World News
The Memo: Americans pick their side as conflict rages between Israel and the Palestinians on October 25, 2023 at 10:00 am

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is dividing American society way beyond the Beltway.
The Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, in which around 1,400 Israelis were killed, and the Israeli reprisals that followed — which have reportedly killed more than 5,000 Palestinians — have roiled Hollywood, academia, the media and the arts, as well as the political world.
The debate is fierce and often bitter, with voices on both sides expressing personal hurt and bewilderment at the charges being thrown their way.
Above all, it’s a dispute where both sides feel unheard by the other.
Defenders of Israel say many of those expressing broadly pro-Palestinian views are minimizing, or even excusing, the horrific nature of the Hamas attack and turning a deaf ear to the depth of trauma in the Jewish diaspora.
They also contend that some of those critics are antisemites or Hamas sympathizers.
“There is a sense of deep distress and disappointment” among the Jewish community about some responses to the Hamas attack, said Joel Rubin, the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress.
“In the wake of enduing a mass atrocity terrorist attack, the first reaction seemed to be, first, being quiet, and then overt victim-blaming — meaning, blaming Israel for those attacks,” added Rubin, who is also a candidate in the Democratic House primary for Maryland’s 6th District.
But pro-Palestinian voices argue that the suffering of people in Gaza, and the enormous death toll there, has not received the same media or political attention as the killings in Israel.
They also argue that it is vital to understand the broad context for the conflict — including the decades-long Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the deprivations of life in Gaza. Acknowledging such facts is in no way tantamount to excusing the Oct. 7 attack, they say.
“This idea that providing context is somehow providing sympathy for terrorism is a very frequently employed talking point by apologists for Israel’s apartheid government,” said Omar Baddar, a Palestinian American political analyst.
Baddar pointed out that, prior to Oct. 7, around 250 Palestinians had been killed this year, primarily in the West Bank, and he added “settlers were attacking Palestinians far more frequently, and the siege on Gaza was unlivable.”
He also noted that, back in 2018, when Gazans marched to the border fence with Israel to protest Israel’s blockade, the Israelis opened fired on them. At the time, CBS News reported that some of the protesters had tried to break through the fence, and that Israel had killed 38 protesters in less than a month.
The fundamental divides between the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian positions have caused rifts between major colleges and their donors; drawn major media outlets into heated controversy, most notably over an explosion at a Gaza hospital; and have even reverberated through Hollywood and the entertainment world.
In the political realm, some of the most fractious divisions are within the Democratic Party.
Most figures on the center-left, including President Biden, are emphatic supporters of Israel.
Younger, more progressive figures tend to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians — a trend best epitomized by members of “the Squad,” including Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
The battles among Democrats can have an intensely personal edge, as seen in recent days between Omar and Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), a vigorous backer of Israel.
Last Friday, an anguished Omar asked rhetorically of Torres, “How many more killings is enough for you? Is it a thousand more? Two thousand more? Three thousand more? How many more Palestinians would make you happy if they die?”
On Tuesday, asked about those comments by CNN’s Dana Bash, Torres responded, “I obviously resent those comments. Every casualty’s a tragedy … But we have to keep in mind the causes of the war. Israel did not start the war. The war was imposed upon Israel by the barbaric terrorism of Hamas.”
Beyond Washington, a Palestine Solidarity Committee at Harvard sparked a firestorm that has yet to be extinguished when, soon after Hamas’s attack, it released a statement holding “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.”
Amid widespread outrage, Harvard’s president Claudine Gay on Monday said that she condemned antisemitism “in all its forms” and added “it has no place at Harvard.”
Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal reported that “elite universities” including Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania were facing a “donor revolt” over allegations that they had not been forceful enough in rebutting antisemitism.
In Hollywood, more than 700 celebrities and executives signed a letter backing Israel in the week after Hamas’s attack.
Jerry Seinfeld, Jamie Lee Curtis and Amy Schumer were among those who signed the letter demanding that Hamas’s “barbaric acts of terrorism” should be “called out by everyone.”
But the issue has proven problematic in Hollywood, too.
Sarah Silverman faced criticism for sharing a post on Instagram defending the cutting off of power and water to Gaza. Meanwhile, one of Hollywood’s top agents, Maha Dakhil, resigned from the internal board of leading agency CAA after a social media post that suggested Israel was guilty of “genocide.”
Celebrity activism always draws detractors who complain about the self-importance of those involved, but there are clearly downsides for those weighing in on an issue as contentious as the current conflict.
“It’s difficult to make an argument that these celebrities are being particularly calculating, because by taking a side on this they are ultimately taking a risk,” said Mark Harvey, an associate professor at the University of Saint Mary and the author of “Celebrity Influence,” a book about celebrity advocacy.
In activist circles, meanwhile, mutual frustration is plain as charges of antisemitism and Islamophobia are thrown back and forth, along with disputes as to which side in the conflict is the oppressor or the oppressed.
Rubin argued that, following the initial Hamas attack, “in the Jewish community there was a real sense of physical insecurity. The seeming approval of an attack as a consequence of the occupation, with the attacks being of such a vile nature, made people feel physically nervous.”
But Eva Borgwardt, the national spokesperson for If Not Now, a movement of American Jews opposed to Israel’s occupation, notably referred in the plural to “Jewish communities” that were “in a lot of pain right now.”
Her organization, she contended, is “ending the lie that Jewish or Israeli safety relies on Palestinian suffering. We are calling for a ceasefire, a release of the hostages, and to end the decades of occupation, apartheid and siege that have led to this horrific nightmare.”
The nightmare of conflict seems sure to continue for the moment — with American divisions around it growing ever deeper.
The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.
The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is dividing American society way beyond the Beltway. The Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, in which around 1,400 Israelis were killed, and the Israeli reprisals that followed — which have reportedly killed more than 5,000 Palestinians — have roiled Hollywood, academia, the media and the arts, as well as the political…
News
US May Completely Cut Income Tax Due to Tariff Revenue

