Are the antisemitic protests in the room with us Joe? Can you point to one of them for us?
Just more finger pointing without substance to try to discredit protests. Yesterday’s CNN article specifically about antisemitism at Columbia protests didn’t provide any more specifics than one Jewish student saying how scared he was because someone confronted him. Doesn’t say about what or offer any specifics of the confrontation, just that he was scared.
Blanket accusations of antisemitism continue to undermine efforts to call out legitimate antisemitism, which is still a problem.
Another day passes, and amid further deflections from world leaders the genocide continues onward.
This weekend, Israel bombings in Rafah killed 22 people. 18 of them were children. How many more Palestinian children will be bombed to death before the next weekend?
Recognizing genocide as deplorable isn’t antisemitism - it’s morality.
As in he condemns both antisemitism and he condemns apathy for Palestinians. That makes sense. Antisemitism is bad. Pro-Palestinian is good. I hate that we’re still funding Israel. But I’m glad he’s been openly critical of Netanyahu and has been constantly been pushing for aid to Gaza.
If democrats are ignorant enough to vote for Trump expecting support of the Palestinians, they’ll be calling for their eradication, and inviting war with Iran. Passion doesn’t justify ignorance.
Nobody is saying they’re going to vote for trump, but lower turnout hurts his chances. He’s dumping ice on voter enthusiasm, if you think that doesn’t impact his reelection chances you’re out of your mind.
I’m not in support of America’s blind support of Israel either. The point is, there’s far more at stake in this election than that conflict, and Trump would make things worse for the Palestinians. Abstaining or voting third-party is voting for Trump. It’s not a way to protest support of Israel, and will hurt America, and Ukraine, far more.
Are the undecided voters in the room with us right now?
You’re arguing with me as if i’m the deciding vote, but there are 81 million eligible voters that didn’t vote in 2020 and a large portion of those who did vote who are going to be less likely to vote for him for his bungling of this issue alone.
He’s in a tight race and can’t afford to be losing those voters. He’s doing this to himself.
You’re assuming those ppl aren’t going to hold their nose and vote for Biden.
You’re assuming those non-voters would somehow be more enthusiastic this cycle than in 2020. And now he’s risking the loss of progressive voters who take foreign policy seriously that begrudgingly voted for him in 2020 but didn’t have the foresight that he’d support a Palestinian genocide that they now have in hindsight.
What news are you reading? Republicans want more funding for Israeli defense. They tried to draft legislation for Israel aid independent of Ukraine and Taiwan. You’re joking, right?
Edit: And Trump has encouraged the eradication of the Palestinians as long as Israel “doesn’t record it”
That’s true. Historically, America has always been in support of Israel. Democrats support Israel, and Republicans support Israel and push for an active war with Iran.
Both sides support Israel, but they’re far from united. Republicans have been pushing Israel to take the fight directly to Iran since the proxy conflict started in ‘85. Believe it or not, this is a more moderate version of support than the republicans would have if they were in control.
The democrats are smart enough to know that it’s not a good look to be rooting for more violence, but they are still materially interested in supporting Israel’s domination in the region.
It’s only meaningfully different if all you care about is aesthetics.
Aesthetics? Trump encouraged the eradication of Palestinians, and criticized Israel for recording proof of their crimes. You’re playing with fire even considering a more moderate response from a republican.
Eradication of Palestinians is happening regardless of Biden’s ‘stern’ words. The only material difference between Biden and Trump is their public remarks on the matter, either way Israel conducts themselves the way they want without meaningful repercussions.
Except there have been antisemitic incidents, namely verbal harassment. You can condemn antisemitism and condemn Israel. You can also protest Israel without spewing epithets at any Jew you come across.
And god forbid Biden condemn Palestinian hate, right?
US sanctions to Israel would instantly stop the Genocide and make Netanyahu’s government fall within a week.
The actions that the Biden’s Administration’s choses to take: send them 2000lb bombs which the US itself almost never uses because of their huge collateral damage and likelihood of killing innocent civilians.
Right and the BLM protests were all about causing violence and looting?
I’m sick of this right wing tactic of focusing on some inconsequentially insignificant portion of multiple events, many with zero instances of the priority complaint even occurring and using that to frame the entire movement to discredit it.
“Oh but Biden also wrapped it up with a throw away comment saying he’s totes mcgotes not okay with the happening right now genocide that he is materially supporting”
Advantageous looting follows a lot of civil unrest. Not sure how that’s relevant here.
