Israel–United States relations and associated politics

[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.

Just like they're trying to do with impeachment.

Indeed.

[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 Republicans.

There, I fixed your post.

I’ll push back a little (not that you are wrong)

I think it’s the subject matter. (as well)
We have seen similar double standards in our own discussion and it is ‘problematic’ to point them out.

IMO.

[Victoria Raverna]

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.

I think you should do that. If you really support free speech, you should also support them putting those flags above their statehouses. Instead of stopping people from putting on flag or saying things that you think are racist things, you should stop people from doing actual racist acts.

[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.

I’ll push back a little (not that you are wrong)

I think it’s the subject matter. (as well)

That's not pushing back. That's agreeing with us that Republicans are awful.

[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.

I think you should do that. If you really support free speech, you should also support them putting those flags above their statehouses. Instead of stopping people from putting on flag or saying things that you think are racist things, you should stop people from doing actual racist acts.

Ok then. Tuberville's going to be psyched when he hears the news.

[Victoria Raverna]

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

Yes, but it also being used by Palestinians that just want freedom and peace.

BTW, muslim terrorists also like to say Allahu Akbar before they did their terrorist acts. Does that mean we have to ban muslim from using those words? Censure muslim representatives that say Allahu Akbar?

[Victoria Raverna]

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.

22 Democrats voted for it so it is not fair to only blame Republicans for censuring her.

[hepcat]

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

Yes, but it also being used by Palestinians that just want freedom and peace.

BTW, muslim terrorists also like to say Allahu Akbar before they did their terrorist acts. Does that mean we have to ban muslim from using those words? Censure muslim representatives that say Allahu Akbar?

But for a thousand years or more, that phrase has been used outside that. Can you say the same for From the River to the Sea?

[Victoria Raverna]

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

Yes, but it also being used by Palestinians that just want freedom and peace.

BTW, muslim terrorists also like to say Allahu Akbar before they did their terrorist acts. Does that mean we have to ban muslim from using those words? Censure muslim representatives that say Allahu Akbar?

But for a thousand years or more, that phrase has been used outside that. Can you say the same for From the River to the Sea?

Yes. Not thousand years but it was used decades before Hamas existed.

[hepcat]

Decades is a MUCH lower number than a thousand years or more. It's a generic proclamation praising God found in holy documents and whose source FAR predates its use by terrorists warping it to justify their actions. It's used in every Islamic service. Can you say the same for From the River to the Sea?

A thousand years from now, if From the River to the Sea has been placed into every day use by Muslims the world over and has resulted in far less violence than it does now, we can bring up this analogy again.

[Unagi]

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?

To me, the thing here is that if Tlaib were asked, it would be known that she doesn't remotely want every Jew killed nor does she support Hamas, etc. , but I do NOT think *everyone* here would agree that she is being honest. Some would just not believe her.

Florida Republicans aside; US Senator, Lindsey Graham is allowed to say there is no threshold of civilian loss which might lead the U.S. government to call on Israel to stop its bombing. Sure, it's probably just a bullshit 'throw-away' bravado answer from Graham, but he is allowed to say it without even the slightest thought that it would lead to being censured over it. There are plenty of examples of this, I'm sure.


The collective "we" (not talking about people on this forum) are not wired to condemn that sentiment, while "they" have absolutely no problem condemning Tlaib. I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that I think it's probably some level of bigotry that supports that contrast.

[hepcat]

To me, the thing here is that if Tlaib were asked, it would be known that she doesn't remotely want every Jew killed nor does she support Hamas, etc. , but I do NOT think *everyone* here would agree that she is being honest. Some would just not believe her.

No, I think those replying to you here are cognizant of the fact that OTHER people in the world might take it as a triggering statement that the destruction of Israel should be the goal. I don't think anyone here has ever said that Tlaib wants that. But you have to be aware that From the River to the Sea is a controversial phrase, especially in light of the current situation in the Middle East, and that its use is problematic on the world stage. A politician should be aware of that.

[Blackhawk]

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

Yes, but it also being used by Palestinians that just want freedom and peace.

Nobody disputes that.

We dispute the idea that you can say the phrase without conveying both meanings.

