Tuesday, July 30, 2024

J.D. Vance Says Childless Americans Should Pay Higher Taxes. They Already Do.

Donald Trump's running mate has discovered the most politically toxic way to demand the status quo.


Eric Boehm | 7.29.2024 / REASON.COM

(Phil McAuliffe/Polaris/Newscom)

In comments from 2021 that resurfaced last week, Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) said that childless Americans ought to pay higher taxes than those who have kids.

"If you're making $100,000 [or] $400,000 a year, and you've got three kids, you should pay a different, lower tax rate than if you're making the same amount of money and you don't have kids," Vance said back then, during an interview with conservative activist and podcaster Charlie Kirk.

Here's the good news for Vance: It's already true that childless Americans pay higher taxes than most of those who reproduce. That was true in 2021, and it is true today.

That's because of the child tax credit, which has existed since 1997 and has been partially refundable since 2001. For each dependent that can be claimed, a tax filer gets up to $2,000 credit—with up to $1,400 of that total being refundable, meaning that it gets paid out even if the filer doesn't owe any taxes. As part of the tax reform package passed by Republicans during the Trump administration, the child tax credit was doubled from $1,000 per kid to the current level.

To use Vance's own example: An individual who earns $100,000 and has three kids would qualify for $6,000 in child tax credits. A childless person who also earns $100,000 would not get those credits and would therefore pay a higher effective tax rate.

There's one small wrinkle that's worth pointing out: As currently structured, the child tax credit phases out at a rate of 5 percent for individuals who earn over $200,000 annually and couples who earn over $400,000. That means that every additional dollar earned beyond those thresholds qualifies for 5 cents less in tax credits. The maximum tax credit is $2,000, so by the time you've earned $40,000 additional dollars (as a single filer) or $80,000 additional dollars (as a joint filer), you get zero child tax credit. The most charitable reading of Vance's comments is to assume he wants to expand eligibility for the child tax credit so even wealthy families earning over $400,000 annually can access it.

Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign and other Democratic-aligned groups blasted Vance's comments around the internet last week to frame former President Donald Trump's running mate as being unfriendly to childless Americans. That's a fair critique, but there are at least two bigger problems here for Vance.

First, his apparent ignorance of how the current tax code rewards people for having kids undermines his status as the supposed policy wonk on the Republican ticket. Maybe it's a good idea to create tax-based incentives for Americans to have kids, or maybe it isn't—regardless, it's certainly not a novel idea that only a guy who grew up in Real America could have.

This is a little bit like a Democrat running for office in 2024 on a promise to mandate that all Americans have health insurance. You'd wonder if they'd been paying attention.

It's also worth considering how Vance, in that 2021 interview, puts this idea into the context of what the populist right is trying to achieve. Parents should pay lower taxes than nonparents, he told Kirk, because policy ought to "reward the things that we think are good" and "punish the things that we think are bad."

Again, he treats this as if it is a radical break from the status quo, when, in fact, it simply is the status quo. But instead of talking about why parents might deserve to pay less in taxes, he's eager to turn the issue into an us-vs.-them dynamic in order to justify a tax hike.

The second problem is even more revealing in what it illustrates about Vance's skills as a politician. Again, keep in mind that the policy he's proposing already exists. Most politicians would describe the status quo as being a tax break for parents. Vance, however, is eager to frame this idea as a tax hike on childless adults.

Both are true, but only one of those is likely to generate a response like this from Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy, who seems like exactly the target audience for Vance's edgy, tough guy act:

Portnoy's reaction seems pretty rational for anyone who hasn't been steeped in tax policy. As Dominic Pino points out at National Review, Americans aren't generally a fan of politicians "siccing the government on a subset of the population." From a Republican perspective, this was a completely unforced rhetorical error by Vance.

More generally, Vance's comments from 2021 leave the impression that "at some level Mr. Vance really doesn't respect people who make different life choices," opines The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, who compared the moment to Hillary Clinton's infamous gaff when she described Trump supporters as "deplorable."

I'd argue that Vance's comments are a bit worse than how the Journal describes them. As a childless adult, I am admittedly a bit biased here—but the problem isn't merely that Vance disrespects that decision. It's that he actively wants to, in his own words, "punish" it.

In this case, the federal tax code is already doing the punishing that Vance wants to dish out. So the only thing Vance has accomplished is finding the most politically toxic way to describe an existing, bipartisan policy.

