bombing" I'll go ahead and address this.
0.6% of Gaza's population, both combatant and non-combatant, has died in this conflict.
While the civilian deaths are excessive, irresponsible, and a terrible humanitarian, strategic and geopolitical decision, in no way can it be argued that Israel is "indiscriminately bombing" or committing genocide.
When you bomb one of the most densely-populated cities in the world, you're going to hit civilians. That's the way ordinance works.
Would I prefer a radically different approach to this campaign? Hell yes. Is their current, misguided, approach "indiscriminate bombing" or "genocide?" No. Math doesn't lie.
Compare/contrast with the more than 10k civilians killed in the Battle of Mosul, which is a much less densely-populated city.
And hopefully it didn’t need pointing out, but there is a weird disconnect with antisemitism vs anti-Israel
I'd love for this to be true but it is not. See my link in the post above, as well as the many instances of things like this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/04/us/white-house-philadelphia-protesters.html
While I disagree with anti-zionists personally, I fully support their right to advocate anti-zionism. Anti-Jewish sentiment is unacceptable. It's the same as people hating Muslims after 9/11, or that asshole who shot those poor Palestinian kids just for being Palestinian.
That kind of hate has no place in society.
Fair point! In that case, how about "uncaringly" bombing? No matter how you swing it, they are taking a hammer to a population.
"Go south", bomb. "Go north", bomb.
And just to also address that, 0.6% has died because of this. Another fair stat, but hides the actual number of 15k+. This all kicked off due to a horrific attack that killed 1.5k.
Whether or not it reaches the legal definition of a genocide is effectively moot when the civilian population is getting decimated in a short amount of time. Placing the people killed behind a percentage, for me, turns a bunch of suffering into "oh it's not that bad " because you are excluding the injured, the family of those individuals who have died, and a whole swath of destruction that a larger group is never coming back from.
I'm not trying to change your mind, because this is the internet lol I'm just pointing that there is more to the anger and frustration outside of the general statistics, which are equally a valid way to look at the whole thing.
In that case, how about “uncaringly” bombing? No matter how you swing it, they are taking a hammer to a population.
Totally agreed. I don't support the bombing campaign as it has been prosecuted by Israel. I think it is a very poor choice.
And just to also address that, 0.6% has died because of this. Another fair stat, but hides the actual number of 15k+. This all kicked off due to a horrific attack that killed 1.5k.
I specifically address this in my comparison to Mosul, in which a similar amount of civilians died, while being 20% as dense as Gaza. The US was clearly not aiming to maximize civilian casualties in Mosul.
My entire point here is not "bombing civilians is fine," but "war kills civilians, which is why war is bad, and there is zero evidence that this is genocide."
This situation sucks and the outpouring of pure rage-bombing from Israel is completely stupid, immoral, and counter-productive. It is not genocide, nor is it indiscriminate.
On a personal note, thank you for engaging with me as a person. I can pretty much guarantee I'm gonna catch a lot of really offensive and personal attacks for saying true things here, and I thank you for not being part of that.
❤️ thank you as well! Have a great day / night!
Simply excellent write up.
0.6%, that's 1 person in 160 out of every person in Gaza... you say that like it's nothing... that's like 2 people on the train I was on this morning.
I don't hate Jews or Israelis, but I hate "anti-Semitism" being used as an excuse to justify causing more terror and suffering onto others.
Who are you doing the math to figure out the divisor of 0.6% but not bothering to read where I say
While the civilian deaths are excessive, irresponsible, and a terrible humanitarian, strategic and geopolitical decision, in no way can it be argued that Israel is “indiscriminately bombing” or committing genocide.
It was literally the very next sentence.
I read it and I get your sympathy, but respectfully I disagree with your claim that killing 0.6% of a population doesn't amount to a genocide even if the aim is to only hit what a side considers military targets. It most definitely can qualify, and using AI to determine targets with loose oversight can be considered indiscriminate.