[Unagi]

To me, the thing here is that if Tlaib were asked, it would be known that she doesn't remotely want every Jew killed nor does she support Hamas, etc. , but I do NOT think *everyone* here would agree that she is being honest. Some would just not believe her.

No, I think those replying to you here are cognizant of the fact that OTHER people in the world might take it as a triggering statement that the destruction of Israel is what should be the goal. I don't think anyone here has ever said that Tlaib wants that. But you have to be aware that From the River to the Sea is a loaded phrase in light of the current situation in the Middle East, and that it's use is problematic on the world stage.

Honestly, I am very well aware of that - but I'm fairly close to a couple of very reasonable and real Palestinians, two young doctors who live here in the US, and what WE don't get is that to them it is not loaded to many Palestinians.

If you google the origins of the phrase, the wiki text reads:

The phrase was popularized in the 1960s as part of a wider call for Palestinian liberation, creating a democratic state and, according to Arizona professor Maha Nassar, freeing Palestinians from oppression from Israeli as well as from other Arab regimes such as Jordan and Egypt.

That's it. It's been taken and used in horrible ways by horrible people - that's true - but to them, it is a phrase that speaks to the Palestinian people having a home and being free people.
With no ill will attached. For real.

It's hard to insist that it must be taken as a loaded statement when one (I am speaking about myself here) can't honestly say they really ever heard it before 'the bad uses', but then learn that it was absolutely used, just off my radar.

I can't insist that my perception must prevail when I speak to normal humans who value all life (Jews included) and who kindly explain to me I'm just ignorant of its origins and meaning to their people.

I get El Guapo's point, and your own... but I've been faced with personal interactions with people I know and trust who have got me looking at it a little differently. (and, btw - in this use - the current situation in the Middle East is exactly when they feel the phrase has its most meaning, as they feel they are about to be snuffed out. But yes, I understand that in this context, we hear it -the other way-)

[GreenGoo]

Know your audience.

If the entire world is likely to be your audience, proceed accordingly.

Many people have been dealing with loaded, multiple meanings words for years. It becomes second nature to review any words that may have alternate meanings before uttering them.

I have little sympathy for anyone who wants to whine about not intentionally meaning something terrible. Pay attention. Know your audience. Be conscientious.

That's all there is to it.

[Unagi]

Know your audience.

If the entire world is likely to be your audience, proceed accordingly.

Fair enough, and the world extracts its price.

[GreenGoo]

Fair enough, and the world extracts its price.

That's the entire point. Blackhawk has clearly made this point multiple times in this thread, starting with the swastika. That's only been in place for a few decades but no one in the western world is going to argue that it's ok to use because it has alternate meanings. The same concept applies to words too.

edit: The key is to be humble in your ignorance, recognize that your words have meanings beyond what you intended, sincerely apologize, and move on.

Doubling down just secures the suspicion that you (royal you) are an asshole. Usually it's arrogance that drives this behaviour. Usually.

edit: Dealt with insane hatred of white space.

[Blackhawk]

I was a Christian once, and I saw the Ten Commandments as a great thing. Even today, I agree with many of them. Hanging them in a church is fine - they're a message for the people there that, in that context, is meaningful and positive. Hanging them in a courthouse, on the other hand, is still a positive thing for those people - but it is ostracizing to others. The first gives a message only to those who benefit from it. The latter tells everyone - including those specifically targeted by it - that they're considered wrong and inferior in a building that's expected to treat every type of person equally, with a potentially great cost when it fails to do so.

Context matters, and audience matters.

The phrase is a message of hope for Palestinians, a message of hate for Jews, and a call to hate for some, in an era when coded calls to hate have become the norm. Speaking it in public, as a representative of all of those groups of people, is absolutely going to promote hope for some, fear for some, and hatred for some. And recognizing that you represent people of every type and moderating your behavior based on that is a key expectation for a politician.

[Blackhawk]

Black Hawk

I am neither a helicopter, nor a leader of the Sauk.

[Unagi]

Maybe I should be clear so that everyone understands what I'm trying to communicate...

I don't deny or disagree at all with the idea that Tlaib should have seen this coming, nor that she did "her side" no favors with her choice of words. "know your audience" - for sure.

I'm just shaking my head at the whole thing. I wished to point out the horrible double standard when it came to flippant statements that politicians make that lump Palestinians in with "Hamas" and close the book, versus our (the royal we) amazing ability to scrutinize any statements made against Israel (or for Palestinians) as having an antisemitic origin.