In doing so, however, he revealed a nasty part of his character and his views on how government should work. Americans should notice that.

 

Study reveals young scientists face career hurdles in interdisciplinary research

scientists
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Scientists agree that solving some of society's greatest challenges in biomedicine, such as food sustainability, aging and disease treatment, will need researchers from a variety of scientific fields working together.

But a new study finds that the  who most embrace  face "career impediments" not seen in their peers who focus their work only within their own disciplines.

The results are troublesome and pose a "grave challenge" to efforts to increase interdisciplinary research, the authors of the study write.

"As an economist, you would think that the most interdisciplinary young researchers would get the most rewards, because that is the type of research that is seen as most valuable. But that doesn't appear to be the case," said Bruce Weinberg, co-author of the study and professor of economics at The Ohio State University.

The study was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Interdisciplinary research in biomedicine involves integrating knowledge from different subfields of biology, and brings in expertise from other disciplines, including physics, chemistry, computer science, engineering and social science.

For example, one recent study on how people's thoughts can harm their neck and back during lifting tasks included researchers from engineering, anesthesiology and orthopedics.

In this new study, Weinberg and his colleagues analyzed data on 154,021 researchers who received a Ph.D. in a biomedical field between 1970 and 2013. A second sample included data on more than 2.6 million  published between 1970 and 2018.

One goal was to compare the careers of researchers who focused on interdisciplinary research while they were graduate students and early in their careers with those who mostly stuck to research within their discipline.

Researchers who were initially the most interdisciplinary tended to stop publishing new research earlier in their careers. While half of the most interdisciplinary researchers (top 1%) stopped publishing by the eighth year of their careers, it took more than 20 years for moderately interdisciplinary researchers (in the 10–75% range) to do the same.

Perhaps in response to career pressures, initially interdisciplinary researchers on average decreased their research that spanned different fields over time, findings showed.

This study can't say why these concerning trends are happening, Weinberg said. Universities know the importance of interdisciplinarity and indeed encourage it in many ways, including creating centers that revolve around research in many disciplines. But long-standing academic structures that are built around individual disciplines may hold back early- researchers with more wide-ranging interests, he said.

It is an issue that is solvable and that universities are interested in fixing, he said. It is a matter of redesigning systems that have been in place for many years.

Still, there were some encouraging findings in this study.

"We found that interdisciplinarity does increase over time despite these challenges," Weinberg said.

"It turns out that researchers who were originally focused mostly on research just in their disciplines do become more interdisciplinary as their careers progress."

It may be that once researchers' careers are established, they have the freedom to explore other fields and begin to work more outside their discipline.

"But we are missing an opportunity by not encouraging the bright young minds who are already interested in working with scientists in other fields to solve society's most difficult problems," Weinberg said.

"We need to provide more incentives for these young researchers."

Co-authors on the study were Enrico Berkes, a former postdoctoral researcher at Ohio State, now an assistant professor of economics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; and Monica Marion and Stasa Miljevic of Indiana University.

More information: Weinberg, Bruce A., Slow convergence: Career impediments to interdisciplinary biomedical research, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2024). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2402646121

Democrats' snub of Netanyahu does not indicate end to widespread support for unconditional aid to Israel

Symbolic showing is not indicative of any meaningful change in the party's hitherto unwavering support for continued unconditional aid for Israel

Michael Hernandez |29.07.202
Attendees applaud during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., United States on July 24, 2024.


WASHINGTON

Democrats this week staged a historic boycott of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to a joint session of Congress, with an unprecedented number of the party's federal representatives opting to skip the speech.

Netanyahu receives standing ovation from US lawmakers despite war crimes in Gaza

The symbolic showing is not, however, indicative of any meaningful change in the party's hitherto unwavering support for continued unconditional aid for Israel, even as the Palestinian death toll continues to mount, now rapidly approaching 40,000 amid acute shortages of daily necessities and medical supplies that have put the coastal enclave on the brink of famine and at risk of severe disease.

Nearly all of Gaza's population -- 1.9 million out of 2.3 million -- has been forced into internal displacement amid relentless Israeli bombardment that has turned much of the territory into a sprawling field of rubble.

The true death toll is feared to be much higher than the official toll reported by Gaza's Health Ministry because many of the missing Palestinians are presumed dead under the rubble. US-supplied weapons have been repeatedly linked to attacks that have killed scores of civilians, including children.

