Twenty-two Democrats joined most Republicans in the rebuke of Ms. Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress, accusing her of calling for the destruction of Israel.
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.
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.
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
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