Israel–United States relations and associated politics

[Victoria Raverna]

More of US calling it genocide when it is China but not doing it the same when it is Israel. This time during Biden administration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... ntion-act/

[El Guapo]

“This genocide is ongoing, and…we are witnessing the systematic attempt to destroy Uyghurs by the Chinese party-state,” US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement Tuesday, on the last full day of the Trump administration.

See if you can pick out what might have contributed to that statement being issued.

To the extent that you're implying that this is some Trumpian thing, there's an absolute metric ton of evidence that the Chinese government was (and is) targeting the Uighur people.

[malchior]

US had no problem calling it genocide when China is the one that is doing their version of ethnic cleansing.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/19/us/u ... index.html

FWIW that is slightly different. The Chinese are generally believed to have captured and interred that entire population. The specific difference is scope/defintional. As Bartov mentions it could turn into it in Israel.

That is not to say we have clean hands here - we absolutely don't - but the definitions matter and this is less hypocrisy and more turning a bad eye to other non-genocidal (yet!) bad stuff.

[Victoria Raverna]

US had no problem calling it genocide when China is the one that is doing their version of ethnic cleansing.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/19/us/u ... index.html

FWIW that is slightly different. The Chinese are generally believed to have captured and interred that entire population. The specific difference is scope/defintional. As Bartov mentions it could turn into it in Israel.

That is not to say we have clean hands here - we absolutely don't - but the definitions matter and this is less hypocrisy and more turning a bad eye to other non-genocidal (yet!) bad stuff.

It is pretty much the same thing. China was accused of putting around 2 millions of a population of around 10 millions in internment. Same as Israel putting around 2 millions of Palestinians in Gaza.

The different is that China didn't bomb or mass killing them or maybe not yet mass killing them.

Their reasoning why they think they need to do it also the same. To prevent terrorism.

Note the hypocrisy here with Blinken's statement:

During the report’s unveiling at the State Department, Blinken was asked if his condemnations of China and Russia could come at the expense of cooperation from the two powers on other issues, such as the military crackdown in Myanmar. Blinken suggested that no trade-off was necessary.

“Whether it’s China or Russia or anyone else, we’re not standing against any of those countries,” Blinken said. “We’re not trying to, for example, contain China or keep it down. What we are about is standing up for basic principles, basic rights and a rules-based international order.”

[El Guapo]

More of US calling it genocide when it is China but not doing it the same when it is Israel. This time during Biden administration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... ntion-act/

So the difference is that there's a lot of evidence that the Chinese government is trying to wipe out the Uighurs as a people. Per the Holocaust museum post:

The Chinese government’s campaign against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is multi-faceted and systematic. Core strategies of the campaign include identity-based persecution, mass detention, surveillance, enforced sterilizations, forced labor, and forced assimilation.

Identity-based Persecution
Uyghurs are barred from freely practicing their religion, speaking their language, and expressing other fundamental elements of their identity

E.g., preventing them from practicing their religion, speaking their language, having kids, and forcing them as much as possible to assimilate into the minority - all stuff that's clearly intended to either prevent them from having descendants or to have their descendants be part of the ethnic and cultural Chinese majority.

By contrast, Israel is doing none of that stuff, nor anything else to force the Palestinians to (for example) be Jewish (or not Muslim), to speak Hebrew, to assimilate with the Jewish / Israeli majority. In short, Israel is clearly not committing genocide.

Now, as malchior said there is *much* more reason to worry that the Israeli government (or at least parts of it) may be hoping to permanently relocate a significant chunk of the Gazan population. And the Israeli far right has fantasized about holding onto the West Bank via at least partial ethnic cleansing for awhile.

So when I say that Israel is obviously not committing genocide, that's not a statement that Israeli is great and what they're doing is fine, it's just that they're obviously not. And throwing around 'genocide' like that is not doing Palestinians any favors because I think it may cause people to tune out other charges that are more serious.

[Zarathud]

Israel doesn't have Palestinians in false imprisonment in re-education camps, forced injections, sterilization and other efforts to reduce live births. Israel is destroying buildings and letting Palestinians suffer from the deprivations of war (started by Hamas).

They're attacking hospitals and giving warnings to civilians without any realistic possibility for the civilians to evacuate, but that's still distinctively different than what China's doing as malichor notes.