The fact is that people on campus were being harassed solely based on their background. That’s okay?
It’s not really insignificant when you’re looking at Columbia in particular. Maybe at other schools, but you just said you don’t like people bringing in irrelevant events to the discussion, so I won’t go there.
I see you completely ignored the part where Biden condemned Israel, since it doesn’t fit your narrative. Let me guess, you won’t support the democrats because “both parties are the same”.
He didn’t condemn Israel, he “condemn[s] those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians”, which is such passive language that it could just as easily be interpreted as ‘condemning people who don’t understand Israel’s response to violent Palestinians’.
He’s walking a tightrope and intentionally being vague so as not to piss-off AIPAC donors.
I understand that it happens, I see it myself. Im specifically asking about where Biden has done this. I didn’t read the article, but I did search it for both Biden and president and neither had a hit. So if that article does actually point out him doing this, could you quote the part?
I could’ve sworn he said the “anti zionism is antisemitism” line, but that might have just been sensationalism from the December house resolution. Apparently it was pretty controversial among democrats so I don’t even know anymore.
He was asked to comment about the Columbia University Palestinian protests happening right now, and he said he condemns antisemitic protests.
That’s pretty clearly insinuating pro-Palestinian protests are antisemitic, but I suppose he’s smart enough (read: politically adept enough) not to say those words verbatim.
I did a brief search and couldn’t find the actual question he was asked. I can see many ways that they could have asked the question, that would have fit the way the article described it. Some could indicate what you are claiming, and some would make it a stretch.
So do you know what he was actually asked? Or is this really just kind of based on an assumption?
It’s a sky news video (so if you’d rather not give them the view that’s fine), but it’s the first result when filtered by ‘in the last week’ (it’s just the first 30 seconds or so): www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLtgKhXNwB8
He was asked “Do you condemn the antisemitic protests on college campuses” and answered in the affirmative, then was asked “should the Columbia university president resign” and he said he needs to look into it.
As far as I know, there are no 'Antisemitic protests happening" other than the pro-Palestinian protests happening at Columbia and Vanderbilt. I suppose he could claim ignorance, but seeing as how it’s been in the news since last week i’m not sure how he could not know.
Thanks for the link. It seems like it was a softball no-brainer question. Of course he is going to say he opposes antisemitic protests. Any other answer would have been picked apart.
As far as I know, there are no 'Antisemitic protests happening"
Well, first, I will note that in the article linked by the OP, there are pro-Palestinian protesters distancing themselves from some other protests that have sprung up around it, seemingly due to their antisemitism. Additionally we have both claims and videos of people protesting around Columbia throwing out clearly antisemitic shit, like telling jewish people that “the 7th will be every day for you.”
Second, the POTUS does not know everything all of the time. If he had been more nuanced and said “well those protests weren’t antisemitic” and then someone found someone being antisemitic, it would be a political shitshow. His answer to the question asked is pretty much the only sane one. And, more importantly, it certainly does not indicate that he thinks or is implying that any protest of Israel is antisemitic. I would argue that also bringing up Palestine and their suffering right after that indicates and implies he does not think that at all.
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt as you are, he’s still repeatedly affirmed his zionist beliefs and has been loath to condemn Israel’s actions (even if he’s condemned Bibi directly). If Bibi was voted out tomorrow, the issue of Israeli occupation would not go away, and that is a big part of the protests happening throughout the country now. That he avoids making that clarification is evidence enough that him taking any decisive action against Israel is pretty much a forgone conclusion.
We’re moving the goal posts now. I don’t agree with his support of Israel. I get why it’s happening, I wish it wasn’t, and it is something I strongly oppose him on. However, the claim was that he said any protest of Israel is antisemitic, and it appears that this is untrue.
And this isn’t about “giving him the benefit of the doubt.” He literally answered a softball no-brainer question in the only sane way, and there is no amount of twisting that would make it make sense to assume he knew that they were talking only about 1 specific protest that was not antisemitic.
I’m not shifting the goal posts, i’m applying my knowledge of him and his past positions on Israel in my interpretation of that statement. I acknowledge there’s some ambiguity, but frankly, saying ‘he’s responding in the only sane way’ is a projection of your own position (e.g. not supporting israel) onto him and not grounded in his actions or past comments. Israel itself has come out and accused even those peaceful protests on Columbia’s campus of antisemitism with a very broad brush, and it’s a pretty clear effort to discredit legitimate criticism of their genocide in Palestine. Biden has repeatedly taken on the Israeli stance on geopolitical issues, even when evidence is in stark contrast (thinking specifically of his doubt of Gazan death tolls and fault of the israeli strikes on gaza hospitals). It isn’t a stretch to see this comment as yet another instance of him siding with the Israeli state position instead of acknowledging genuine opposition.
