I don’t know that he’s not getting death threats, nor do I know that Trump is not engaged in a torrid affair with the Ayatollah. I have equal amounts of evidence for both.
Do you have some evidence of death threats you’d like to share? Or is there something else you mean to imply?
No one is asking you to condemn them. I’m simply pointing out that for their own stated goal, attacking the biggest champion of their cause in congress is pretty fucking stupid. Which is totally fine by me, mind you. I like it when my opposition does very stupid things.
I’m stating outright that we don’t know what “other Israel supporters” are doing so we can’t claim they definitively aren’t doing something.
But AOC isn’t the biggest champion of the cause in congress. That would be Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. And they both voted the way one would expect the “biggest champions of Palestinians” to vote here along with Summer Lee and Al Green.
This isn’t an “own goal.” The biggest champions of Palestinians in congress are voting the same way, are saying the same things. AOC has broken ranks with them multiple times over the last year. And in a democracy, it’s perfectly fine to criticise her for that.
We also don’t know that all the pro Palestinian voices aren’t all actually Russian agents. So we can’t definitively claim that they aren’t.
There is, of course, much more evidence tying protest groups to Iran and Russia than there is evidence that Richie Torres is getting a bunch of death threats from Pro Israeli sources. Just saying.
…I don’t consider her to be the “biggest champion of Palestinians” in congress. I think the champions are making the best choices they can make considering the absolute horrific position they are in.
A small amount of evidence is more than literally zero.
My point isn’t that all Pro Palestine protest groups are run by Iran. My point is that it’s stupid to say things with 0 evidence, like “Ritchie Torres is perhaps getting death threats from Pro Israeli sources who feel he isn’t hard-line enough”……. Or “All Pro Palestine activists are funded by Russia/Iran”.
…for goodness sakes: YOU bought up Ritchie Torres and ransacking his office when we were talking about something else. I don’t care about the specific example of Ritchie Torres. I was never talking about Richie Torres in the first place.
No, you just hinted that maybe someone pro-Israel is secretly and insidiously trying to control politicians through death threats, with absolutely no evidence provided. I brought Torres up as an absurd example that’s obviously untrue, in order to try and sus out what you actually mean with those quite loaded statements; but you’ve been refusing to clarify.
Forget it, wink wink and nudge nudge away. It’s not worth trying to nail down a claim.
I think this is the bit he’s on about. I think he’s blowing it out of proportion, but it is kind of a weird question. Obviously neither DTS nor anyone else here knows with absolute positive certainty that there are no 100% pro-Israel people making death threats against 90% pro-Israel people, so I’m not sure what the question was meant to accomplish. I guess if someone were inclined to make the least charitable possible interpretation of everything you say, it could look like you’re implying that such death threats are being made.
I think you’re wrong about Bernie and AOC. As far as I can see, they are doing the best they can in the environment in which they find themselves, and the demands that they support an obviously bad amendment, or say the g-word when that might lose more support than it would gain, are foolish. And I think you’re wrong to suggest the pro-Israel side is making the same mistake of attacking their own champions for lack of zeal.
But yes, you should be able to criticise politicians, and other powerful or influential people, without being blamed for what unhinged people may do as a result. Because the criticism is often justified. This concept of ‘stochastic terrorism’, is indeed a silencing tactic.
…I think they should be working closely with Tlaib on strategy and messaging. It’s clear though, they have chosen to do their own thing.
I wouldn’t call “not funding the military of a regime committing ongoing atrocities” a bad ammendment.
The polling suggest this is wrong. Mamdani’s success in New York suggest that this is wrong.
And it goes back to what I argued in the other thread: there comes a point that you need to stop worrying about “losing more support than it would gain” and instead just do what you think is the right thing. The Democrats lost the election to Trump with a strategy of avoiding doing anything where they feared “losing more support than they gained.” Ultimately, they stood for nothing: and it showed.
People are watching what is happening in Gaza every day on their phones. They are watching the most horrific, horrible things. And then the politicians, including the Democrats, are gas-lighting them. I don’t know why people keep expecting this to be a winning strategy.
My claim is that I have no idea what some in the pro-Israel side are doing or not. But there are just as many “unhinged” on both sides of the ledger. It actually isn’t illustrative of anything.
You can. Variously, in different threads I’ve been forbidden from saying the G word, the N word, and the A word. I honestly can’t keep track of what threads I’m not allowed to say what in where, so its just safer not to use them outside of the pit.
I would call specifically defunding defence of civilians of that country, while continuing to fund their offensive capabilities, a bad amendment. And AOC did say that. This thing was so bad it’s practically trolling.
A more justifiable criticism of AOC might be that she should have put forward her own amendment to do the opposite, but I have no idea if she had the ability to do that.
New York is a lot further left than average for America, and Bernie was trying to get support from senators, not the general public. I tend to assume he knows what he’s doing, but politicians aren’t immune from being wrong.
It’s hard for either of us to know from several thousand miles away how the average American feels. But I don’t see using or not using specific language as ‘doing the right thing’. If a person is on your side on an issue and working towards the same goal, it’s silly to pick on them for using the wrong terminology.
IMO it illustrates bad strategy on the part of the pro-Palestinian movement. Not alienating allies should be politics 101. Charitably, perhaps this is a result of them feeling nothing they does matters and they are unable to effect change. However, I think this is in the process of changing, as US public opinion continues to turn against Israel.
…then lets fund the defence of the Palestinian people. If funding the defence of civilians is the criteria, we are talking about the killing of hundreds of Palestinian children every single week. On average 10 Palestinian children have a limb amputated every single day. Why aren’t we defending them? Why instead are we giving billions to the people that are bombing and shooting and starving them?
And I disagree with her decision.
And yet even the politicians (formerly) representing the Democrats are right-wing zealots like Eric Adams.
“Left and right” are nebulous terms here. We are talking Democrats and Republicans. Both the Democrats and the Republicans will “fund the police”. Both 100% support Israel. It’s only at the extremes you see differences and Mamdani, in the eyes of many Democrats, is an extremist.
We know what the polling suggests.
This isn’t a narrow majority. It’s an overwhelming message.
Nah.
If you disagree with someone, then speak your truth.
Does this only apply to members of the pro-Palestinian movement you disagree with? Because shouldn’t Bernie and AOC not be alienating fellow members of the movement? Shouldn’t they follow their lead instead? Isn’t that politics 101?
How do you decide who should be “leading the agenda?” And why should it be Bernie and AOC instead of Tlaib and Omar?
As far as I can tell those four people have come out against each other on this at all. Feel free to enlighten but these individual differences in tactics and rhetoric that are going viral don’t seem to particularly matter to them.
The only rift is between at least some of those for and Greene - for reasons that should be obvious.