Israel has been promised unwavering support and security assurances from the U.S. by many U.S. Presidents. That's going to practically limit our ability to reign in the IDF. No matter how much we disapprove or warn them not to make "mistakes" (as Biden said from the start).

[El Guapo]

US had no problem calling it genocide when China is the one that is doing their version of ethnic cleansing.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/19/us/u ... index.html

FWIW that is slightly different. The Chinese are generally believed to have captured and interred that entire population. The specific difference is scope/defintional. As Bartov mentions it could turn into it in Israel.

That is not to say we have clean hands here - we absolutely don't - but the definitions matter and this is less hypocrisy and more turning a bad eye to other non-genocidal (yet!) bad stuff.

It is pretty much the same thing. China was accused of putting around 2 millions of a population of around 10 millions in internment. Same as Israel putting around 2 millions of Palestinians in Gaza.

No, this is incorrect. China is accused of much more than "just" putting people in internment, which would not be genocide. For example obviously during WWII the U.S. put Japanese-Americans into internment camps. Obviously horrible, but clearly not genocide because the U.S. didn't try to exterminate them / prevent them from having kids / prevent them from speaking Japanese, etc.

[Victoria Raverna]

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Israel didn't do at least some of those? Not item a to c?

[Victoria Raverna]

More of US calling it genocide when it is China but not doing it the same when it is Israel. This time during Biden administration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... ntion-act/

So the difference is that there's a lot of evidence that the Chinese government is trying to wipe out the Uighurs as a people. Per the Holocaust museum post:

The Chinese government’s campaign against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is multi-faceted and systematic. Core strategies of the campaign include identity-based persecution, mass detention, surveillance, enforced sterilizations, forced labor, and forced assimilation.

Identity-based Persecution
Uyghurs are barred from freely practicing their religion, speaking their language, and expressing other fundamental elements of their identity

E.g., preventing them from practicing their religion, speaking their language, having kids, and forcing them as much as possible to assimilate into the minority - all stuff that's clearly intended to either prevent them from having descendants or to have their descendants be part of the ethnic and cultural Chinese majority.

By contrast, Israel is doing none of that stuff, nor anything else to force the Palestinians to (for example) be Jewish (or not Muslim), to speak Hebrew, to assimilate with the Jewish / Israeli majority. In short, Israel is clearly not committing genocide.

Now, as malchior said there is *much* more reason to worry that the Israeli government (or at least parts of it) may be hoping to permanently relocate a significant chunk of the Gazan population. And the Israeli far right has fantasized about holding onto the West Bank via at least partial ethnic cleansing for awhile.

So when I say that Israel is obviously not committing genocide, that's not a statement that Israeli is great and what they're doing is fine, it's just that they're obviously not. And throwing around 'genocide' like that is not doing Palestinians any favors because I think it may cause people to tune out other charges that are more serious.

Israel isn't doing those because they don't want Palestinians to assimilate with Israeli. They want them to be separated from Israeli, to be treated differently. To be apart from Israeli.

But they did mass killing of Gaza Palestinians. Cut off food and water. Forced them to evacuate then bomb their evacuation shelters. Close down their hospitals. They're doing all they can to make it hard for Palestinians to stay alive in Gaza.

[El Guapo]

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Israel didn't do at least some of those? Not item a to c?

That is correct. It's not just killing or hurting members of the group in large numbers, it's doing that (and/or other things) to *destroy the existence of the people as a group*. The Holocaust was a genocide because it was trying to end the Jewish people as a people, not "just" to kill large numbers of Jews.

Similarly, the various things that the Chinese government is doing to the Uighurs likely amounts to genocide because they're things designed to end the Uighurs as a distinct people. Restrictions on language, Uighur childbirth, religion, forced assimilation is designed to make future generations be non-Muslim mandarin-speaking people who don't identify as Uighurs.

By contrast Israel is not doing any of those things, nor taking other measures to end the Palestinian people as a distinct people. Which again is NOT saying that what Israel is doing is great, just that it's not genocide.

[El Guapo]

More of US calling it genocide when it is China but not doing it the same when it is Israel. This time during Biden administration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... ntion-act/

So the difference is that there's a lot of evidence that the Chinese government is trying to wipe out the Uighurs as a people. Per the Holocaust museum post:

The Chinese government’s campaign against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is multi-faceted and systematic. Core strategies of the campaign include identity-based persecution, mass detention, surveillance, enforced sterilizations, forced labor, and forced assimilation.