Many of the Democrats who boycotted Netanyahu's address said they were doing so because of the humanitarian catastrophe that his war has spawned, including Representative Ami Bera, who said: "It is imperative to agree to a cease-fire, release the hostages, and negotiate a future that promises peace and stability for Israelis and Palestinians."

US, Germany lead West in arming Israel’s war on Gaza



Representative Robert Garcia, another boycotter, said in October that "Palestinian and Israeli lives have equal value."

"Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas and must follow international law in their response," he said on X. "I support a humanitarian pause in order to prioritize rescuing hostages and getting food, water and aid to civilians."

"@POTUS is right that #Israel has a right to self-defense, and I commend him for emphasizing the need to focus on #Hamas & minimize harm to civilians. I grieve for the loss of innocent Israeli and Palestinian lives & worry for the safety of hostages as a ground incursion expands," Representative Steve Cohen said in October on X.

Group of Democratic lawmakers skip Netanyahu's address in Congress

But Bera, Cohen and Garcia, like dozens of the Democrats who partook in the protest, also voted to authorize a sweeping spending package to send Israel billions of dollars in US military assistance in April, when the death toll stood around 34,000, so that it could continue its war on Gaza.

Just 58 representatives voted against the supplemental, including 37 Democrats. At least 73 House Democrats boycotted Netanyahu, in addition to 23 senators, according to a tally compiled by Anadolu.

The sweeping volume of holdouts stands in stark contrast to the dozens of standing ovations Netanyahu received from many of the lawmakers present Wednesday.

Many other Democrats, like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sought to portray their decision to skip the speech as a reflection of concerns with Netanyahu's leadership rather than an explicit renunciation of Israel's actions in Gaza.

"Benjamin Netanyahu’s presentation in the House Chamber today was by far the worst presentation of any foreign dignitary invited and honored with the privilege of addressing the Congress of the United States. Many of us who love Israel spent time today listening to Israeli citizens whose families have suffered in the wake of the October 7th Hamas terror attack and kidnappings," she said after Netanyahu's address.

"These families are asking for a cease-fire deal that will bring the hostages home – and we hope the Prime Minister would spend his time achieving that goal," she added.

As Netanyahu addressed the gathering at the Capitol, thousands of demonstrators gathered outside, protesting him and Israel's ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. They called for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza and denounced the decision to grant the Israeli leader one of the highest honors possible for a foreign leader.



On US trip, Netanyahu found support as usual — but also problems ahead

Relationship with US is crucial to Israel, making Netanyahu’s trip of vital importance.

Netanyahu waves at Congress speech

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is used to being the centre of attention on his trips to the United States, basking in the glow of bipartisan support and ignoring the few American politicians who choose to criticise his country.

But his latest trip came at an inflexion point in the race for the US presidency, with Democrat President Joe Biden announcing the day before Netanyahu’s arrival that he would be dropping out of running for re-election. Instead of finding politicians eager to meet him, Netanyahu spent most of his trip being overshadowed by local events.end of list

Then, he was forced to cut short his trip after a rocket attack on a Druze town in the occupied Golan Heights killed 12 people on Saturday. Israel has blamed Hezbollah for the attack, but the Lebanon-based group has denied responsibility.

While the European Union called for an independent investigation into the incident and most countries avoided blaming either side, the US accused Hezbollah of being behind the attack, underscoring Netanyahu’s reliance on Washington at a time when he is increasingly isolated at home and internationally.

The Israeli leader’s domestic popularity is at an all-time low, with many Israelis frustrated at his inability to secure the release of captives taken during the Hamas-led attack on October 7, and who continue to be held in Gaza.

In Washington, DC, Netanyahu was able to give his fourth address to the US Congress – the most of any foreign leader – with a cheering audience applauding what felt like every other word. But dozens of lawmakers boycotted the event in protest of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, where its military has killed almost 40,000 Palestinians since October 7.

Netanyahu was able to meet Biden, the Democrats’ new presumptive presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris and the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump.

However, Harris followed the meeting by highlighting the suffering of the people of Gaza. Even Trump said last week that Israel needed to end its war on Gaza quickly because of the bad publicity and because the world was “not taking lightly” its war.

The presidential race

The timing of Netanyahu’s trip, coming as the US presidential election environment began to heat up, was always going to be difficult, say analysts. The Israeli leader faced a tough balancing act, keeping all sides of the US political divide happy and avoiding any perception that he was supporting one side over the other.

