Bernie on the right side of history. As usual.
🌏👨🚀🔫👨🚀🌌 (Always has been)
As always, for like the past 60 years
Schumer did it too. I think it’s important to see the criticism coming from high-ranking Jewish Americans. It’s kinda tough to call them antisemites.
The fact this man didn’t get a shot at the office is proof that our electoral systems and rep/dem duopoly is failing us.
He got a shot; shot down by the DNC and Wasserman Schultz after HRC paid the DNC's debt. She took him out the only way to defeat an ethical populist in America: with money.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
Haha yeah shot down. Every single state needs RCV or something similar, and DEmocrsts need to support candidates that want meaningful change.
It's early, but I had to make sure I was reading correctly on this one
Yeah. I mean, some crazy set his office on fire
I am once again asking you to support not committing genocide
In before Bernie Sanders joins dissenting voices like Jewish Voice for Peace and Breaking the Silence as condemned by Israel, the USA, Germany, the UK etc. for being the wrong kind of Jew. Some version of misled, self-hating, extremist, unpatriotic etc. Destroying the reputation of dissenters, especially Jewish dissenters, is the only way to keep Netanyahu's illogical lie that "criticism of his brand of Zionism and resultant Israeli policy is racist against all Jews" alive. The governments involved in Israel's apartheid and war cimes MUST force that idea on us all - there is no defending the ethics of the situation so their last resort is to repeatedly defame and silence those who protest.
Nope, the actual reasonable way would be not simplifying your dissent to a point where it's idiotic.
In a situation with two insane sides trying to kill the other it is not enough to disagree with one side. You also need to clearly distance yourself from the other madmen that agree with you, but for the completely wrong reason.
So yes, there are indeed wrong kind of Jews: Those who criticize Israel from a distance but are unable to distance themselves from actual anti-semites, often -even worse- using the same media channels to amplify their message, are indeed wrong.
Just like criticising Hamas but actually just repeating Israeli propaganda alongside idiots arguing for are Palestinian genocide are wrong.
You and your black-and-white arguments are a part of the problem and not the solution. This isn't a team sport. Both sides in that conflict are wrong. And by pretending otherwise you are discrediting valid opinions as well as actually helping propaganda bullshit like Netanyahu's... because it's much easier to pretend that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic when those critics constantly stand right beside actual anti-semites and are unable to express an actual nuanced opinion beyond having chosen a side.
Are you saying that Sanders, Jewish Voice for Peace, or Breaking the Silence are actually, truly racist? You talk about not distancing themselves from actual anti-Semites, but why? There's no evidence I know of (certainly none that they publicly publish) that any of those people/organizations are what you call "indeed wrong kind of Jews", hating other people because they are Jews, or wanting Israel destroyed. If you can provide proof of your argument about them standing "right beside" actual anti-Semites please do so.
This isn't a team sport. Both sides in that conflict are wrong
I don't support Hamas and it makes no sense/is unfair that you'd jump to the conclusion that I do. You shouldn't require an explicit disclaimer attached to every criticism of pro-Israeli propaganda or policy, and if it's not there then assume support of Hamas or other racists. You talk about nuance but make no attempt to check for it before attacking. If you're worried you could ask for people's beliefs and then form an opinion based on actually expressed support/racism, but you didn't and I provided nothing to that effect. Arguing as if I had chosen Hamas or anti-Semites as my "team" because I criticize Israel is putting completely unfounded words in my mouth.
There definitely is a side being unjustly punished that isn't "wrong" - the Palestinian civilians who are getting killed, abused, and starved at a pace greater than any other major 21st century conflict. Even if you could magically prove all of those killed/injured/suffering (most by far women/children/noncombatant men) support Hamas, collective punishment of civilians is a war crime for good reason. The best example is the 14,500 children killed, tens of thousands wounded, and many orphaned or otherwise traumatized who are incapable of being "the wrong side" by virtue of the fact that they are kids.
What valid opinions am I unfairly discrediting, and about what topics? You put that out there as if it's obvious truth but did not clarify at all. I don't know how my post could be seen to have addressed any such opinions in the first place, much less done so unfairly. My argument is black-and-white because it talks about Netanyahu's assertions about criticism as racist, which are pure crap. That's what this whole thread and my response are about.
No, I'm saying that you with your polemics of "condemned by Israel, the USA, Germany, the UK etc. for being the wrong kind of Jew" are the problem.
Nobody is actually condemning people for being the wrong kind of Jew or having the wrong opinion. That's just your strawman because -in your "that's my team, so they are always right!!!"-delusion- you are not able to understand that there are indeed a lot of people on what you perceive as your side who should be condemned for actual well-documented antisemitism.
People like you with a stupid team mentality are the problem, not a solution.
I don’t support Hamas and it makes no sense/is unfair that you’d jump to the conclusion that I do.
It indeed makes sense to jump to that conclusion, when your first instinct is a random and unprompted attack on several countries, justified by a strawman. Because this shows very well that every sense of reality is lost to you and the only thing you can perceive anymore is people who agree with you 100% and those who are wrong.
Arguing as if I had chosen Hamas or anti-Semites as my “team” because I criticize Israel is putting completely unfounded words in my mouth.
That's absolutely not what I said. You have chosen your team not by criticising Israel but by blindly attacking everyone you even expect to disagree. People like you constantly demonstrate they will defend actual antisemites as long as they agree with your opinion. The next step then is usually falling for Hamas propaganda because it sounds so logical... after all they are on the correct anti-Israel side....
PS: Also very funny to write about "what I call the wrong kind of Jew" when I actually just quoted that term from your poor strawman. Cognitive dissonance must be strong in you.