Identity-based Persecution
Uyghurs are barred from freely practicing their religion, speaking their language, and expressing other fundamental elements of their identity

E.g., preventing them from practicing their religion, speaking their language, having kids, and forcing them as much as possible to assimilate into the minority - all stuff that's clearly intended to either prevent them from having descendants or to have their descendants be part of the ethnic and cultural Chinese majority.

By contrast, Israel is doing none of that stuff, nor anything else to force the Palestinians to (for example) be Jewish (or not Muslim), to speak Hebrew, to assimilate with the Jewish / Israeli majority. In short, Israel is clearly not committing genocide.

Now, as malchior said there is *much* more reason to worry that the Israeli government (or at least parts of it) may be hoping to permanently relocate a significant chunk of the Gazan population. And the Israeli far right has fantasized about holding onto the West Bank via at least partial ethnic cleansing for awhile.

So when I say that Israel is obviously not committing genocide, that's not a statement that Israeli is great and what they're doing is fine, it's just that they're obviously not. And throwing around 'genocide' like that is not doing Palestinians any favors because I think it may cause people to tune out other charges that are more serious.

Israel isn't doing those because they don't want Palestinians to assimilate with Israeli. They want them to be separated from Israeli, to be treated differently. To be apart from Israeli.

But they did mass killing of Gaza Palestinians. Cut off food and water. Forced them to evacuate then bomb their evacuation shelters. Close down their hospitals. They're doing all they can to make it hard for Palestinians to stay alive in Gaza.

Israel (or at least parts of its government) may want Palestinians permanently out of at least part of Gaza. If so, that's potentially ethnic cleansing. It's not genocide unless they want there to no longer be a Palestinian people period.

[Victoria Raverna]

https://thediplomat.com/2023/11/xinjian ... -genocide/

The United States, Israel, and China have all experienced terrorist attacks by radicalized Islamist groups. Compared to the deadly anti-terrorist policies, which have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, pursued by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, among others, and by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank, China’s policies of forced assimilation in Xinjiang do not seem worse in terms of violence and destruction. It goes without saying that neither response is commendable, of course. But it is surprising that while the United States sanctioned China and labeled its actions in Xinjiang as genocide, it supports and justifies Israel’s actions in Gaza, which are undeniably much more destructive and deadly, as the necessary use of self-defense to impede future terrorist attacks – the same argument CCP made to defend its “re-education” policy in Xinjiang.

The clear illustration of double standards regarding the legitimacy of counterterrorism tactics and the defense of Muslims in different regions of the world is providing the Chinese Communist Party with strong excuses and valid arguments to continue its abuses and criticize Western hypocrisy. And although China’s lack of credibility in the Global North may hinder the acceptance of its viewpoints there, individuals in the Global South tend to be more sensitive to these blatant instances of hypocrisy and inequality. The same applies to the accusations against Vladimir Putin and Russia for war crimes after bombing civilian facilities and buildings in Ukraine and the absence of the same criticism against Netanyahu and Israel for analogous actions in Gaza.

At the same time, while many voices within Western governments have openly condemned China’s actions as genocide, including the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on November 7 to censure Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib for her criticism of Israel and support of the Palestinian people. The noticeable disparity between the encouragement of exaggeration against perceived “enemies” and the implementation of censorship on free speech when dealing with criticism of strategic allies, reminiscent of the practices of McCarthyism from the past, is seldom emphasized as a growing concern in the new Cold War.

Palestine and Xinjiang have sparked comparisons in the academic literature for decades. For much of this time, scholars worried that China might someday adopt tactics as harsh as Israel had taken against the Palestinians. Dru C. Gladney contended in 2002 that Xinjiang could become like Palestine: “If China does not explore other options besides repression, restriction and investment, millions of Uyghur Muslims might become disenfranchised, encouraging some to look to the intifada, the Taliban or al-Qaeda for inspiration.”

In a 2015 article published on Middle East Policy, Michael Clarke referred to this and suggested that “the beginnings of the Palestinization of the region are discernible at three levels”: the hardening of political and ethnic boundaries, several major terrorist attacks in the region in recent years, and that the conflict between Uyghurs and the Chinese state had become internationalized within the framework of the United States’ “war on terror.”