And what was looking like a presidential race with Trump as a heavy favourite has now turned more evenly balanced as the Democrats get behind Harris. The vice president has been eager to energise her party’s base and one way is to signal a more pro-Palestinian policy than Biden’s.

“Netanyahu’s main takeaway is probably going to be that Harris is likely to be less of a blank cheque for him than Biden has been already, on the Democratic side, even if that’s minimal,” said HA Hellyer, a non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Institute’s Middle East programme.

“More than that, he appears to have resolved the rift with Donald Trump on this trip, who was reportedly furious with Netanyahu when the latter congratulated Biden on his victory in [the] 2020 [presidential election].”

“One should expect Netanyahu to continue precisely as he has done thus far, until at least the elections in November,” Hellyer added. “Both a Harris presidency and a Trump presidency will prioritise support for Israel, but it’s a question of how much, and Netanyahu definitely prefers a Trump one.”

Some analysts believe, however, that a win for Trump – notorious for his temperamental personality – can also have downsides for Netanyahu, hence the importance of a positive meeting on this trip.

“It’s not as straightforward as you might think,” said Mitchell Barak, a pollster and former Netanyahu aide.

“Netanyahu knows that Biden will overlook personal disrespect if it means he can continue to help safeguard Israel. With Trump, that’s not the case. With Trump, it’s very much about the personal. He needs to know he’s respected,” Barak said.

Netanyahu’s address to Congress was evidence that for the majority of politicians in Washington, DC – particularly on the Republican side – full-throated support for Israel is still the standard. According to Hellyer, the prime minister’s trip, therefore, was more about maintaining the current US position and making sure the voices of dissent do not get louder – even if that risks antagonising his critics.

“The US-Israeli relationship more broadly hasn’t changed much as a result of Netanyahu’s trip, but there are trends that are changing that relationship over time, which this trip plays into,” Hellyer said.

“[Washington] DC’s relationship with Israel is no longer as bipartisan as it used to be, and a big part of the reason why is Netanyahu’s engagement directly into American politics. He just did more of that, and [those dissenting] in the Democratic Party on Israel will just see his trip as more evidence of why their dissent is important

Domestic troubles

Netanyahu found a more receptive audience in the US Congress than he often does in the Israeli Knesset.

In fact, as American lawmakers whooped and cheered his speech – once even being asked by Netanyahu to stop and listen – politicians and opponents back home were criticising him.

“What about the hostages? What did you say about [them] besides empty words,” said opposition leader Yair Lapid.

On the streets, the protests that began before the war over his proposed judicial reforms continue, even if their focus has shifted. Now, thousands of Israelis fill the streets of Tel Aviv and other locations across Israel, calling for a deal that ultranationalist members of Netanyahu’s coalition cabinet inevitably refuse, threatening the prime minister’s grip on power and bringing a reckoning both for his inaction on October 7, as well as longstanding corruption charges, closer.

Many Israelis, therefore, see his trip to the US as a chance to take a break from his troubles back home.

“He wanted to escape,” said Alon Pinkas, Israel’s former consul general to the US between 2000 and 2004. “It’s a vanity tour, pure and simple. He’s doing what he thinks a prime minister does: speaking. Not working on policy or negotiations, just speaking.”

“Congress has provided everything [Netanyahu] asked for, and more,” Pinkas added. “That he wanted to thank them is understandable, but that’s a Zoom call, not an international visit.”

With those issues at home and continued global isolation, US support is more vital than ever for Israel.

The US provides Israel with arms, economic aid and diplomatic cover at the United Nations. It has also turned its ire on international institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) when they focus on Israel.

It is why the US is always such an important stop for Netanyahu. But while Israel still has strong support in Washington, despite its devastation of Gaza, the increase in US politicians willing to openly criticise Israel will be worrying if it is indicative of a wider shift coming.

“The US government is nearly the only supporter left in the world for Israel,” said Omar Rahman, a fellow at the Middle East Council. “Even in Europe, support is wavering.” Rahman cited the example of the UK, where a new Labour government has pulled back from challenging the ICC prosecutor’s call for warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. “So it makes sense to try and shore up that support in Washington,” he said.

“While most Israelis won’t buy much of what he said, especially regarding getting back hostages, his speech and the enthusiastic reaction of American congresspeople signals his unique power in Washington,” Rahman continued.

