There is absolutely no way she did not expect that choice of words to lead to this outcome - which is exactly what she wanted to achieve politically. It puts a very big awkward question front and center in front of the House Democratic caucus, and therefore the White House. Had she used more moderate language, she would not have been censured, and therefore no one would have noticed. She is not naive.
1 Like
I donât think her gesture is in vain. The point at which the Democratic left breaks with Biden isnât now, but the White House has to be taking that concern into consideration.
Exactly fucking so.
3 Likes
As @Arminius implied, I think these words were chosen consciously with awareness of the response it would generate, so I think itâs a question of strategy rather than clarity of speach. It is about the battle to not have your opponent define your arguments for you. I think this is the fundamental imbalance in US politics in general over the past 2-3 decades that sees every debate framed on the terms GOP use and once that happens it becomes an incredibly hard uphill climb to then win that debate. I think this is arguably the biggest factor they have had in their electoral success in that time and explains a large part of the discrepancy between what people think the parties do well despite their objective records often being at odds with that.
Bush was a draft dodger who had 9/11 happen on his watch and his opponent in 2004 was a stone cold war hero. Yet one of the decisive factors in Bush winning reelection was because it was a âsecurity focused electionâ and everyone knows Republicans are better on security. They dont have to have demonstrated it, itâs just part of the collective understanding of US politics. Just like everyone knows they are better on the economy. Just like Dems are for open borders and no amount of record drug seizures at the borders by a Democratic President can sway that perception.
These are all perceptions that are driven in large part by the way we all talk about the issues far more than they are about objective assessments. That is why the language used to frame a debate is so important IMO
My response to Red above is largely what I would have responded to this as well. I think a big part me is inclined to think it is counter productive, but a big part of me understands why it is important to not allow your arguments to be framed by the other side, especially in a situation in which the issue is framed in such a israelcentric way. I think that is more than a symbolic problem and helps colour peopleâs gut reactions to events
3 Likes
Yeah, counterproductive is probably not even the right term there, because the provocative part was very unlikely to have been accidental. That vote count is a shot across the bow for the White House, 22 Democrats in favour of censure (and 4 GOP against) versus 190 Democrats against. That is not far from splitting along the sort of lines that have made the House GOP look so foolish.
How long till the very word Palestine 
becomes poisoned? Just as the From the River to the Sea chant, the historic Palestine contained the present-day Israel and can be narrated as destruction of Israel 
or antisemitic.
Are we going to end up with something like North Macedonia or Chinese Taipei or something even worse?
I think it irritates Israel because they want to annex West Bank (river) and Gaza (sea).
2 Likes
You donât get to call out a Palestinian for using language that you then apply the most egregious interpretation upon rather than the much more benign; attempt to âbalanceâ Israeli war crimes and genocide upon an entire population with terrorism on the part of one group within that population and then claim your position is reasonable. You are a Jewish apologist and shrill and you should at least have the honesty to admit this.
I did not remotely call her out - I donât condemn her for using it. But there is no way she did not understand and accept the consequences of the incendiary language she chose to use. She has been in Congress for years now. She got exactly what she wanted, a recorded vote that shows the vast majority of the House Democratic caucus is out of step with the White House.
As for a Jewish apologist, well, I do indeed see war crimes on both sides. I said several days ago that what Israel is doing has crossed into collective punishment. Given that I elsewhere been accused of being an anti-Semite, I guess I am walking some sort of line.
Not on here buddy, perhaps you visit some toxic Jewish lobby sites or associate with same but you are about as balanced as Anthony Taylor.
Says a lot more about congress than about her
A Jewish state in all âJudea and Samariaâ. Apparently no issue when they say that, but everyone quibbling over people saying that Palestinians AND Jews should be free from land to sea.
So utterly fucked up
4 Likes
Mate you are playing up Israeli war crimes calling them genocide, while playing down Hamas, suggesting they are simply a terrorist organisation rather than the ruling Palestinian government.
Iâm sure you are tired of whatâs being said from that side of the fence as much as I am on this side. The back and forth leads to nothing, as I said about 400 posts ago. Everyoneâs feet are already set in concrete.
Even if it opinions are not going to change, we could do with less animosity. This isnât a dog-fighting ring.
2 Likes
So you consider them a ruling government and not terrorists?
1 Like
Iâd just like to point out there are 3 âsides of the fenceâ. Itâs important to note there isnât a single person on here thatâs a Bibi apologist.
1 Like
Why would they be mutually exclusive? Unless I truly donât understand the definition of âterroristâ.
1 Like
I am biased towards Palestine. In truth I have been debating this topic for 20 years (on TIA before TAN). I bring my own prejudices and long standing views to the actions of today. Most of us are similar. We all bring our different backgrounds and prejudices to the topic. No one is coming to this with fresh eyes.
Thatâs OK.
Itâs also OK for people for people to lean the other way. Like I said before the world is shades of grey and not black and white. Hamas are not the good guys, neither is the Israeli government. Religion is a a force for good and evil. Legitimate grievances on both sides.
Itâs a heated topic, and I would rather we did not attack other posters. Calling them apologists achieves nothing. Itâs a forum, and it would be a pretty boring place if he all held the same views.
7 Likes
The key part of that sentence is itâs a forum.
A place to debate, a place to discuss the rights and wrongs.
I like understanding different points of view. I like to challenge myself to think differently. Be it in the match thread or a political thread. Itâs why I encourage different points of view.
I donât need to agree to appreciate a different stance.
We have already lost two members of this site from this thread. Which is sad reality. Do I disagree with their politics. Absolutely. Do I miss them in this thread⌠absolutely.
3 Likes
Notably, language that has gone from never being heard in US politics to becoming the defacto language for that region among a core section of the American right over the past 12 months or so.
3 Likes