President Donald Trump says the United States might one day get rid of federal income tax because of money the government collects from tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are extra taxes the U.S. puts on products that come from other countries.

What Trump Is Saying
Trump has said that tariff money could become so large that it might allow the government to cut income taxes “almost completely.” He has also talked about possibly phasing out income tax over the next few years if tariff money keeps going up.
How Taxes Work Now
Right now, the federal government gets much more money from income taxes than from tariffs. Income taxes bring in trillions of dollars each year, while tariffs bring in only a small part of that total. Because of this gap, experts say tariffs would need to grow by many times to replace income tax money.
Questions From Experts
Many economists and tax experts doubt that tariffs alone could pay for the whole federal budget. They warn that very high tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive for shoppers in the United States. This could hit lower- and middle‑income families hardest, because they spend a big share of their money on everyday items.
What Congress Must Do
The president can change some tariffs, but only Congress can change or end the federal income tax. That means any real plan to remove income tax would need new laws passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, there is no detailed law or full budget plan on this idea.

What It Means Right Now
For now, Trump’s comments are a proposal, not a change in the law. People and businesses still have to pay federal income tax under the current rules. The debate over using tariffs instead of income taxes is likely to continue among lawmakers, experts, and voters.
News
Epstein Files to Be Declassified After Trump Order

