Connect with us

World News

The Memo: Biden’s political problems on Israel rise along with Palestinian death toll on November 16, 2023 at 11:00 am

Published

on

The death toll among Palestinians in the conflict with Israel is rising, and President Biden’s political problems at home are rising along with it.

Biden has offered close to unconditional support for Israel in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7 that killed around 1,200 people.

But that position is looking increasingly out of step with many Democratic voters amid Israeli reprisals that have killed around 11,000 Palestinians, displaced more than 1 million people and left Gaza in a dire humanitarian crisis.

Almost six weeks on from the original Hamas attack, there is growing evidence that voters take a more ambivalent view of Israel’s response than the president does — and the trend is especially true for left-of-center Americans.

Advertisement

A new poll released Wednesday found that 56 percent of Democrats — and 38 percent of all Americans — believe Israel’s military response has been “too much.” The Democratic figure rose a startling 21 points since a poll from the same organizations — NPR, PBS NewsHour and Marist — roughly a month before.

The poll also found that 34 percent of Democrats disapprove of the way Biden is handling the conflict.

To be sure, it’s possible that some of those Democrats believe Biden should be even more supportive of Israel. But the working assumption in political circles is that the dissenters are overwhelmingly those who believe Biden has given excessively free rein to the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“This is a terrible miscalculation,” Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor and the author of several acclaimed books on Palestine, told this column. “Participating to this degree with absolute support for Israel is something most Americans don’t agree with.”

Advertisement

There are warning signs flashing for the Biden policy in many other polls, too.

A new Economist/YouGov survey, also released Wednesday, found a plurality of Democrats — 34 percent — believe Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attack has been “too harsh,” compared to 30 percent who believe it has been “about right” and 7 percent who believe it has been “not harsh enough.”

Yet, at the same time, Democrats leaned toward Israel in their overall view of the conflict. 

Twenty-three percent of Democrats in the poll said their sympathies were with the Israelis, against 17 percent who favored the Palestinians. A plurality, 39 percent, said their sympathies were “about equal,” while the remainder declined to express an opinion.

Advertisement

Findings like that point to the arduous political terrain Biden faces on the conflict. Jewish voters are an important bloc of support for Democrats, and they tend to favor Democrats over Republicans by a roughly 2-to-1 margin.

But poll after poll has found younger Democrats tend to be more sympathetic toward the Palestinians. Other important pillars of the Democratic coalition, notably progressive votes and Black voters, also tend to lean more toward the Palestinians than their centrist and white counterparts do.

In the NPR poll, for example, 48 percent of all adults younger than 45 took the view that Israel’s actions had been excessive, whereas only 31 percent of the older-than-45s took the same view. Forty-eight percent of nonwhite adults said Israel’s actions had been too much, compared to 33 percent of white people who felt that way.

The intensity of the feeling around the conflict may end up being just as politically important as the raw numbers. The situation is literally one of life and death for thousands of people. As such, it strikes far more viscerally than many domestic political battles.

Advertisement

Usamah Andrabi, communications director for the Justice Democrats, a progressive group, said despite Israel reportedly killing thousands of children and striking numerous medical facilities, “the president has yet to call for a cease-fire. He refuses to even condemn those actions. And he still demands the Congress send $14 billion in military aid, in weapons, to Israel. I don’t know how anyone can accept that position.”

The Biden administration has tempered its rhetoric to some degree recently, stressing the importance of minimizing civilian casualties and protecting hospitals. The president’s aides also highlight their efforts to get some level of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.

The politics of the issue are anything but simple, as well. Washington has seen huge marches in favor of both the Palestinians and Israel within the past two weeks. The overall American population is more sympathetic to Israel than is the Democratic base, and Republicans are eager to seize on any suggestion that Biden is soft on American foes, such as Hamas’s sponsor, Iran. 

Some Democrats argue the president has taken just the right course.

Advertisement

“I think most presidents would have done the same thing,” said Democratic strategist Jerry Austin, who also noted many Republicans as well as Democrats are united in support for Israel, especially given the horror of the Hamas attacks.

“I don’t see it as a political decision. I see it as a moral decision,” Austin said. “This kind of behavior [from Hamas] has to stop. It isn’t as if they are soldiers fighting soldiers. They went in there and killed women and children.”

But voices more sympathetic to the Palestinians argue that Biden will pay a political price, given the dismay about his position from Arab-Americans, progressives, younger voters and Black voters.

