Democratic support for Biden ticks up on handling of Israel-Hamas war, AP-NORC poll says (apnews.com)

submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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%.

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] snipgan@kbin.social 20 points 9 months ago

Biden was going to piss off some group of people due to how polarizing the conflict is. I always thought he was doing pretty well even when it began.

His only sore spot seems to come from giving a lot of support to Israel, as they ARE one of our allies, and for us to just ignore that would look bad to our other allies. Especially after having a terrorist attack on their country by the Hamas. Geopolitics being complex beast.

But he has been advocating for civilian safety and making sure the water doesn't get turned off......

Can't say I would've done much better or anyone else here.

I know many are calling for a "permanent" ceasefire........but there was already a ceasefire before this. So, we would just be waiting until it gets "broken" again. Probably by another Hamas attack. Who ARE terrorists and want Israel eliminated altogether.

Let's not also forget if Trump was in charge then this situation would've been handled a lot less gracefully. Or even spiral out of control.

[-] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Let's not also forget if Trump was in charge then this situation would've been handled a lot less gracefully. Or even spiral out of control.

He'd be screaming on Twitter about how they won't let him use nukes.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

https://www.axios.com/2023/12/01/gaza-ceasefire-collapse-israel-hostages

From the article:

Driving the news: According to the ceasefire agreement, Hamas committed to releasing all the women and children it was holding hostage in exchange for a pause in fighting for up to nine days. More than 80 women and children were released over the last week as part of this process.

Yes, but: In the hours leading to the end of the pause, Hamas did not send a list of hostages it would release, the three Israeli officials said.

Instead, Hamas sent messages through Qatari and Egyptian mediators proposing to start a discussion on what concessions Israel would be willing to give in return for the release of elderly men, the officials added. Behind the scenes: The Israeli officials said Israel made it clear to the mediators that it knows Hamas still has several women in its custody and that it would not discuss future deals before all the women were released.

Mossad chief David Barnea, the lead negotiator on the Israeli side, sent a message to Hamas through the mediators on Thursday night that stressed Israel was "not playing games" and that if the women were not released, the fighting would resume, a senior Israeli official said. Not long after that Hamas launched a rocket from Gaza for the first time since the pause started. An hour later the ceasefire completely broke down. The U.S. has also publicly blamed Hamas for the collapse of the ceasefire. The other side: Hamas official Osama Hamdan told Al-Araby news channel that Israel was responsible for the failure. He said that the women Israel proposed to be released included female IDF soldiers.

Hamdan added that Israel refused any other offer made. Hamas in a statement said it had offered to release elderly men and two Israeli hostages, as well as the bodies of hostages it said were killed during Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. The bodies included a mother and her two children, the statement added. Hamas said it offered to release the father of the children so that he could attend their funeral.

Violence during ceasefire:

Eighteen Palestinians have been killed and at least 20 others injured by the Israel Defence Forces during an hours-long daytime raid on Jenin city and its refugee camp in the occupied West Bank.

In the latest escalation in violence on the West Bank, occurring against the background of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, the IDF said an airstrikehit an armed squad of men in the city.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/10/israeli-forces-kill-palestinians-in-daytime-raid-in-west-bank?utm_source=pocket_mylist

AP reports that Israeli troops fatally shot two Palestinians and wounded 11 others as they headed toward [their homes in] the main combat zone in northern Gaza despite warnings by the Israeli army to stay put.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231124-israel-shoots-at-displaced-palestinians-trying-to-return-home-to-north-gaza/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/2-palestinians-killed-11-wounded-trying-to-reach-north-gaza-despite-idf-warnings-ap/

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

I'm just glad he didn't try to stick to his guns, and actually started listening to us, paying attention to the resignations and shit. Otherwise he was gonna go down with that ship, and maybe take us with him.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Biden's policy has not undergone any significant changes regarding Israel at all.

The Biden admin has been urging restraint while backing Israel for 100% of this conflict.

Here he is prior to Israel's invasion, doing exactly that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/International/biden-embraces-netanyahu-steps-off-air-force-tel/story%3fid=104063578

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

I feel like Biden has been pretty good about listening to the public and generally tries to get the best outcome for people even in shit situations.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com -1 points 9 months ago

Over 30 years as chairman of the Foreign Relations committee and 8 years as VP and you know what his thinking was or if it changed?