“For an American – and international – audience, he was able to make his case. However flimsy and discredited it may be, it still resonates with many. And he wants the US government to continue to back him and his war in the face of mounting international pressure, especially from international courts.”

 

Assessing Netanyahu’s Not-So-Great DC Trip

Netanyahu's speechJuly 29, 2024
By | Jul 29, 2024

Netanyahu's speech


How do you turn a week that began with the attempted assassination of a presidential candidate and ended with the sitting president dropping out of the race, into five points? Let’s give it a try.

1. Bridge building? Bibi’s not into that 

Many things can be said about Benjamin Netanyahu’s July 24 address to Congress. It was well-crafted, it artfully framed Israel’s war in Gaza as a struggle America and the West should care about, it was carried live by all major networks, and it won dozens of standing ovations from members of Congress.

But most of the praise came from the Republican side of the aisle.

In 54 minutes, Netanyahu did everything in his power to justify the actions of his government and to appeal for American and international support, but he did nothing to reach out to Democrats or to the Biden administration. The Israeli prime minister, who notably did not get a handshake from Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer when walking up to the dais, went through his speech without touching on any of the issues Democrats had been raising for months. Netanyahu did not mention the hostage deal, which Biden has put his weight behind and in which his administration is investing all of its diplomatic capital; he did not provide explanations to the heavy civilian death toll caused by the Israeli military in Gaza; and he shrugged off claims of malnutrition and starvation by arguing that Gazans get more than 3,000 calories per day thanks to aid convoys Israel allows in. Netanyahu did not lay out any plan or date to end the war, nor did he mention the idea of a two-state solution.

To be clear, no one expected Bibi to paper over his policy differences with the Biden administration, nor was there any hope among Democrats that a leader known for decades as a hardliner on all issues relating to the rights of Palestinians for self determination would suddenly become a bleeding heart liberal once he steps on the House floor.

But there were simple steps Netanyahu could have taken in order to signal to the already skeptical Democratic side that he came to Washington with a true bipartisan message: Key among these steps would have been acknowledging the hostage release deal that’s on the table and expressing a commitment to turning this deal into reality. It’s not that much to ask, given that the deal is fully based on a plan that Netanyahu himself presented, and it would have gone a long way in assuaging Democratic concerns that Bibi wants the war to drag on and has no intention of finalizing a deal.

2. For Dems, the chasm deepens

This did not go unnoticed—or unanticipated.
Roughly half of the Democratic caucus members in both the House and the Senate boycotted Netanyahu’s speech. Those who attended sat mostly silently, rarely joining in applause or standing up. (Rashida Tlaib decided not to boycott, instead she held up a sign reading “war criminal” during the speech.)

Democrats’ response to Netanyahu’s speech ran the gamut from disappointment to anger, but a Tweet from speaker emerita Nancy Pelosi crystallized the feeling shared that day by so many on the Democratic side: “Benjamin Netanyahu’s presentation in the House Chamber today was by far the worst presentation of any foreign dignitary invited and honored with the privilege of addressing the Congress of the United States,” she wrote in her post.

Netanyahu, to his credit, did thank Biden in his speech, “for his tireless efforts on behalf of the hostages and for his efforts to the hostage families” and for his “heartful support for Israel.” He also threw in a line about Biden calling himself a “proud Irish-American Zionist.” (Bibi gave equal time to former president Trump, and read a laundry list of actions Trump took as president to help Israel.)

But while Netanyahu could have tried a little harder to show his gratitude to Biden—the president who traveled to Israel in the midst of a war and who pushed through Congress an emergency aid package of historic proportions—it’s not about showing appreciation. What got Democrats so angry was the feeling that Netanyahu has chosen to willfully and fully ignore the Biden administration’s requests to focus on the deal that is on the table and to finally sign an agreement that would release the hostages, bring about a cease-fire and potentially end the war. “Many of us who love Israel spent time today listening to Israeli citizens whose families have suffered in the wake of the October 7th Hamas terror attack and kidnappings,” Pelosi went on in her X post. “These families are asking for a ceasefire deal that will bring the hostages home—and we hope the Prime Minister would spend his time achieving that goal.”

Quite frankly, it takes a lot for an Israeli leader to get a mainstream Democrat like Pelosi to use such harsh words or to drive veteran New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, one of Israel’s top supporters and for some the unofficial dean of Jewish Democrats in Congress, to call Netanyahu “the worst leader in Jewish history.”

