The instant someone makes that accusation, I disengage. I’ve learned the hard way.
People think that calling someone antisemitic (or anti-Muslim) is a great debate tactic if you’re trying to put your opponent on the defensive and derail the conversation. There’s a major difference between criticizing a government/organization and general bigotry, and they know that perfectly well, but people who want an easy, emotional argument don’t care. They’re not interested in details.
I would love to see the US abandon Israel and let them pay for their own military/genocidal operations, but I know that's unpossible in the current political climate.
It’s only impossible if you stay silent. Call your congress people. Tell them how you feel about it. Make a case for pushing peace and not giving militar aid.
(Imo all aid should be in the form of supporting peace talks or protecting civilians, but I don’t know what the second part would look like.)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has banned two Democratic U.S. congresswomen from visiting the country and the Palestinian territories this weekend, according to a government official.
The two representatives have been vocal critics of the Israeli government and Trump's unwavering support of Netanyahu. They also voted against a nonbinding resolution condemning a Palestinian-led movement calling for boycotts, divestment and sanctions in Israel, which they have repeatedly defended.
I know I am so so sick of these complex views on the middle east. What is with internet comment threads that makes them lack all definite stances? I been saying this for years, the internet needs less middle ground and more incoherent dogmatic positions.
So what about the stance of not supporting Israel's genocide of Palestinians while condemning Hamas actions. Ever consider that its possible to be against both sides?
It's not a game of sportsball. You can be on the side of people getting murdered who have no direct control of the decisions of the governments and organisations committing atrocities.
That's the UN's job in fact. They aren't picking a side, and they are saying both sides have done wrong. All that's happened is the UN acknowledging an objective fact, if you consider killing civilians and targeting civilian infrastructure to be wrong.