[hepcat]

And it sucks that some folks (royal some) consider the actions of Israel as the will of all Jewish people.

[El Guapo]

If you google the origins of the phrase, the wiki text reads:

The phrase was popularized in the 1960s as part of a wider call for Palestinian liberation, creating a democratic state and, according to Arizona professor Maha Nassar, freeing Palestinians from oppression from Israeli as well as from other Arab regimes such as Jordan and Egypt.

That's it. It's been taken and used in horrible ways by horrible people - that's true - but to them, it is a phrase that speaks to the Palestinian people having a home and being free people.
With no ill will attached. For real.

Yes, no one would dispute that it's about freeing Palestinians. Specifically it's about freeing Palestinians from the (Jordan) River, near the West Bank, to the (Mediterranean) Sea, near where Tel Aviv and Haifa are. That's the whole point. It's emphasizing that they're not just talking about the West Bank or the Palestinian territories, but that "Palestine" will be free across the entire land at dispute here.

Like, that's the problem. Palestine would replace not coexist with Israel.

And I'm sure that Israelis would deeply appreciate that this would happen with no ill will. Really warm their hearts, I'm sure.

[Blackhawk]

Maybe I should be clear so that everyone understands what I'm trying to communicate...

FWIW, I got your point.

In rapid fire threads, it's easy for a post to end up under the wrong person's reply.

Especially if you revise as much as I do.

[Unagi]

..., but that "Palestine" will be free across the entire land at dispute here.
Like, that's the problem. Palestine would replace not coexist with Israel.

I am told it's about a two-state solution, not about Israel ceasing to exist.

But, whatever.

[Unagi]

And it sucks that some folks (royal some) consider the actions of Israel as the will of all Jewish people.

It sure does, that's what I said back on page 17 - when I was asked to be more clear about my position on Israel's right to exist.

• I think Israel has a right to exist.
• I think a Palestinian state has a right to exist.
• I think people living in an oppressive environment indefinitely, will eventually breed tremendous dissent.
• I think that being Jewish is not the same as supporting the Israeli government.
• I think that Palestinians are not identically equal to Hamas.

[hepcat]

Yup, I agree.

[malchior]

..., but that "Palestine" will be free across the entire land at dispute here.
Like, that's the problem. Palestine would replace not coexist with Israel.

I am told it's about a two-state solution, not about Israel ceasing to exist.

But, whatever.

That is in many ways was the original meaning. However, the powerful often decide what language is acceptable. And the oppressed/powerless just have to learn to work within that structure.

[Unagi]

This may have been shared above and I just didn't click on it (and I think NY Times is paywalled, but I've not hit my limit on this PC).

Speaks to a lot of the points that all of us are making:

"In Congress and on Campuses, ‘From the River to the Sea’ Inflames Debate"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/us/p ... nians.html

I guess one part that I think speaks to my general feeling (of hope, that honesty isn't all that high at all):

“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.”

[Unagi]

Yup, I agree.

I'm curious, would you also agree with me that the Israeli government is a more legitimate government that was elected more recently and under more democratic conditions than Hamas was/is for the people it represents?

[hepcat]

I just want to point out that every single article that people have linked to in their argument that the phrase shouldn't be considered problematic starts off by reporting that it is problematic.

Yup, I agree.

I'm curious, would you also agree with me that the Israeli government is a more legitimate government that was elected more recently and under more democratic conditions than Hamas was/is for the people it represents?

Why wouldn't I? I thought we'd established that the majority of Palestinians in Gaza do not like Hamas quite a few pages ago. And that they're awful and corrupt.

[GreenGoo]

I just want to point out that every single article that people have linked to in their argument that the phrase shouldn't be considered problematic starts off by reporting that it is problematic.

That can't possibly be true. A cabal of powerful people decide how language evolves and is used. I just can't with this thread. Geezus.

[hepcat]

Side note: I love the word "cabal". I need to work it into my every day discourse more often.

"All of you HOA board members are a cabal!"

"I don't want to work on Saturday for you and your corporate cabal!"

"I want to play basket-cabal!"

[GreenGoo]

Side note: I love the word "cabal". I need to work it into my every day discourse more often.

