Are you saying that no candidate was objectionable to Jews? Or that the ones who were, were not supported by Jews?
Apologies work when they are sincere, and sincerity is best judged by subsequent actions. If some punches me, says sorry, and then fails to actually work to make amends … “sorry” doesn’t work.
“Sorry” does not change that he said what he really thought - the blame for the temple bombing was Israel hurting people. He is sorry he said it out loud?
He stated a fact - hurt people hurt people. This is a fact. It was insensitive to highlight this fact at the time, which is why he apologized. But that is a factual statement.
Im genuinely not aware of a major statewide dem candidate in Michigan in recent history who was objectionable to Jews. I leve in Massachusetts though so I may be missing some obvious person.
I don’t know what it means to have a “right to exist as a Jewish state.” Did Czechoslovakia have a “right to exist?” Because it doesn’t exist anymore. Did Yugoslavia have a right to exist? Nations come and go. I wish no harm to the current residents of Isreal, but do they have a right to a “Jewish state?” Why? Sorry if that’s a tangent, but you’re criticizing El-Sayd for not taking that position.
The bomber had relatives who were killed by the IDF. It’s not a stretch to say he was perhaps motivated by that. Obviously, it doesn’t make sense to bomb a US temple if you’re mad at Isreal, but that’s a different issue.
And we’re seeing again, in real time, the schism in the Jewish community. This isn’t going away. A part of me is fascinated to be a part of it.
Because roughly two thousand years of history show us what the fate of the Jews is without self determination. We fought like hell for the right to have a state of our own, and now we do, and like it or not, it’s a state that matters to many Jews abroad as well. I understand that there are a number of anti-Zionist Jews on this board who are very eager to explain to us that despite being Jews they have no positive feelings towards the “Zionist Entity” whatsoever, and that’s great for them, but it doesn’t invalidate the way that the majority of American Jews feel, just as the way that all of those other Jews feel doesn’t invalidate their own choice to be anti-Zionist.
No. It is the exact issue.
It doesn’t make stating facts antisemitic. Insensitive, sure, in the timing of his statement. But “hurt people hurt people” is factual.
I have never known what that means either, and being Jewish I’ve heard it a lot and always felt a bit dumb for being confused by it, but I’m not so sure that’s a me problem.
I’m clear on the fact that the nation-state of Israel does exist (except in the view of a very small group of non-recognizing other states who IMHO don’t get to call that shot), and that as an existing nation-state it has rights, same like any other nation-state.
But I don’t know what a “right to exist” is, or how it applies to entities that don’t exist. I definitely don’t believe that there was some spectral entity of an Israeli nation-state in potentia that somehow possessed such a right through two millennia of nonexistence.
Nor do I think, for example, that the Republic of Texas or the USSR currently have a right to exist, even though they once existed and even if they end up existing again in some future geopolitical reshuffle.
“Hurt people hurt people” makes sense to say if, say, a battered woman kills her husband. It doesn’t make a ton of sense to say it about a terrorist who shoots up a synagogue.
The Christchurch shooter’s dad died a few years before his massacre. Clearly, that and a number of other experiences fucked him up to the point that he was no longer a functional member of society, which led to his eventual radicalization and rampage. You’d have to be a real fucking monster to say that “hurt people hurt people” in response to this attack, even though he obviously was hurt by those events. Even if you made that claim today, you’d be pretty monstrous.
Sort of like how El Sayed was pretty damn monstrous for those comments.
It was very insensitive and he rightly apologized. The wrong time for those kind of facts.
Glad to see you’re still reading my posts, Babs!
Pretty sure your first instinct was correct.
It’s the right for Israel to exist as the state where the Jewish people express their right to self determination.
I think that all Peoples have a right to self determination.
I realize that the United States of America is not a Nation-State, but surely the concept isn’t that hard to grasp…
Still amusing to see the guy who trusted Trump and Hegseth to start a war with no mission, no strategy, and no plan, calling someone else dumb!
Nope, he’ll find a phrase or two in his hundreds of posts that “proves” he was right all along.
… while trampling all over the same rights for Palestinians.
Praxis trumps theory, and the practical application of Zionism turns out to be genocide.
I didn’t fully read this yesterday.
No, a ton of Latinos broke for Trump who aren’t maga racists and don’t typically vote Republican. There are plenty of reasons for this but they were obviously stupid and it would be stupid for Jews to break for Rogers over AES. It would also be stupid to sit out.
Because he’s not pro-Israel enough for them, and the fact he won over the pro-Israel candidate signals a shift in the Democratic party to be much less pro-Israel than in the past. For a significant number of Jewish Democrats, that was their primary reason for supporting the party. As such, it is hard to get the same consensus that could be arrived at before.
And, yeah, this is pretty new in US politics. There’s a degree of realignment going on for this particular issue.
Eh it’s not that distant history when the Republicans weren’t open fascists that Jews were fairly divided between parties. I think Jews today realize the threat posed by Republicans and will ultimately come in with enough numbers to oppose them.
I also do think it’s entirely legitimate to fear that El-Sayed is too sympathetic to antisemitism irrespective of Israel, but there’s nothing remotely comparable to thr real threat.
“Hurt people hurt people” is something that is true to the same degree that “hurt people help people” and “not hurt people hurt people” are true. They aren’t false? People hurt people. And people help people.
Using that inanity as an initial response to a hate crime is completely a blaming the victim response, a justification of the crime response. Imagine a mass shooter in a church’s Sunday School was found to have been abused by a religious leader, and a public figure’s, one who has been critical of the church, response to the community was noting that he was abused in a church and “hurt people hurt people”?
Imagine that as an initial response to the NY community after 9-11?
Shit assume “it’s a fact” was true about that inanity. “They were Jewish.” is also a fact. Saying that as your initial public response would then be just … insensitive?