Here's the latest YouGov poll showing Democratic preferences in the Gaza war:
Every age group is more sympathetic to the Israelis than the Palestinians with the exception of the youngest cohort, which is slightly more sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Overall, Democrats approve of Joe Biden's handling of the war by 62-21%.
Overall, Democrats approve of Joe Biden's handling of the war by 62-21%.
Never hear that on the news.
Polls are almost always very stupid, and this one is no exception. Why is the question about "sympathizing"? Of course, many people will say "about equal" or "not sure" because who most people sympathize with ANYONE who is suffering.
They should have asked something like "Whose actions do you think are more justifiable in this conflict?" Then they would have gotten far fewer shrugs.
But when will Democrats stand up and rid their party of anti-Semites like UK Labor did?
Democrats have a near impossible time ejecting or at all disciplining people for noxious views that aren't illegal because they're the only national political party and have to in some way accommodate everyone.
The Republicans are simply an instrument for keeping corruption legal and the rest are clever ways to keep people from voting for Democrats.
The only way a real third party might exist is if it ran in an area Democrats are unable to contest, but they never do.
“noxious views that aren’t illegal” — otherwise known as ‘protected free speech’.
No one in the US is serious about a third party. If they were , they would run candidates in local elections, and build toward electing state legislators, then members of Congress, and ultimately the Presidency. There are Americans who dislike both parties, but they are satisfied with voting for unqualified vanity candidates like Jill Stein and RFK, Jr.; just as long as ‘they’re not politicians’. Trump managed to capture the disgruntled because one of our major parties saw fit to nominate an unqualified narcissist.
He is the true voice of the baboon colony billionaires and corporations thought they controlled.
By anti-Semites do you mean the Democrats who sympathize with the thousands of Palestinians being killed? The Democrats are not going to rid its party of anti-Semites since in the US the anti-Semites are already playing for the other team.
"By anti-Semites do you mean the Democrats who sympathize with the thousands of Palestinians being killed?"
Yes
Democrats rid their party of anti-Semites with the 1994 federal crime bill.
I have no sympathy, but that’s not an option. Why are US troops in Syria? I disapprove of that too!
You? Who are you?
So we don't betray the kurds yet again.
As I recall, the Ds were likewise totally on board with bombing the entirety of Afghanistan and then landing ground troops there after a small group of Saudis living in Florida hijacked a few planes and crashed them into stuff in 2001. You can't fight stupid....
Crashed them into stuff? You mean two skyscrapers in New York? And some 3000 people? That stuff?
That's exactly what I'm talking about, though you seem to have forgotten about the Pentagon and the plane that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. And for that we bombed an entire country that had no idea what was going on, sent in ground troops, and then occupied the country for 20 years. Barbara Lee was the only democrat who voted against all that. Even Bernie voted for it, though he seems to regret having done so.
Your Hamas and Al Qaida friends appreciate your comments.
Here's what my friends in Israel are saying:
https://jacobin.com/2023/11/united-states-critics-israel-war-gaza-cease-fire-slander-israeli-dissent?fbclid=IwAR0QEf1J857Z9Ei1boyaQuBK8XPuZP_szOwo2yIdDbz1QEbwUWTZzLV_Shg
AIPAC poisoning is pretty effective.
Particularly when administered in high doses over many decades.
What a fucking indictment of the American body politic.
But there is a sharp divide between the Younglings and the Silverbacks.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2023/11/09/49efe/1
Kevin seems to have left out the fact that all but one age court is *equally* sympathetic to both sides (save the youngest group, which favors the Palestinians).
Despite the lunatics on the Left, many of them represented in this comment section, most sane people are in fact appalled by the gut-wrenching and inexcusable assault that Hamas deliberately leveled against civilians, women, and children on 10/7.
And most normal people, unlike most Leftists, are able to hold more than one thought in their head at a time. Yes, what's going on now in Gaza is indeed tragic; but, Israel is obviously going to respond to the terrorist assault that was recently launched against it by its neighbor and which claimed more than a thousand lives and several hundred captives.