I think it’s generous to say you’re giving him the benefit of the doubt, rather than knowingly running cover for him in order to serve a broader goal of campaigning for his reelection. I think anyone who actually wants Biden to win reelection should be pressuring him to act on Israel, not taking every opportunity to deflect criticism away from him.
Even this explanation is a huge shift because he clearly doesn’t say it (which is what I’ve asked for), but you’re simply inferring it.
saying ‘he’s responding in the only sane way’ is a projection of your own position (e.g. not supporting israel) onto him and not grounded in his actions or past comments.
It’s funny that you can infer things about what he said, despite him not actually saying it, but when I question whether he has ever actually said any protest of Israel is antisemitic, and no one can provide me evidence that he has (basically basing it on past positions, or lack there of in this case), I’m “projecting” to point out that he doesn’t actually say it here either. You’re recognizing the faults of your own argument here, not mine.
I think anyone who actually wants Biden to win reelection should be pressuring him to act on Israel, not taking every opportunity to deflect criticism away from him.
There’s plenty of criticism of Biden to go around, especially when it comes to handling Israel and their invasion into Gaza, which is exact people shouldn’t be spinning every little thing into confirming what they already believe to be true because it just weakens legitimate claims.
I very clearly stated what I thought was being implied, and i’ve been trying to explain why it’s not unreasonable to interpret his comments the way I did given his previous comments and positions. There’s abundant examples of democratic leaders casting blame, suspicion, and condemnation toward anti-Israel protesters, including plenty of accusations of antisemitism.
Biden needed to be clear here if he wanted to erase any doubt about the implication. I suspect that this was actually the intent of whatever reporter who asked the question to begin with, but he’s been pretty consistent about siding with Israel and this is a question he should have been prepared for. He needs to be clear, he’s in no position to be wishy-washy with active protests so close to the election. I don’t think i’m being unreasonable with my interpretation given all of the above, even if it isuncharitable.
It’s funny that you can infer things about what he said, despite him not actually saying it, but when I question whether he has ever actually said any protest of Israel is antisemitic, and no one can provide me evidence that he has […] I’m “projecting” to point out that he doesn’t actually say it here either.
It’s not projecting to point out he doesn’t say something verbatim, but it is projection to assume his intended meaning was the ‘most sane’ one.
There’s plenty of criticism of Biden to go around, especially when it comes to handling Israel and their invasion into Gaza, which is exact people shouldn’t be spinning every little thing into confirming what they already believe to be true because it just weakens legitimate claims.
Fair enough, but no amount of criticism seems to stir action out of the most ardent liberal supporters; who are desperate to assign blame to critics on the left.
I get that he sides with Israel too strongly. I get that he is giving them too much support. I get that he needs to come out more forcefully to oppose their actions. None of this changes that he did not say any protest of Israel is antisemitic here. He was asked if he opposes antisemitic protests, and he responded in the affirmative. It’s a no brainer, simple to answer question. There is no logical way to spin this into him saying that any protest of Israel is antisemitic. It just makes zero sense.
Especially if we consider the next part of that statement where he says he also condemns people who don’t understand what’s going on in Palestine.
I get how you “reasoned” yourself there, it’s not that I’m confused by that, but you’re doing mental gymnastics and making massive jumps in order to justify this confirming what you already believe to be true, rather than approaching this the other way and asking yourself “what can I really get from this?”
It’s not projecting to point out he doesn’t say something verbatim, but it is projection to assume his intended meaning was the ‘most sane’ one.
I didn’t say his “intended meaning” was “the most sane.” I said his response to the question was the only sane one. Of course, you are going to have people who, no matter what he says, spin it into him trying to paint all protesters as antisemitic. But if he had tried to be “nuanced” about a question as to whether or not he opposes antisemitism, he runs the risk of being mistaken about something (like you are here when claiming there was no antisemitism there) and sounding like he is defending antisemitic protesters.
Again, total no-brainer. Whether he actually believes it or not is inconsequential, in fact. Politically speaking, there was no other good answer to that question. Without, of course, going into some super long-winded explanation that, again, especially if done off-the-cuff, runs many, many risks.