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Yes, quite easily. He was fully on Netanyahu's side, now he is steadily moving away from him. From this I can conclude that he has decided that supporting Netanyahu is no longer a good idea.

My reasonings why are more supposition, as opposed to any kind of confirmable fact. I cannot read the man's mind, of course. But, some things are more likely than others.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's not exactly a secret that Biden dislikes Netanyahu and has for a long time. He didn't receive the customary invitation to the white house after his latest election win, which tells you something.

I think Biden decided to be fully on Israel's side after the attack, and to give Netenyahu the benefit of the doubt, hoping he'd rise to the challenge and become a true statesman. Weirder things have happened. Perhaps that was naive, clearly that's not in Netenyahu's nature. Likely it was a decision made in part due to domestic political considerations, but here we are.

Does now make it easier for Biden to criticise Netenyahu and push for moderation. No one can accuse him of not supporting Israel, although I assume the GOP will try to do exactly that if they haven't already.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 9 months ago

Foreign Relations is like chess. You have to think several moves ahead. He could have seemed to be with Bibi until he could setup negotiations with Hamas. He had to get space to pressure Qatar to work on his behalf. He knows exactly who Bibi is and what he responds to. That is a much more likely scenario than "we changed his mind".

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Domestic politics is as major a consideration as geopolitics. Perhaps even moreso, as how much can you do if you're not in office?

And we don't need any additional routes towards negotiations with HAMAS. If the Qataris didn't want to do it, we'd ask Erdogan.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Your goal in this scenario is making every feel good for an election or getting some hostages out? I think it's a good thing that hostages won.

Erdogan expressed his distain for Isreal eary on. He wasn't an alternative in any way.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

It doesn't matter. He's a politician, he has to deal with hard reality, not how he wishes things could be. Erdogan is an ally, no matter how much we may dislike him sometimes. Elections are a reality, and people vote for what they like.

This is hard reality, where things are not simple or easy.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 9 months ago

If Bibi is the biggest liar on the world stage, Erdogan is the biggest crackpot. Biden can perform better than any former President and still get junk poll numbers. He's been around long enough that his last election probably doesn't taste that sweet.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago

Erdogan has continually expressed his disdain for Greece over the past few years. Now he's entirely changed his tune and is visiting Athens to reset relations.

Don't take what politicians say too seriously.

What they do is less influenced by friendships, ideology, or morality. It's mostly realpolitik, the national interest, or domestic political concerns, matter most and not much else.

[+] Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Turns out the less you slob Israel's knob, the more support you get. Who would've thunk?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/video-said-to-show-desperate-gazans-ransacking-unrwa-supplies-stockpile/amp/

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.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2023/11/30/poll-finds-strong-support-for-arming-ukraine-israel-and-taiwan/#:~:text=That%20poll%20found%2053%25%20of,arming%20Israel%20with%2043%25%20opposed.

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."

[-] bravesilvernest@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

"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."

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

“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.

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-warfare-project-case-study-2-battle-of-mosul/#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20civilian%20casualties,left%20in%20the%20battle's%20aftermath.

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.

[-] bravesilvernest@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] bravesilvernest@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

❤️ thank you as well! Have a great day / night!

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 3 points 9 months ago

Imagine President Biden saying, "And then we fell in love." about any head of state, especially Kim Jong Un.

Our media would never stop crapping on him for it Just sayin'

[-] autotldr 2 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

Views on the Middle East could shift again now that fighting has resumed in the Gaza Strip, where Hamas is headquartered and thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli strikes.

“I’ve been very straightforward and blunt with our Israeli friends in private about what I think they have to do and the burden they have and the commitment they have from me and my administration,” Biden said at a campaign fundraiser in Boston this week.

Sixty-seven percent of U.S. adults call freeing hostages an extremely or very important goal, with majorities of Democrats and Republicans in agreement.

Twenty-eight percent of Republicans said it’s extremely or very important for the U.S. to provide humanitarian relief to Palestinians in Gaza, versus 65% of Democrats.

The original article contains 800 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023

96 points (97.1% liked)

politics

18883 readers

5089 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News