Former President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing federal agencies to declassify all government files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier whose death in 2019 continues to fuel controversy and speculation.
The order, signed Wednesday at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, instructs the FBI, Department of Justice, and intelligence agencies to release documents detailing Epstein’s network, finances, and alleged connections to high-profile figures. Trump described the move as “a step toward transparency and public trust,” promising that no names would be shielded from scrutiny.
“This information belongs to the American people,” Trump said in a televised statement. “For too long, powerful interests have tried to bury the truth. That ends now.”
U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that preparations for the release are already underway. According to sources familiar with the process, the first batch of documents is expected to be made public within the next 30 days, with additional releases scheduled over several months.
Reactions poured in across the political spectrum. Supporters praised the decision as a bold act of accountability, while critics alleged it was politically motivated, timed to draw attention during a volatile election season. Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, emphasized caution, warning that some records could expose private victims or ongoing legal matters.
The Epstein case, which implicated figures in politics, business, and entertainment, remains one of the most talked-about scandals of the past decade. Epstein’s connections to influential individuals—including politicians, royals, and executives—have long sparked speculation about the extent of his operations and who may have been involved.

Former federal prosecutor Lauren Fields said the release could mark a turning point in public discourse surrounding government transparency. “Regardless of political stance, this declassification has the potential to reshape how Americans view power and accountability,” Fields noted.
Officials say redactions may still occur to protect sensitive intelligence or personal information, but the intent is a near-complete disclosure. For years, critics of the government’s handling of Epstein’s case have accused agencies of concealing evidence or shielding elites from exposure. Trump’s order promises to change that narrative.
As anticipation builds, journalists, legal analysts, and online commentators are preparing for what could be one of the most consequential information releases in recent history.
Politics
Netanyahu’s UN Speech Triggers Diplomatic Walkouts and Mass Protests

What Happened at the United Nations
On Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, defending Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza. As he spoke, more than 100 delegates from over 50 countries stood up and left the chamber—a rare and significant diplomatic walkout. Outside the UN, thousands of protesters gathered to voice opposition to Netanyahu’s policies and call for accountability, including some who labeled him a war criminal. The protest included activists from Palestinian and Jewish groups, along with international allies.

Why Did Delegates and Protesters Walk Out?
The walkouts and protests were a response to Israel’s continued offensive in Gaza, which has resulted in widespread destruction and a significant humanitarian crisis. Many countries and individuals have accused Israel of excessive use of force, and some international prosecutors have suggested Netanyahu should face investigation by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including claims that starvation was used as a weapon against civilians. At the same time, a record number of nations—over 150—recently recognized the State of Palestine, leaving the United States as the only permanent UN Security Council member not to join them.
International Reaction and Significance
The diplomatic walkouts and street protests demonstrate increasing global concern over the situation in Gaza and growing support for Palestinian statehood. Several world leaders, including Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, showed visible solidarity with protesters. Petro called for international intervention and, controversially, for US troops not to follow orders he viewed as supporting ongoing conflict. The US later revoked Petro’s visa over his role in the protests, which he argued was evidence of a declining respect for international law.

Why Is This News Important?
The Gaza conflict is one of the world’s most contentious and closely-watched issues. It has drawn strong feelings and differing opinions from governments, activists, and ordinary people worldwide. The United Nations, as an international organization focused on peace and human rights, is a key arena for these debates. The events surrounding Netanyahu’s speech show that many nations and voices are urging new action—from recognition of Palestinian rights to calls for sanctions against Israel—while discussion and disagreement over the best path forward continue.
This episode at the UN highlights how international diplomacy, public protests, and official policy are all intersecting in real time as the search for solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains urgent and unresolved.
Advice3 weeks agoHow to Find Your Voice as a Filmmaker
News3 weeks agoHow Misinformation Overload Breaks Creative Focus
News4 weeks agoFrom Seen to Secured: How Filmmakers Are Owning Their Value
Entertainment2 weeks agoThis scene almost broke him. And changed his career.
Entertainment2 weeks ago7 Filmmaking Lessons From Michael B. Jordan’s Oscar Moment
Advice2 weeks agoStop Waiting for Permission — The Film Industry Just Rewrote the Rules
News2 weeks agoHow ‘Sinners’ Won The Oscars: Filmmaker Notes
Entertainment4 days agoThe machine isn’t coming. It’s aleady the room.



















