- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Meanwhile they keep supporting Netanyahu, an actual funder of Hamas.
Oligarchies require a constant pipeline of conflicts, failed states, and terrorists to distract the commoners while they’re being robbed.
The history of US politics and “intelligence” agencies is no different. They get political points for fighting some “other”, the energy/resource contracts for coup-ing some gov, then get the military contracts of the replacement gov to fight the insurgents/revolutionaries/terrorists they created. It’s win win!
I’m not a supporter of Israel but I keep seeing this claim. It seems disingenuous, though: is Israel supposed to avoid sending any aid into Gaza at all? If you want to send humanitarian aid, you’re always inadvertently helping the government of a place. Saying Israel funded Hamas suggests that Israel literally cuts checks to Hamas, the organization, which is misleading.
Of course, by this point any aid Israel has sent has been pretty well morally out balanced by their absolutely bloodthirsty attacks on Palestinian civilians.
You should read this piece.
Netanyahu appears to be propping up Hamas so that the Palestinians will all be considered extremists represented by terrorists.
Thanks for the info!
Maybe you shouldn’t be censured for questioning the two state solution
Free speech!
Hang mike Pence!
Blow up Iran!
Nuke China!
Invade Syria!
Maybe I am not comfortable killing civilians when we could use doctors and humanitarian aid workers as spies to root out hostages then coordinate surgical strikes against Hamas instead of indiscriminately bombing locations with no intel.
Monster! How could you be so bloodthirsty!
We should take away your free speech! Because we stand for that kind of thing now.
Just asking questions!
Maybe just don’t use this slogan? I mean is it widley known what is asscociated with “From the river to the sea…”. So if you want to be taken seriously dont use any slogans that are linked to any propaganda or a non-existent fairytale world without Israel as a state.
Same goes for the other side, if you want to find a solution for the problems in the middle east it has to involve a solution for a free, independent and not supressed Palestine that lives side by side with Israel.
Well, no representative should be censured either way. There have been representatives saying much, much worse stuff out there.
Besides that, there are many people on both sides that want a properly secular state in which both israelis and palestinians can live under without oppression, and see the two state solution as not realistic.
I agree that censuring is over the top here, but it was a significant misstep from Tlaib. If Israel constantly talked about wiping Gaza clear like a blank slate, and someone defending Israel said we need a blank slate in Gaza, they would get well warranted criticism.
Wait why shouldn’t a representative be censured exactly? Words and actions have consequences.
Censuring somebody is closer to the opposite of consequences.
It’s basically just publicly condemning their statements/actions.
public condemnation sounds like a punishment to me
It should be a general rule of thumb to just avoid using phrases and terms associated with Islamophobia, antisemitism, and genocide in a positive light when talking about Israel and Palestine.
I mean I do get it. She’s Palestinian and naturally she’s furious about all this. Cross checking to avoid phrases like this is probably not a high priority. Still doesn’t give her a pass though.
totally agree
It makes you wonder. The people making decisions on the conflict are also too personally close to the conflict to necessarily make smart decisions. They overlook things that more objective people would check or verify.
But does that mean they should totally recuse themselves? We don’t ask gay people to step back from votes on gay rights. We consider it a positive in fact to have their perspective.
I’m just musing. I don’t know that there’s an answer. It’s just an unfortunate dynamic I guess.
Cmon, from the river to the sea has been a thing that 1 state solution people have said for a while, it was popularized by the PLO. I genuinely don’t know what else could be associated with it unless you’re thinking about it in the least charitable way possible.
The PLO popularized it… At a time where their explicit goals were “expel the Jews and create an Arab ethnostate in its place.”
Maybe using the political rallying cry of the pre-Oslo Accord PLO shouldn’t be where you start your “No, we really just want peace and a country where Jews and Arabs can live in harmony considering the stance of the people who made the statement was “Jews have no home in Palestine”
I mean that’s just wrong. The stance of the PLO in 1964 was we want a palestinian state, jews of palestinian origin are also palestinian and should be included. This was changed in 1968 to jews who lived in palestine before the invasion are palestinian
Her response during the motion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFTNSGu_OoQ
I think usage of that particular phrase was probably overkill or an oversight, but I agree with her that criticising the actions of Israel’s government is not Antisemitic.
It reminds me of when a trans representative was censured for condemning restrictions on gender-affirming care using the phrase “you will have blood on your hands” and opponents jumped on that to say she was out of line. It gives me a strong impression that their motivations go far beyond the language used, using excessive pedantry as an excuse.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The House voted on Tuesday to censure Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, formally rebuking the sole Palestinian American in Congress for her statements regarding the Israel-Hamas war.
While many Democrats are staunchly supportive of Israel, there is mounting pressure from the progressive left to call for a cease-fire and focus on the suffering of the Palestinian people in the face of ballooning civilian deaths and a worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
The measure, offered by Representative Rich McCormick, Republican of Georgia, argued that a statement Ms. Tlaib made after Hamas’s attack on Israel — calling for the end of “the apartheid system that creates the suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that can lead to resistance” — “defended” terrorism.
Ms. Tlaib has said the slogan, which was used by pro-Palestinian protesters featured in a video she posted accusing President Biden of supporting genocide in Gaza, is “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate.”
Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, said in a statement before the vote that echoing “slogans that are widely understood as calling for the complete destruction of Israel — such as ‘from the river to the sea’ — does not advance progress toward a two-state solution.
And Representative Brad Schneider of Illinois, the lone Democrat who sided with Republicans in a vote earlier in the day allowing the resolution to move forward, accused Ms. Tlaib of “trying to gaslight the world and give cover” to those using the “river to the sea” slogan.
The original article contains 984 words, the summary contains 255 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The actual censure document: https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20231106/Tlaib Censure McCormick.pdf
The sources for each of her actions according to that censure:
- October 8th statement
- October 18th speech - I didn’t find any explicit evidence of what she was accused of here - only one offhand comment about bombing a hospital. It’s possible she gave additional statements that day, but I didn’t find any that contained the words “al-Ahli”
- October 23rd statement - at least she acknowledged that it was disputed a few days later
- November 3rd tweet - this one is particularly damning - not only the “from the river to the sea” chant, but also using footage from al-Ahli hospital and a
veiledthreat to President Biden that “we will remember in 2024”. - November 4th tweet
EDIT: After rewatching, the threat was not veiled - it was explicit:
Biden, support a ceasefire now
Or don’t count on us in 2024
deleted by creator
A threat to steer voters to either not vote at all, or for a third party which under the current FPTP system is equivalent to not voting.
That’s how I interpret it. How do you interpret it?
EDIT: I rewatched it just in case - I missed the part with the explicit threat to Biden/Democratic Party:
Biden, support a ceasefire now
Or don’t count on us in 2024
deleted by creator