Clarke predicted that CCP policies in Xinjiang would prove “counterproductive” among Uyghurs and that, more significantly, China’s approach was “not only being questioned by Western governments and human-rights organizations,” but it was “potentially complicating its diplomacy in Central Asia and the Middle East.” However, recent developments, such as China’s involvement in fostering better relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, indicate that these forecasts were inaccurate.

Ironically, China’s Xinjiang policy received a stamp of approval from none other than Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. During his July 2023 to Beijing, Abbas met with Xi Jinping and “expressed support for China’s treatment of Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang” Although Abbas’ remarks sparked strong criticism from Uyghur exiles, who argued that “Abbas’ statements ‘further legitimize’ Uyghur genocide,” taking a step back, one can see why, from Abbas’ perspective, what China has done in Xinjiang may not equate to the long-standing apartheid and the ongoing destruction and violence that has plagued Palestine for decades.

The underlying issue is the use of the term “genocide” to describe the human right abuses that took place in Xinjiang during the 2010s (the situation appears to be less severe now). The United Nations’ own long-awaited report used the term “crimes against humanity” and the “genocide” label has been hotly contested. Stretching the conventional definition of the term to apply it to China’s actions makes it even more glaring when politicians refuse to use the term in even more dire circumstances.

If we genuinely aspire to evaluate international actors using the same criteria, prioritize human rights over geopolitical interests, and establish a consistent international order that is currently lacking, we must be willing to accuse all parties without bias.

In this context, it is equally noteworthy that while critiques of Israel’s abuses are often dismissed as “antisemitic,” including emotional references to the Holocaust intended to discourage criticism, disproportionate condemnation of China is not commonly labeled as sinophobic. However, it seems evident that these double standards are not solely driven by geopolitical motives (i.e. supporting Israel because it serves as a proxy in the Middle East and endorsing the Uyghurs in Xinjiang because they undermine a common enemy). There are also deeply rooted Orientalist and White supremacist viewpoints that are firmly entrenched in the so-called “rules-based international order,” hierarchically dominated by the Global North.

The Global North should reassess its geopolitical vs. democratic priorities and engage in more self-reflection regarding its recent counterterrorism policies and support for Israel. The current mild criticisms of Israel’s actions seem even more hypocritical when contrasted with the strong statements and significant sanctions imposed on China as a response to human right abuses in Xinjiang. When compared with their own anti-terrorist policies in, for instance, Afghanistan and Palestine, the Global North is unintentionally making China’s severe oppression of the Uyghurs appear reasonable and legitimate for many in the Global South.

If those in a position of dominance within the global hierarchy of the “rules-based international order” fail to lead by example and act with integrity and respect for the lives of all people, how can they expect other countries to do differently?

[Victoria Raverna]

Israel (or at least parts of its government) may want Palestinians permanently out of at least part of Gaza. If so, that's potentially ethnic cleansing. It's not genocide unless they want there to no longer be a Palestinian people period.

Isn't that the same as China not wanting the same in China. They're not oppose to have the Uyghur people out of China. They don't want there to no longer be Uyghur people period. They just don't want them to be in China, right?

Same with Israel don't want Palestinians to be in Gaza/Israel. They don't want there to no longer be a Palestinians people.

I think the difference is that Israel doesn't want Palestinians to become Israeli. They want them to leave.

China want Uyghur in China to become Chinese.

Come to think of it. US can also accuse US supported regime in Indonesia back when Suharto was in charge for 32 years as doing genocide using the same standard that is used against China. Back during Suharto era, Chinese Indonesians which are minority in Indonesia were forced to "assimilate". Have to change names to Indonesian names. Ban on Chinese languages. Ban on Chinese culture. Ban on religion that is based on Confucius teachings.

[hepcat]

the U.S. House of Representatives voted on November 7 to censure Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib for her criticism of Israel and support of the Palestinian people.

That was not the only reason, and you know that as we explained it to you repeatedly when it happened. She used a term that is commonly seen as a call for the destruction of Israel and its people. There's enough misinformation and/or bias in the media for support on either side. Let's try not to add to that.

[malchior]

the U.S. House of Representatives voted on November 7 to censure Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib for her criticism of Israel and support of the Palestinian people.