3. Kamala Harris and the daylight factor

Netanyahu’s next day in Washington wasn’t any better in terms of his relationship with the Democrats. After being snubbed for a year and a half, the Israeli leader finally made his way to the White House for an Oval Office meeting with Biden. It didn’t seem to go very well. Biden quickly shook hands with Netanyahu as the two leaders exchanged brief pleasantries (and yes, Biden did mention Golda Meir) before the press was ushered out. After about 90 minutes, Biden called in representatives of the families of U.S. citizens held by Hamas in Gaza to join the meeting. The families, whose loved ones are all Israeli citizens as well, sat on Biden’s side of the table, sending Netanyahu a clear message that when it comes to the need to sign a deal, they’re with Biden.

From there Netanyahu hopped over to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building for a 40-minute meeting with Vice President Kamala Harris, who is now also the unofficial Democratic presidential candidate. That didn’t appear to go well either. Shortly after Netanyahu departed, Harris called in the press and read out a statement about the meeting, which she described as “frank and constructive.” In her statement, Harris said that it is “time for this war to end” and expressed her “serious concerns” over the killing of civilians in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis caused by the war. “We cannot allow ourselves to be numb to the suffering, and I will not be silent,” she said.

An hour later, Harris’s statement was met with a response from a senior Israeli official who claimed that the vice president’s comments could harm the hostage negotiations, because Hamas will sense that the United States and Israel are not on the same page.. “We have no idea what they’re talking about,” was the response of a Harris aide to these claims.
Much of this goes back to the notion that Harris is and will be tougher on Israel than Biden, that there is daylight between the positions held by the president and those of his vice president and potential successor. The White House has pushed back against this perception, noting that Harris laid out in her comments after the meeting exactly the same principles Biden has presented to the Israelis many times.

Earlier last week I asked Haile Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, who served in the past as Harris’s Senate national security adviser, about the perception of Harris playing “bad cop” while Biden maintains a more positive approach toward Israel and Netanyahu. “The vice president is in lockstep with the president. There’s really no daylight between them,” she replied.

4. The hostage families call it like they see it

Walking out to the White House front lawn after their joint meeting with Biden and Netanyahu on Thursday, families of the U.S. hostages expressed a mix of optimism and anger. They were optimistic about what they understood as a commitment from both leaders to take the needed steps to advance the hostage release deal, but they were angry at Netanyahu. Here’s what Ronen Neutra, whose son Omer is being held captive by Hamas, had to say after the meeting: “The prime minister was distanced and lacked sensitivity, in contrast to the warm response and embrace we received from Biden, and I can’t understand this,” he said. “How is it more important for the American president to bring my son home than it is to the Israeli prime minister?” Neutra described the hostage families’ conversation with Biden after Netanyahu left the room, quoting Biden from memory as saying: “I will do everything in my power to bring them back.”

Aviva Siegel, who was released from captivity in December and whose husband Keith is still held in Gaza, said she came out of the meeting believing that Netanyahu wants to continue the war and that he is not willing to sign the deal now. “What can I do? I can scream, I can cry, I can hurt, I can talk, and that’s what I’m doing,” she said on a Sunday Zoom meeting with members of the activist group UnXceptable DC.

5. Heading south to Mar-a-lago

Hoping for some reprieve, perhaps, Netanyahu, with his wife Sara and team of advisers, flew down to Florida early Friday morning to meet with former president and 2024 Republican nominee Donald Trump.

It’s been a tense few years for Trump and Netanyahu. The former president, still mad at Netanyahu for calling Joe Biden to congratulate him on his win in the 2020 election, has been publicly criticizing Bibi ever since. The pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago helped sort things out.

Trump gave Netanyahu a warm welcome, showered praise on Sara Netanyahu, and spent most of the meeting talking about his achievements in the region and how, if elected, he will bring peace to the Middle East.

Was this Netanyahu’s silver lining in an otherwise frustrating visit to the U.S.?
Probably not.

The former president may have given the Israeli leader the photo-op he needed, but Trump’s message on the Gaza war was anything but what Netanyahu wanted to hear. Israel, Trump had said in a Fox News interview, must end the war, “and get it done quickly.”

Wait a second, isn’t that exactly what Biden and Harris told Netanyahu?

Turns out that when it comes to his plan to extend the Gaza war until Israel achieves “total victory,” Netanyahu may have won over congressional Republicans, but when it comes to America’s current and future leaders, he is all alone.