Khalidi said he neither expected people to forget what had occurred nor did he anticipate a change of policy from the administration.

Advertisement

“There will be a lot of votes lost,” he predicted.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

​ The death toll among Palestinians in the conflict with Israel is rising, and President Biden’s political problems at home are rising along with it. Biden has offered close to unconditional support for Israel in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7 that killed around 1,200 people. But that position is looking increasingly out… 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. dobry sklep

    March 22, 2024 at 12:15 am

    Wow, wonderful weblog structure! How long have you ever been blogging for?
    you made running a blog glance easy. The whole glance of your site is
    fantastic, let alone the content material! You can see similar
    here e-commerce

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Will Kim Ju Ae Become North Korea’s First Female Leader?

Published

on

A New Face of Power in Pyongyang

In a country defined by secrecy and dynastic rule, the recent emergence of Kim Ju Ae—the daughter of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un—on the national and international stage has sparked intense speculation about the future of the world’s most isolated regime. For the first time since North Korea’s founding in 1948, the possibility of a female leader is being openly discussed, as state media and public ceremonies increasingly feature the teenage girl at her father’s side.

Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

Kim Ju Ae’s Rise to Prominence

Kim Ju Ae, believed to be around 12 or 13 years old, first came to the world’s attention in 2013 when former NBA star Dennis Rodman revealed he had held Kim Jong Un’s daughter during a visit to Pyongyang. However, she remained out of the public eye until November 2022, when she appeared beside her father at the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile—a powerful symbol in North Korean propaganda.

Since then, Ju Ae has become a regular fixture at high-profile events, from military parades and weapons launches to the grand opening of a water park and the unveiling of new naval ships. Her repeated appearances are unprecedented for a member of the Kim family so young, especially a girl, and have led South Korean intelligence officials to suggest she is being groomed as her father’s successor.

The Power of Propaganda

North Korea’s state media has shifted its language regarding Ju Ae, referring to her as “beloved” and, more recently, “respected”—a term previously reserved for the nation’s highest dignitaries. Analysts believe this is part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to build her public profile and legitimize her as a future leader, signaling continuity and stability for the regime.

Presenting Ju Ae as the face of the next generation serves several purposes:

  • Demonstrating dynastic continuity: By showcasing his daughter, Kim Jong Un assures elites and the public that the Kim family’s grip on power will persist.
  • Minimizing internal threats: A young female successor is less likely to attract rival factions or pose an immediate threat to the current leadership.
  • Projecting a modern image: Her presence at both military and civilian events signals adaptability and a potential shift in North Korea’s traditionally patriarchal leadership structure.

Breaking with Tradition?

If Ju Ae is indeed being positioned as the next leader, it would mark a historic break from North Korea’s deeply patriarchal system. The country has never had a female ruler, and its military and political elite remain overwhelmingly male. However, her growing public profile and the respect shown to her by senior officials suggest that the regime is preparing the nation for the possibility of her ascension.

The only other woman with significant visibility and influence in the regime is Kim Yo Jong, Kim Jong Un’s younger sister, who has become a powerful figure in her own right, especially in matters of propaganda and foreign policy.

A Nation Divided, a Dynasty Endures

While the Kim family’s hold on North Korea appears unshakable, the country remains divided from South Korea by a heavily militarized border. Many families have been separated for generations, with little hope for reunification in the near future. As the Kim dynasty prepares its next generation for leadership, the longing for family reunions and peace persists on both sides of the border.

The Road Ahead

Kim Ju Ae’s future remains shrouded in mystery, much like the country she may one day lead. Her carefully managed public appearances, the reverence shown by state media, and her father’s apparent efforts to secure her place in the succession line all point to a regime intent on preserving its legacy while adapting to new realities. Whether North Korea is truly ready for its first female leader is uncertain, but the groundwork is clearly being laid for a new chapter in the Kim dynasty.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill

Published

on

The “Big Beautiful Bill” (officially the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) is a sweeping tax and spending package passed in July 2025. It makes permanent many Trump-era tax cuts, introduces new tax breaks for working Americans, and enacts deep cuts to federal safety-net programs. The bill also increases spending on border security and defense, while rolling back clean energy incentives and tightening requirements for social programs.

Pros

1. Tax Relief for Middle and Working-Class Families

2. Support for Small Businesses and Economic Growth

  • Makes the small business deduction permanent, supporting Main Street businesses.
  • Expands expensing for investment in short-lived assets and domestic R&D, which is considered pro-growth.