As at least a few intelligent people have pointed out, all of the pressure currently aimed at Israel should instead be aimed at demanding that Hamas return the hostages (Jennifer Rubin in the WP, for example, makes this point frequently).
But then there's this:
"Every age group is more sympathetic to the Israelis than the Palestinians with the exception of the youngest cohort, which is slightly more sympathetic to the Palestinians."
Undoubtedly there is an element of peer pressure at work among the "youngest cohort." And I'd bet good money that many if not most of them have little if any idea where majority opinion actually lies on the issue.
Jon Chait @ NY Mag has a good column out today on this topic, pointing out that young DC staffers who demand that their own bosses support an Israeli ceasefire don't seem to realize that they do not represent the prevalent viewpoint on the issue.
I'm still inclined to give "kids" (or "young adults," whatever, it's pretty relative) some leeway. But to any adults demanding an Israeli ceasefire with no demand upon Hamas to return hostages: you're either stupid or evil. I'm willing to provide at least that much flexibility, and I'll leave it up to you to decide between those two options; but, sorry, it's one or the other.
"I'm willing to provide at least that much flexibility . . . "
LOL! You? Who are you?
Not sure why anyone would take seriously the opinion on the left of someone who doesn't even know how to spell left.
Who are these people in the comments section not appalled by 10/7? Are they in the room with you right now?
Israel responding in the manner it has is grotesque and criminal. If Israel was "obviously" going to respond to 10/7 by stacking the bodies to the ceiling and doing a whole bunch more ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, that's a damning indictment of them.
Those people are appalling, and should be ashamed.
Or maybe they're aware and don't give a shit about the terrible opinions of others except inasmuch as it reveals them to be terrible people.
Incorrect. The position of "Israel is justified in hurling vast amounts of steel into Gaza, murdering thousands and brutalizing millions, until their demands are met" is the stupid and evil one.
You, and the other pieces of shit on this, seem to have adopted a stance of "responding to 10/7 justifies all actions Israel has taken." This is awful; it is deeply evil.
Thank you. And re: the thing about Hamas not wanting a cease fire, they have already offered an exchange of some prisoners for five days of it.
We know the Israeli government and military lie a lot, maybe all the time. So clearly, their supporters have to as well.
Hamas is in no position to bargain. That's not how it works. Negotiations and cease fires are for when neither side has an upper hand. Israel could wipe out Gaza tomorrow if it wanted to. Hamas need to unconditionally surrender.
The Sabra and Shatila massacres were in 1982. Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, a massive, 22-day military assault on the Gaza Strip December 27, 2008 as a Christmas present to the lunatics on the Left.
If you haven't, check out John Oliver's take:
https://www.salon.com/2023/11/13/last-week-tonight-john-oliver-palestine-brian-mast/
He, and many others, are calling for a ceasefire. What exactly does a ceasefire look like at this point. There are 10s of thousands of Israeli troops and heavy equipment in Gaza. Does a ceasefire include a withdrawal? Is it just the Israelis who cease fire or does Hamas also stop shooting? And then what about the people kidnapped by Hamas, what happens to them?
It seems to me that a call for a ceasefire is pointless without those details.
Hillary Clinton has as article in The Atlantic arguing that Hamas needs to be destroyed,
Earlier this year Palestinians in Gaza were openly protesting against Hamas.. How should Hamas respond--goad Israel into reacting, and those protesters against Hamas are being bombed.
As long as the Israeli government condemns all Palestinians, they'll push the next generation of Palestinians into the arms of Hamas, and the cycle continues.
We've come to a weird state in these United States where comedian newscasters have the smartest take on current events. (And thank you, John Stewart! Who can forget your takedown of "Crossfire" and *ucker Carlson?)
CNN says the AP-NORC poll found 46% approve, 50% disapprove. So vastly different
!
Also note that the # that "sympathizes more" with Israel is roughly the same for all age groups. The big difference is among those who "sympathize more" with the Palestinians is across the age groups.