“I condemn antisemitism in all forms - but it is important to acknowledge that valid criticism of Israel is not antisemitic”
There you go.
Instead you get “i condemn people who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians” which could mean fucking anything, including people who don’t understand what is going on with the Palestinians that justifies the response by Israel, which has been his position the whole fucking time.
I like how you’re pretending you don’t know what he meant by the second part, when it has been clear for a while now that, at least vocally, he doesn’t approve of how far Israel has gone and has repeatedly decried the humanitarian conditions in gaza, but it’s safe for you to assume he meant something he had never said by the first part.
A couple of months ago his spokesperson did exactly that in a White House press conference though they stopped doing it as that specific propaganda trick started working in reverse.
I can’t be arsed wasting my time Googling it for what sounds suspiciously like a hasbara sockpuppet. Anybody genuinelly interested can find it him/herself.
Anybody genuinelly interested can find it him/herself.
So, basically, because you can’t provide it, you aren’t genuinely interested in it.
Seriously, how am I supposed to know what you are talking about? If it doesn’t exist, I could be searching forever and still not prove it doesn’t exist. If you aren’t willing to back up a claim, don’t make it.
I saw it live, on TV (not even a US channel), on a news segment coverage of a White House press conference.
The effort necessary to dig the video if at all possible or actual written news of it in a language you understand (as that was not in an English-speaking channel) isn’t justfied to answer a random poster on the Internet using a style of demand for “proof” which is very common amongst trolls, astroturfers and sockpuppets, especially because if you are one of such bad faith actors, you would just come up with some other “argument” willfully denying the obvious such as “yeah, but Joe Biden himself didn’t do it”.
Given your totally illogical argument (bad faith or just irrational?!) that me not wanting to dig it out to see it again is the same as me not being interested in it, I’m sure I’ll manage to endure the stress from the risk that you’re actually not a bad faith actor and still do not believe me…
Edit
here Karine implies that Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib made antisemitic remarks by using the phrase “from the river to the sea”, then backtracks but not quite.
and here , a month later Karine is confronted with the son of Netanyahu having himself used “from the river to the sea” and is asked if he is thus antisemite, which apparently he is not and then she suddenly discovers that they’re “out of time”.
So I was off: the White House doesn’t directly call people antisemitic, they just imply they are if they use sentences like “from the river to the see”, but if the person is the son of Netanyahu, then the phrase is not antisemitic after all. In other words, it’s the person not the sentence.
There’s also A LOT of press briefings where she says pro-palestinian protests were antisemitic which as SkyezOpen in this thread has pointed out is based on things like claiming that using “from the river to the sea” (as in: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”) is antisemitic. Again, this time indirectly, it’s the good old claim that “from the river to the sea” is antisemitic that apparently only applies to some people, not others.
Want to dig for yourself, here’s the Google search:
using a style of demand for “proof” which is very common amongst trolls, astroturfers and sockpuppets
Nah. It’s trolls, astroturfers, and sock puppets who come in, make extraordinary claims, and say it’s too hard to find so you should go find it yourself.
“How dare you not just believe what some random person on the internet is claiming. You must be a troll” is easily one of the most dumb arguments a person can make.
But to then to go on and make up my response to your alleged evidence, label that response unreasonable, and because “I” made argument, I must be unreasonable because of it. . .well, just that’s just peak hilarity.
You really proved that I’m the unreasonable one arguing in bad faith. lol
Earlier in Israel’s Genocide that’s exactly the way his spokesperson used the “antisemitism” accusation in a White House press conference so it makes sense to conclude that’s still exactly how Biden and his Adminstration use it.
Edit: I was a bit incorrect. She’s been doing it by saying that using “from the river to the sea” is antisemitic up until the point in a briefing in December when she was confronted with how Netanyahu’s son himself had used that sentence and “does that mean he is an antisemite”, by which point she fumbled and suddenly discovered they were “out of time”.
Also at least until that point (in mid December) the Biden Administration would talk about “antisemitism in demonstrations” because people had chanted “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”.
It wasn’t in “a” White House Press Conference, it was in multiple White House Press Conferences and went on at least until mid December and that specific question from a journalist of “so would you say Netanyahu’s son is antisemite”, so already well into the point when Israel had already murdered tens of thousands of Palestinians including over 10 thousand children.
Notice how “from the river to the sea” has no meaning in the Jewish Religion, so it’s entirelly about Israel, so things which were about Israel and not about the Jewish Religion were being deemed “antisemitism” by this Administration.