That was not the only reason, and you know that as we explained it to you repeatedly when it happened. She used a term that is commonly seen as a call for the destruction of Israel and its people. There's enough misinformation and/or bias in the media for support on either side. Let's try not to add to that.

FWIW after reading this NY Times piece it is not so simple as that. The use of the phrase is fairly complicated. It doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Nevertheless what it ultimately communicated to Palestinian-Americans is that the Jewish or Israeli narrative is more valid than their own.

When House Republicans and a solid bloc of Democrats banded together this week to censure Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, for her statements about the Israel-Gaza war, they homed in on her embrace and defense of one pro-Palestinian slogan they called unacceptable: “from the river to the sea.”

The official congressional rebuke of Ms. Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress, said the phrase was “widely recognized as a genocidal call to violence to destroy the state of Israel.” The top White House spokeswoman disavowed it from the West Wing, saying that it was “divisive” and that many considered it hurtful and antisemitic.

The phrase, which Ms. Tlaib has defended as “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate” has not only become a flashpoint for dispute in Washington; it has echoed across college campuses and in cities throughout the country in recent weeks as pro-Palestinian activists protest the heavy civilian toll of Israel’s war against Hamas. The slogan has prompted charges of antisemitism and fueled an increasingly bitter debate over the conflict, its root causes and how it should be waged — and what position the United States should be taking as it rages on.

The decades-old phrase has a complicated back story that has led to radically different interpretations by Israelis and Palestinians, and by Americans who support them.

...

“It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland,” according to the Anti-Defamation League.

In a post on X this week, the A.D.L., a Jewish advocacy group that fights antisemitism and discrimination, wrote: “‘From the River to the Sea’ is a Hamas call to annihilate Israel,” adding that “claiming it is a rally of coexistence gives cover to terror.”

Many members of Congress, including dozens of Democrats, endorsed a similar view this week as they condemned Ms. Tlaib for her comments.

The slogan does not appear in Hamas’s founding covenant from 1988, which pledges “to confront the Zionist invasion and defeat it,” not just in historic Palestinian territory, but worldwide. It is featured, however, in a section of the group’s revised platform from 2017. In the same paragraph, Hamas indicates it could accept a Palestinian state along the borders that were in place before the 1967 war — the same borders considered under the Oslo Accords.

Still, Hamas’s firm commitment not to recognize Israel under any conditions has solidified the impression to critics that whoever repeats the slogan is participating in a rallying cry for the destruction of Israel — and by extension, of the Jewish people as well.

“The phrase ‘Palestine will be free from the river to the sea’ suggests a vision of the future without a Jewish state, but it does not answer the question of what the role of Jews would be,” said Peter Beinart, a professor at the City University of New York. He added that the meaning of the phrase, however, “depends on the context.”

“If it’s coming from an armed Hamas member, then yes, I would feel threatened,” said Professor Beinart, who is Jewish. “If it is coming from someone who I know has a vision of equality and mutual liberation, then no, I would not feel threatened.”

Many Palestinians have been dismayed over the outrage about the slogan, which they regard as the result of an orchestrated effort by groups like the A.D.L. to impugn the motives of Palestinians as a means of undermining their cause of statehood and silencing them.

“It is perfectly possible for both people to be free between the river and the sea,” Ahmad Khalidi, a researcher at Oxford University who worked on Arab-Israeli peace negotiations during the 1990s, said of Palestinians and Jews. “Is ‘free’ necessarily in itself genocidal? I think any reasonable person would say no. Does it preclude the fact that the Jewish population in the area between the sea and the river cannot also be free? I think any reasonable person would also say no.”

[AWS260]

I thought this was a really good look into the peace process of the 1990s. My perspective has tended to be "peace was so close, but then those fuckers killed Rabin," but this article shows the many factors that contributed to its failure.

[hepcat]

FWIW after reading this NY Times piece it is not so simple as that. The use of the phrase is fairly complicated. It doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Nevertheless what it ultimately communicated to Palestinian-Americans is that the Jewish or Israeli narrative is more valid than their own.

To imply that the ONLY reason she was censured was her criticism of Israel and support of Palestine is not telling the whole story. That is the source of my protestation to VR's post. Enough people view it as a call for the extermination of Israel that it can be safely said it is problematic, at the very least. She's a politician and I find it surprising she wasn't aware of that.