So, I have specific examples to back up my claims, and to prove yours wrong. Strawman that. Also, yet again I repeat that your arguments are based on the assumption that I somehow support anti-Semites because they are also against Israel. And yes, you specifically say I will defend anti-Semites, with your justification being I criticize governments. I've never defended anti-Semitism, I can prove the exact opposite if you want, it's unfounded and unfair, and no matter how often you assert that it won't become true.
Edit: Your edit even says your leap to put words in my mouth makes sense given my "random and unprompted attack on several countries" as if somehow that was proof I support Hamas. Well, I've given you just some of the many examples of proof that said attacks aren't "random or unprompted" above. Frankly your position that my accusations come from nowhere is evidence that you are arguing from ignorance since many of those examples are well-known and all are freely available.
Give up your flawed argument, adjust your view to fit facts, and next time actually get people's opinions + the truth of the situation sorted before you launch into attacks.
I am pretty sure there is not one thing I have ever read about Bernie that I did not agree with and smile at for being a good person.
I volunteered for his campaign in 2016 and am very proud of that. Really respect him even if I don't agree 100% with everything he says
Good for you, Bernie! Go get 'em.
WOOOFTA.
that list just keeps on hitting.
This is Netanyahu's response to the protests: https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1783185828291736035 Yeah he pretty much labels everything as antisemitism.
I guess Bernie’s antisemitic now too /s
Next thing you know, he will send a strongly worded letter.
Fuck off. This is literally the most that's in his power to do and it's a hell of a lot more than the president himself is doing.
Bernie can't stop the weapons shipments. Every time he tries to reel in the genocidal apartheid regime of Netanyahu by supporting or introducing legislation, he's outvoted and out-influenced by Biden and the rest of the AIPAC toadies.
Using his platform to forcefully explain how detestable Netanyahu's words and actions are is the most Bernie can do and, again, a hell of a lot more than those with the power to do more are doing.
Actually, the White House came out bashing the protests and calling them antisemitism as well
Of course they did 🤦
Source?
I found a single video in which Biden is clearly not calling all protests antisemitic... Is this what you're referring to?
He could legislate, that's his job. Introduce actual legislation to reveal who supports genocide. That would be a good start.
Maybe try actually reading before replying.
He HAS been trying to legislate, but the AIPAC toadies in congress vote him down every time, spurred on by the AIPAC toady in the Oval Office.
You're basically blaming him for others stopping him from doing his job.
As for revealing who supports genocide, at last vote it was everyone in the Senate except him and 3 others and everyone in the House except the Squad and about a dozen others IIRC.
Ok then. Where in this article does it say that he even tried to legislate?
Nowhere, but that's irrelevant. We know from other articles, TV News segments, C-SPAN, and the Congressional record that he's been trying to legislate this whole time.
Reality and the documentation thereof doesn't begin and end within one article from a mediocre British outlet.
Also, do you have any links for you last paragraph? I can't find relevant articles about it.
Wasn't quite as stark as I remembered it but it was still fucking GRIM at 72 to 11 when he tried to make military aid contingent on what it's being used for.
Can't seem to find the House bill I was thinking of
He's trying to legislate, goddammit. All it takes is typing "Bernie Sanders legislation" in a search engine, and use your goddamn eyes. Here's what he's trying to do:
My first amendment would ensure that we are not providing any more offensive military aid to Netanyahu’s war machine while he continues to violate U.S. and international law. This amendment would not touch funding for the Iron Dome or other purely defensive systems, but it would end aid to a war machine which has already killed 34,000 Palestinians and wounded 77,000, 70 percent of whom are women and children. And, right now, as we speak, hundreds of thousands of children face starvation as a result of that war machine.
The second amendment that I am offering would remove the prohibition on funding for UNRWA, the backbone of the humanitarian relief operation in Gaza and the only organization that experts say has the capability to provide the humanitarian aid that is desperately needed. Israel has alleged that 12 UNRWA employees out of 30,000 were involved in the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7. [...] That is being investigated and it should be. But you don’t allow thousands of children to starve because of the alleged violations and actions of 12 people.
What do you want him to do? Pick up a gun, fly over to Israel, make his way to Netanyahu's office and shoot him in the face?
I mean, I wouldn't complain...
He could legislate, that's his job. Introduce actual legislation to reveal who supports genocide. That would be a good start.
That legislation would go absolutely nowhere. It wouldn't even be put up for a vote. What would be the point?
Better not do anything then. Just strongly spoken words or strongly worded letters... That will probably get things done.
How will your legislation idea get things done?
How will you idea of not doing anything get anything done? Virtue signaling does nothing.
Please answer the question: How will your legislation idea get things done?
Viking_hippie already answered that "As for revealing who supports genocide, at last vote it was everyone in the Senate except him and 3 others and everyone in the House except the Squad and about a dozen others IIRC.". He could do it again. Hammer legislation so it constantly reveals who support genocide.
Their answer is wrong. It would never be put up for a vote in the first place. The Senate has to unanimously consent to putting any resolution up to a floor vote. This can be done by voice vote so you will have absolutely no idea who is for or against even allowing it to be voted on.
The lack of basic knowledge of civics on Lemmy is really depressing.
So, again, how does this get things done? Would it save a single Palestinian life? Would it make Netanyahu think twice about conducting this genocide?
Ok, so what's your brilliant answer then?
My "brilliant" answer is that he's doing the right thing and using the bully pulpit rather than wasting his time on a resolution that will not get voted on.
But I personally don't consider approving of what someone is doing brilliance. Your mileage may vary.
Il meglio è l'inimico del bene.
"Bibi please, you're making it so hard for me to claim you're not committing a genocide despite piles of evidence - my support is crumbling!"
So, what did you think you'd accomplish with posting something like that?
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.