I would hazard a guess that the older you are, the more you have absorbed the history of this conflict. 18- to 29-year-olds have no memory of all the stuff that happened since after WW2, but they've been steeped in narratives about "colonialism" and "privilege," so it's a comfortable template on which to map this conflict. History, on the other hand, is never comfortable.
I think it's remarkable that very nearly a majority of the geezer group sympathizes about equally. Do you suppose that's because we can remember all the way back to the Six Day War and the long and horrifying train of atrocities on both sides that have been following along ever since?
I'm in the "sympathizes equally" group. That long and horrifying train of atrocities on both sides means that "nearly zero" equals "nearly zero".
This is probably a tough question for many to answer, but count me in the "both equally" group. There is only one way to reconcile sympathy for both sides: The 2-state solution.
Actually, I tend to favor a one state solution. Israel has long since made it clear that it never intends to unoccupy the occupied territories. Such being the case, Israel should formally annex those territories and give their inhabitants Israeli citizenship.
Something to think about, for all the folks who still believe that Hamas wasn't using al-Shifa Hospital for its own needs, or that Hamas does not benefit from a pause.
Hamas benefits from any cease-fire or pause. The question is, on balance, is it something worth pursuing despite setting back Israel's goal of eliminating Hamas? I think it is, especially if it supports the release of hostages.
Given how heavily outmatched Hamas is against the IDF and with consideration that the IDF has severed the northern third of the Gaza Strip (on land, that is), ultimately, a pause would not help Hamas all that much. The US could give Israel whatever MOABs (GBU-43/B) it has left and supplement that with Bunker Busters (GBU-57A) to sever underground tunnels leading into the northern third of Gaza.
Israel doesn’t have an aircraft that could deliver the GBU-57A. They do have the C-130, though not the version the US uses to drop the GBU-43/B; in any case, this is an air-burst weapon. I don’t know what you suppose should be targeted with that.
I do agree that short delays would be little benefit to Hamas. The tunnel system as described in the NYT article allows personnel and materiel to move, safe from conventional weapons. The system is so extensive that ‘bunker busters’ could only damage a fraction of it.
This sort of poll is useless in the present circumstances, where a terrorist organization who cares as little for the lives and welfare of actual Palestinians as they do for Israeli lives, has started a war in which their aim is to kill every Jew in Israel.
Every Palestinian in Gaza could be killed at any moment with the munitions the US gives Israel.
Hamas’ “aim” is irrelevant when they lack even a small fraction of the capacity to accomplish it.
Israel has called up 350,000 troops. It's estimated that Hamas has 3,000. So clearly, Israel's "existence" is more threatened than the lives of all the Palestinians! Yeah.
Not to mention Israel has attack aircraft, armor, and more and superior artillery.
Tell that to the families of the 1,400 that were killed on 10/7.
I don't find the polling data above surprising. But a good indication of the limits of polling is that a data for progress poll asking of people think the US should be pushing for a ceasefire and deescalation of violence has 80% of democrats saying they either strongly or somewhat agree with only 12 percent either strongly or somewhat disagreeing. (The strongly disagree is so small they couldn't even fit the number into the bar graph, it's 3%).
That is, of course, consistent with the "sympathize" data above since it is not surprising that everybody who says they sympathize either equally or more with the Palestinians is likely to say yes, as are people who didn't want to answer that question. And even the people who sympathize more with Israelis than Palestinians do not have be happy with what Israel is doing in Gaza now.
On the surface it certainly sits oddly with the support for what Biden is doing since he is rejecting a ceasefire. But it is likely that a lot of Democrats don't know what Biden is doing, or are comparing what he is doing to what they suspect Republicans would do in his place, or are simply standing up for their party's candidate.
Or maybe data for progress has slanted its question ("The US should call for a ceasefire and a de-escalation of violence in Gaza. The U.S. should leverage its close diplomatic relationship with Israel to prevent further violence and civilian death"). Certainly with that wording anyone who is not paying attention is likely to agree that less civilian death is good. Even Republicans agree with the question by 56-34 with Independents at 57-31.