Also, we (rightfully so) scrutinize every single phrase Trump utters. I think it's fair to do the same for things coming from a side we are often more sympathetic to.

[Victoria Raverna]

FWIW after reading this NY Times piece it is not so simple as that. The use of the phrase is fairly complicated. It doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Nevertheless what it ultimately communicated to Palestinian-Americans is that the Jewish or Israeli narrative is more valid than their own.

To imply that the ONLY reason she was censured was her criticism of Israel and support of Palestine is not telling the whole story. That is the source of my protestation to VR's post. Enough people view it as a call for the extermination of Israel that it can be safely said it is problematic, at the very least. She's a politician and I find it surprising she wasn't aware of that.

Also, we (rightfully so) scrutinize every single phrase Trump utters. I think it's fair to do the same for things coming from a side we are often more sympathetic to.

Except she didn't call for extermination of Israel. When someone tell you what they meant by it, maybe we should listen to her instead of insisting it meant something else. I think it is not fair to insist on the worst interpretation.

But the sentence that was attributed to me was not actually what I wrote. It was quoting the article. So they were the words by the author of the article, not mine. I just quoted part of the article to make it easier for people to read since they can read without clicking the link to the article.

I'm not that good in writing in English.

[Blackhawk]

Except she didn't call for extermination of Israel. When someone tell you what they meant by it, maybe we should listen to her instead of insisting it meant something else. I think it is not fair to insist on the worst interpretation.

You're right - it's not fair to insist on the worst interpretation. But it's also not reasonable to ignore the negative interpretation completely.

Like I said before, if you use a loaded word or phrase that can mean different things to different people, you have to accept that people are going to hear the more negative as well. You don't just get to turn off the harmful aspects of something you say because it's not what you really meant.

[Victoria Raverna]

Except she didn't call for extermination of Israel. When someone tell you what they meant by it, maybe we should listen to her instead of insisting it meant something else. I think it is not fair to insist on the worst interpretation.

You're right - it's not fair to insist on the worst interpretation. But it's also not reasonable to ignore the negative interpretation completely.

Like I said before, if you use a loaded word or phrase that can mean different things to different people, you have to accept that people are going to hear the more negative as well. You don't just get to turn off the harmful aspects of something you say because it's not what you really meant.

But we all know what she meant by it. Not a call of extermination. It is dishonest to pretend to not know what she meant by those words and insisted that she meant extermination of Israel.

I find it upsetting that the representatives think punishing her for using words with negative interpretation was more important than defending civilians from Israel's action.

[Unagi]

FWIW after reading this NY Times piece it is not so simple as that. The use of the phrase is fairly complicated. It doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Nevertheless what it ultimately communicated to Palestinian-Americans is that the Jewish or Israeli narrative is more valid than their own.

To imply that the ONLY reason she was censured was her criticism of Israel and support of Palestine is not telling the whole story. That is the source of my protestation to VR's post. Enough people view it as a call for the extermination of Israel that it can be safely said it is problematic, at the very least. She's a politician and I find it surprising she wasn't aware of that.

Also, we (rightfully so) scrutinize every single phrase Trump utters. I think it's fair to do the same for things coming from a side we are often more sympathetic to.

So, we should censure people for saying something problematic? And it won't ever be a white man.... In Tennessee, if you say something problematic and you are black - you are expelled.

It's funny that you bring Trump up as an example of someone that is scrutinized, and while he may be talked about a lot - the very idea that he is being presented in a conversation about the fairness of censuring? I'm lost.

[hepcat]

Except she didn't call for extermination of Israel. When someone tell you what they meant by it, maybe we should listen to her instead of insisting it meant something else. I think it is not fair to insist on the worst interpretation.

You're right - it's not fair to insist on the worst interpretation. But it's also not reasonable to ignore the negative interpretation completely.

Like I said before, if you use a loaded word or phrase that can mean different things to different people, you have to accept that people are going to hear the more negative as well. You don't just get to turn off the harmful aspects of something you say because it's not what you really meant.

But we all know what she meant by it. Not a call of extermination. It is dishonest to pretend to not know what she meant by those words and insisted that she meant extermination of Israel.