3. Increased Spending on Security and Infrastructure

4. Simplification and Fairness in the Tax Code

  • Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and raises marginal rates on individuals earning over $400,000.
  • Closes various deductions and loopholes, especially those benefiting private equity and multinational corporations.

Cons

1. Deep Cuts to Social Safety Net Programs

  • Cuts Medicaid by approximately $930 billion and imposes new work requirements, which could leave millions without health insurance.
  • Tightens eligibility and work requirements for SNAP (food assistance), potentially removing benefits from many low-income families.
  • Rolls back student loan forgiveness and repeals Biden-era subsidies.

2. Increases the Federal Deficit

  • The bill is projected to add $3.3–4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years.
  • Critics argue that the combination of tax cuts and increased spending is fiscally irresponsible.

3. Benefits Skewed Toward the Wealthy

  • The largest income gains go to affluent Americans, with top earners seeing significant after-tax increases.
  • Critics describe the bill as the largest upward transfer of wealth in recent U.S. history.

4. Rollback of Clean Energy and Climate Incentives

5. Potential Harm to Healthcare and Rural Hospitals

6. Public and Political Backlash

  • The bill is unpopular in public polls and is seen as a political risk for its supporters.
  • Critics warn it will widen the gap between rich and poor and reverse progress on alternative energy and healthcare.

Summary Table

ProsCons
Permanent middle-class tax cutsDeep Medicaid and SNAP cuts
No tax on tips/overtime for most workersMillions may lose health insurance
Doubled Child Tax CreditAdds $3.3–4T to deficit
Small business supportBenefits skewed to wealthy
Increased border/defense spendingClean energy incentives eliminated
Simplifies some tax provisionsThreatens rural hospitals
Public backlash, political risk

In summary:
The Big Beautiful Bill delivers significant tax relief and new benefits for many working and middle-class Americans, but it does so at the cost of deep cuts to social programs, a higher federal deficit, and reduced support for clean energy and healthcare. The bill is highly polarizing, with supporters touting its pro-growth and pro-family provisions, while critics warn of increased inequality and harm to vulnerable populations.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump Threatens to ‘Take a Look’ at Deporting Elon Musk Amid Explosive Feud

Published

on

The escalating conflict between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk reached a new peak this week, as Trump publicly suggested he would consider deporting the billionaire entrepreneur in response to Musk’s fierce criticism of the president’s signature tax and spending bill.

FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO Elon Musk arrives on the red carpet for the automobile awards “Das Goldene Lenkrad” (The golden steering wheel) given by a German newspaper in Berlin, Germany, November 12, 2019. REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke/File Photo

“I don’t know, we’ll have to take a look,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday when asked directly if he would deport Musk, who was born in South Africa but has been a U.S. citizen since 2002.

This threat followed a late-night post on Trump’s Truth Social platform, where he accused Musk of being the largest recipient of government subsidies in U.S. history. Trump claimed that without these supports, Musk “would likely have to shut down operations and return to South Africa,” and that ending such subsidies would mean “no more rocket launches, satellites, or electric vehicle production, and our nation would save a FORTUNE”.

Trump also invoked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a federal agency Musk previously led—as a potential tool to scrutinize Musk’s companies. “We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump remarked, further intensifying the feud.

Background to the Feud

The rupture comes after Musk’s repeated attacks on Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” a comprehensive spending and tax reform proposal that Musk has labeled a “disgusting abomination” and a threat to the nation’s fiscal health. Musk, once a Trump ally who contributed heavily to his election campaign and served as a government advisor, has called for the formation of a new political party, claiming the bill exposes the need for an alternative to the current two-party system.

Advertisement

In response, Trump’s allies have amplified questions about Musk’s citizenship and immigration history, with some suggesting an investigation into his naturalization process. However, legal experts note that deporting a naturalized U.S. citizen like Musk would be extremely difficult. The only path would involve denaturalization—a rare and complex legal process requiring proof of intentional fraud during the citizenship application, a standard typically reserved for the most egregious cases.

Political Fallout

Musk’s criticism has rattled some Republican lawmakers, who fear the feud could undermine their party’s unity ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Meanwhile, Musk has doubled down on his opposition, warning he will support primary challengers against Republicans who back Trump’s bill.

Key Points:

As the dispute continues, it has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over government spending, corporate subsidies, and political loyalty at the highest levels of American power.

Continue Reading

Trending