I've been trying to get invigilator into my daily usage. No luck yet. That was invigilating. Nope. Hmmm. Have you been invigilated today? Possibly? Nah.

Work in progress.

Kudos on the basket-cabal. Really. Well done.

[hepcat]

"Your dog just invigilated on my lawn!"

[malchior]

I just want to point out that every single article that people have linked to in their argument that the phrase shouldn't be considered problematic starts off by reporting that it is problematic.

That's not what the NY Times piece starts with.

[hepcat]

From the opening paragraph of that article:

The pro-Palestinian rallying cry has become a fixture of protests in the United States and was a focus of the congressional censure of Representative Rashida Tlaib. It has a fraught history.

[malchior]

From the opening paragraph of that article:

The pro-Palestinian rallying cry has become a fixture of protests in the United States and was a focus of the congressional censure of Representative Rashida Tlaib. It has a fraught history.

I read that differently than "problematic" in the nuance but get where you're coming from. Still how does that negate...you know...the substance of the piece?

Edit: Or the commentary that it is problematic in it's own way that one relatively powerful group gets to decide that their maximalist interpretation of someone else's phrase (albeit polluted!) is the only valid one? For what it's worth I totally agree with comments that Tlaib should have known (if she didn't) or may have indeed calculated on political advantage within her electorate back home to the inevitable outrage. I'm not intending to defend her in any real way. I'm more commenting on the meta here.

[hepcat]

Why would it negate it when the point of that article is to point out that it means different things to different people...including a call to genocide for Israel to some?

I think we've got two discussions running at cross purpose here: some of us are saying that the phrase DOES have an apocalyptic meaning for Jews to some in the world, and thus Tlaib, who was speaking to the world, should have avoided using it.

Then there are others who are stating it means different things to different people. I'm not disputing that and fully accept that. That does nothing to change the belief that Tlaib should have avoided using it in a speech to the world at large because (as every article linked to has also confirmed) it means something very dangerous for Israel to quite a few folks.

[malchior]

Why would it negate it when the point of that article is to point out that it meant different things to different people...including a call to genocide to some?

Ok I think I got confused her. It seemed like you were dismissing the argument outright but on a re-read you seem to be commenting that people seem to be saying it isn't "problematic". I totally agree with the idea that it is controversial.

I was more exploring the legitimacy of the way we seem to be told we have to interpret the phrase even when it conflicts with it's original meaning, what people say they are trying to communicate, and everything else they say.

Then there are others who are stating it means different things to different people. I'm not disputing that and fully accept that. That does nothing to change the belief that Tlaib should have avoided using it in a speech to the world at large because (as every article linked to has also confirmed) it means something very dangerous for Israel to quite a few folks.

Got it and I'm legitimately trying to unpack how the "rules making" is happening. The NY Times piece does a good job of unlocking the topic and I think it's emblematic of the topic that despite being handed a guide stone to why the disagreement exists; ultimately what we see here is the pattern. Instead of listening and understanding, any discussion with nuance instantly reverts to assuming the polarized tribal takes are correct and the "only true one". That lack of listening and understanding is ultimately a root cause in the whole thing.

[Unagi]

I just want to point out that every single article that people have linked to in their argument that the phrase shouldn't be considered problematic starts off by reporting that it is problematic.

This is sorta playing with the term 'problematic' here.

May I explain?


The argument is really poorly framed the way you say it: "that the phrase shouldn't be considered problematic".

She was censured because she used a phrase that was problematic, in that it invoked the imagery of terrorism for a lot of people...
That's clear. That's not debated (by me), in the contexts she finds herself in, that's the price the world will extract.

So, I am not arguing that it should not be problematic in that context, I am just putting even more light or heat on the nature of the 'problematic-ness' of it all.

It's important for you (or any reader) to understand that I get that part perfectly.


Even if it's perfectly clear to you... (and yes, I apologize sincerely if it is a point that *everyone* already understands), but El Guapo found it laughable that the term is used by (peace-minded) Palestinians who are just longing for freedom from oppression and a home of their own. And that presents the added complexity that is expressed in these articles...

I'm not trying to argue with you.
I'm certainly not trying to argue that the phrase shouldn't be considered problematic, when - like the article I shared - I felt I was trying to bring clarity on why it is.