It's also dishonest to pretend the phrase does not have a well documented history of being interpreted as a call to genocide, then demand exact wording from everyone you feel is in the wrong.

It's funny that you bring Trump up as an example of someone that is scrutinized, and while he may be talked about a lot - the very idea that he is being presented in a conversation about the fairness of censuring? I'm lost.

That's because I wasn't using it as an example of censuring. I was using him as an example of someone who's every word is scrutinized for the worst possible interpretation...racist, fascist, etc.. That doesn't mean I support or even like Trump. Quite the opposite. But you don't have to support or like someone to use them in an analogy.

[Victoria Raverna]

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... biden-gaza

From the article:

Asked on live television if there is any threshold of civilian loss which might lead the U.S. government to call on Israel to stop its bombing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) unblinkingly said “no.” Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) questioned whether it was possible to speak of innocent Palestinian civilians at all. And when Florida state Rep. Angie Nixon asked how many dead Palestinians would be enough to justify a cease-fire, her Republican colleague Michelle Salzman immediately shouted out, “all of them!” None of these lawmakers has faced similar censure for their comments, nor are they likely to.

[hepcat]

Yes, and she should have been. That doesn't justify Tlaib using a phrase she had to know was controversial. American politics are a shit show.

[Victoria Raverna]

Yes, and she should have been. That doesn't justify Tlaib using a phrase she had to know was controversial. American politics are a shit show.

https://forward.com/opinion/415250/from ... -it-means/

From the article:

Dismissing or ignoring what this phrase means to the Palestinians is yet another means by which to silence Palestinian perspectives. Citing only Hamas leaders’ use of the phrase, while disregarding the liberationist context in which other Palestinians understand it, shows a disturbing level of ignorance about Palestinians’ views at best, and a deliberate attempt to smear their legitimate aspirations at worst.

Most troubling for me, the belief that a “free Palestine” would necessarily lead to the mass annihilation of Jewish Israelis is rooted in deeply racist and Islamophobic assumptions about who the Palestinians are and what they want.

Rather than just lecture Palestinians and their supporters about how certain phrases make them feel, supporters of Israel should get more curious about what Palestinians themselves want. There isn’t a single answer (there never is), but assuming you already know is no way to work towards a just and lasting peace.

[El Guapo]

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... biden-gaza

From the article:

Asked on live television if there is any threshold of civilian loss which might lead the U.S. government to call on Israel to stop its bombing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) unblinkingly said “no.” Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) questioned whether it was possible to speak of innocent Palestinian civilians at all. And when Florida state Rep. Angie Nixon asked how many dead Palestinians would be enough to justify a cease-fire, her Republican colleague Michelle Salzman immediately shouted out, “all of them!” None of these lawmakers has faced similar censure for their comments, nor are they likely to.

Yes, I agree that Republicans are crazy.

[hepcat]

VR, has the phrase been frequently used by terrorists who want Israel destroyed? Yes or no?

also

I'm not that good in writing in English.

I think you do a great job. I would never know English was your second language just by reading your replies.

[El Guapo]

the U.S. House of Representatives voted on November 7 to censure Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib for her criticism of Israel and support of the Palestinian people.

That was not the only reason, and you know that as we explained it to you repeatedly when it happened. She used a term that is commonly seen as a call for the destruction of Israel and its people. There's enough misinformation and/or bias in the media for support on either side. Let's try not to add to that.

FWIW after reading this NY Times piece it is not so simple as that. The use of the phrase is fairly complicated. It doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Nevertheless what it ultimately communicated to Palestinian-Americans is that the Jewish or Israeli narrative is more valid than their own.

Should we tell southern states that it is fine if they want to put the Confederate flag back above their statehouses and on their flags? A *lot* of people define that as a symbol of southern heritage having nothing to do with race. And by telling them that they can't or shouldn't, we're communicating to them that our narratives are more valid than theirs.

[Smoove_B]

I'm sure this will be lost in the current debate, but there seems to be indications a "pause" is coming:

The U.S. has brokered a deal between Israel and Hamas to free dozens of hostages held in Gaza in exchange for a four or five day pause in fighting, according to three current U.S. officials and a former U.S. official with knowledge of the talks.

The people said an announcement could come from the relevant parties as soon as Tuesday — though all stressed that arrangements can always fall apart at the last moment.

