politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Known top Democrats Eileen Filler-Corn, Abigail Spanberger, and Tim Kaine. I mean, there are plenty of rabidly pro-Israel top Democrats, but none of them are in this article.
The emphasis on "Zionism" is a little bit weird, too. I've seen Bernie Sanders be accused of being a "Zionist," because he doesn't want Israel to be destroyed. I mean, I guess that's... true? Maybe? "Zionist" seems like something you can apply to a huge number of pretty reasonable people by that definition. It seems like kind of a textbook way to start to throw mud at a massively pro-Palestinian person, and accuse him of being anti-Palestinian, through cleverly dishonest use of language.
I don't want Israel to be destroyed. Am I a Zionist?
Edit: I looked up a little more about it. This Palestinian state congressman, who is a Democratic committee chair, has been talking vigorously on social media about the evils of Israel's most recent "war" since October 2023. It only turned into an issue with this specific post, because the language means one thing to him, but a very different thing to some people who are reading it, and so they objected.
Fun fact, recognizing Israel as a country had wide support from antisemitic groups all across the US and Europe.
It was seen as a solution to get rid of the Jews once and for all. Just deport them all to the Middle East so that they're someone else's problem.
Using the same loose logic could easily be used to say that Zionism is antisemitic. It's the kind of stupid logic that conservatives use all the time to make the facts fit their feelings.
Makes perfect sense.
Almost as if you can't look for morality or amorality in broad categories, and you need to look at what someone's actually doing (or advocating or whatever), and be specific.
Some broad categories are beyond the pale. For example, there's no moral way to implement an apartheid state.
Absolutely correct. So anyone who's doing that (or supporting it, making excuses for it, whatever), that's real fucked up and they're a bad person. I should have clarified, that type of broad category I'm fine with.
What I was saying is that someone who has been tirelessly advocating for the US to stop funding Israel, showing photos of the genocide and starvation on the senate floor, introducing votes to defund Israel, showing up at protests, all that kind of thing, if you manage to introduce a category of "Zionist" into the conversation, and then say "Well he's a Zionist so he's supporting genocide," that's a stupid way to reason. That's what I'm saying about broad categories. That type of broad category (using imprecise language to strategically make it sound like someone's supporting something they're not supporting) are useful tools for getting people confused.