Elements of the deal, including the release of some 50 hostages by Hamas, could begin within hours, they said. Two of the U.S. officials added that about 150 Palestinian prisoners will also be released from Israel as part of the arrangement.

“We’re the closest we’ve been,” said one of the U.S. officials, who like others was granted anonymity to detail a sensitive development before it was announced.

[El Guapo]

Based on articles I see it seems like we keep getting asymptotically closer to a deal without ever actually reaching it.

[Blackhawk]

I find it upsetting that the representatives think punishing her for using words with negative interpretation was more important than defending civilians from Israel's action.

What she said had little or nothing to do with the vote to censure for 95% of the people voting against her. It was the excuse used for their political theater, retribution, and for setting up talking points for the election.

[Unagi]

VR, has the phrase been frequently used by terrorists who want Israel destroyed? Yes or no?

I'm not trying to be snarky or witty here, but so has the phrase "Praise Allah.

[El Guapo]

I find it upsetting that the representatives think punishing her for using words with negative interpretation was more important than defending civilians from Israel's action.

What she said had little or nothing to do with the vote to censure for 95% of the people voting against her. It was the excuse used for their political theater, retribution, and for setting up talking points for the election.

I also agree with this. Republicans have completely devalued the significance of a censure to me by abusing its use. I dislike Tlaib for a lot of reasons, but I wouldn't care if she weren't censured.

[hepcat]

VR, has the phrase been frequently used by terrorists who want Israel destroyed? Yes or no?

I'm not trying to be snarky or witty here, but so has the phrase "Praise Allah.

or Amen?

El Guapo's analogy using the confederate flag is a better way of looking at it.

[El Guapo]

VR, has the phrase been frequently used by terrorists who want Israel destroyed? Yes or no?

I'm not trying to be snarky or witty here, but so has the phrase "Praise Allah.

Yeah what I care about here is just that the natural meaning of the phrase is a call for the end of the existence of Israel. That some people define the phrase in some vague aspirational way doesn't matter all that much to me, just like it doesn't matter to me that some people define the display of the Confederate flag as "I love being from the South!"

[Blackhawk]

I find it upsetting that the representatives think punishing her for using words with negative interpretation was more important than defending civilians from Israel's action.

What she said had little or nothing to do with the vote to censure for 95% of the people voting against her. It was the excuse used for their political theater, retribution, and for setting up talking points for the election.

I also agree with this. Republicans have completely devalued the significance of a censure to me by abusing its use. I dislike Tlaib for a lot of reasons, but I wouldn't care if she weren't censured.

Just like they're trying to do with impeachment.

[Unagi]

Yes, and she should have been. That doesn't justify Tlaib using a phrase she had to know was controversial. American politics are a shit show.

It's not that it justifies it, it's that it shows the bullshit double standard when it comes to this subject.

You can have one person declare in actual straight language that "100% of the Palestinians should be dead" - and nothing is said. Then you have another person use a phrase that might be taken one way but can also be taken another way, and that's problematic.

[hepcat]

Yes, and she should have been. That doesn't justify Tlaib using a phrase she had to know was controversial. American politics are a shit show.

It's not that it justifies it, it's that it shows the bullshit double standard when it comes to Republicans.

There, I fixed your post.

[El Guapo]

Yes, and she should have been. That doesn't justify Tlaib using a phrase she had to know was controversial. American politics are a shit show.

It's not that it justifies it, it's that it shows the bullshit double standard when it comes to this subject.

You can have one person declare in actual straight language that "100% of the Palestinians should be dead" - and nothing is said. Then you have another person use a phrase that might be taken one way but can also be taken another way, and that's problematic.

But like, I think *everyone* here would agree that saying that "100% of the Palestinians should be dead" is horrible, way worse than what Tlaib said, and deserves censure. Does the fact that Florida Republicans are insane and won't do so matter to whether what Tlaib said is problematic? Are we stuck with the moral standards of the Florida Republican Party?

[Blackhawk]

Everyone expects trash to come out of the mouths of Republicans these days. It doesn't make for big news stories. When a Democrat says something that can be construed as hateful on a controversial topic, though - that's clicks. The worse the media makes it sound, the more clicks it generates. And when an action by a Democrat can be interpreted as a misdeed and gains traction with the media, why, that there is 'publican bait!