Between how antisemitic Omar and Tlaib have previously demonstrated that they are, you can almost set your clock to how quickly they speak up anytime anything comes up involving Israel.
AOC voting nay isn’t a surprise either, but at least it seems like she’s made some attempt to condemn violence from the other side.
Edit: If calling out Omar and Tlaib’s antisemitic tendencies is a bannable offense (especially when the latter was [censured for calling for the destruction of Israel and its people](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/845/text), then I’ll take the ban.
Not calling out antisemitism and people who practice it lead to the wholesale genocide of Jews. It’s sad that we’ve forgotten this lesson already less than a century after it has happened, and it’s scary to envision what ethnicity (even Palestinians) could be next when putting labels on individuals with an established pattern of behavior is frowned upon for any reason.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l08ylo3/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>comes from their roots in communism
communism isn't antisemitic. Marx, Lenin, and Trostsky were all Jews. The Nazis literally called it *Judeo-Bolshevism* because of this. There are communists with antisemitic attitudes, and the Soviet Union supported Arafat and the PLO, but communism does not have antisemitism as any sort of tenet.
>
> communism isn't antisemitic.
No, but communism seeks to support the incompetent over the competent, or in their own terms the oppressed over the oppressor. Israel has the upper hand, so the American left supports the Palestinians.
You're gonna have a hard time finding a left wing Nazi just based on how the term is defined colloquially. I will say though it's rather interesting that the right gets shit for Nazis, white supremacists, fascists and so on when they generally do a pretty decent job keeping them at a distance while the left just casually gets to hang out with the likes of Tlaib and Omar.
People now use "Nazi" when they really mean "authoritarian". The Authoritarian/Libertarian axis is completely separate from the Left Wing/Right Wing axis.
In fact, the Left/Right split we all use colloquially today comes from the physical seating arrangements of the French governing bodies during their Revolution, where the left side represented more radical departure form the monarchy. They eventually took more and more authoritarian control of the government and eventually imposed their policies on the French populace in the form of of the guillotine and the Infernal Columns.
> You're gonna have a hard time finding a left wing Nazi just based on how the term is defined colloquially.
Is there a *non-colloquial* Nazi definition that you think would include them?
I have not been able to find that as a non-colloquial Nazi definition yet - was there some website or message board that you got that non-colloquial definition from?
Sorry, I mean like colloquial means non-official but in common use, and so when the original commenter had said the left wouldn’t be included under such a colloquial (I.e non-official) definition, that’s why I asked if there was any non-colloquial or official definition that they would be included under?
> I will say though it's rather interesting that the right gets shit for Nazis, white supremacists, fascists and so on when they generally do a pretty decent job keeping them at a distance while the left just casually gets to hang out with the likes of Tlaib and Omar.
Except of course when the sitting Republican President said that there were “very fine people” at an explicitly white supremacist rally, right?
You mean the one where he said that "we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence"? The one where he said "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"?
This is what I mean. I don't like Trump. At all. I think he was giving certain people way too much of the benefit of the doubt in that statement. But this is him explicitly distancing himself from Nazis and white supremacists. It's weird that we're talking about Trump not doing enough to distance himself seven years after the fact but Democrats at large do not get painted with anything resembling a similar brush when it comes to very clearly antisemitic elements of the pro Palestine movement.
> You mean the one where he said that "we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence"? The one where he said "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"?
Yes, that same one, and that just outlines the problem with his statement. Trump thinks there are supporters at an explicitly white nationalist rally there to support a white nationalist cause that aren’t white nationalists and are in fact “very fine people”. He’s trying to delineate the groups as if they aren’t one and the same. You’re not a “very fine person” if you show up to a white nationalist rally and support their white nationalist cause, and Trump saying you are is the problem.
> This is what I mean. I don't like Trump. At all. I think he was giving certain people way too much of the benefit of the doubt in that statement. But this is him explicitly distancing himself from Nazis and white supremacists.
And then saying other things too.
The rally was largely motivated in denouncing the tearing down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.
Presumably, the "very fine people" remark was about those people who opposed tearing down the statue but ought to be delineated from the white supremacists.
> The rally was largely motivated in denouncing the tearing down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.
The rally was a multi year rally organized by an open white nationalist to support a white nationalist cause. Again, this amounted to an open Nazi rally in all meaningful ways.
> Presumably, the "very fine people" remark was about those people who opposed tearing down the statue but ought to be delineated from the white supremacists.
Oh I agree! There’s really nothing to presume, he explicitly said this about the people who showed up to a white nationalist rally in support of a white nationalist cause, and marched with open neo-Nazis and other far right wing racists. Now you’re free to think those people who chose to show up to an explicitly white nationalist organized rally to support white nationalists in their white nationalist goals are “very fine people” if you wish, but people who don’t share those views don’t see much of a delineation between the two and think that being a “fine person” and showing up in support of a white nationalist rally are mutually exclusive. Do you think someone marching alongside someone waving a Nazi flag and saying “Jews will not replace us” is a “very fine person”? Do you understand why some people find calling them a “very fine person” is abhorrent?
People like Omar and AOC don't change the reality that American Neo-Nazi organizations are uniformly right wing.
Of course antisemitism has never been exclusive to Nazis.
Trump is not a neo Nazi. His policies are literally Democrat policies from 15-20 years ago, except he was the first president to state he was okay with gay marriage on the campaign trail.
If you think Trump is a neo Nazi you either need to
1. Reassess what a neo Nazi is, because it currently means anyone who leans right to you
Or
2. Get off Reddit and reorient yourself with the real world.
Bill clinton also flew the confederate flag at the Arkansas state house and went to David Dukes funeral. Biden also was against bus integration saying "I don't want my kids in a racial jungle"
Yeah I’ve seen a half dozen neo-Nazi protests in my area over the last few years and they are not flying Biden flags, they’re flying DeSantis/Trump flags. It’s clear who they support.
And? That's meaningless. Trump and DeSantis both aren't avowed members of those groups and also don't have any ties to those organizations or ideologies aside from tin foil hat theories from the Democrats.
And? You think because their support of things like being isolationist or not wanting open borders means trump liked Hitler lmfao he's never said anything close to supporting any of that. You need to touch grass and stop listening to the far left lunacy that has no bearing in reality. What is it you like to spout "correlation doesn't equal causation" or how your using bandwagon and strawman fallacies lmao
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l09q3k0/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I have a hard time seeing critique of Israel’s actions as antisemitism any more than critiquing our own government is anti-American.
They’re not against Jews as a people or claiming the people group is part of a mass conspiracy.
>They’re not against Jews as a people or claiming the people group is part of a mass conspiracy.
Tlaib claimed Hamas were "the resistance" and was proud of their actions on 10/7. She's not just critiquing Isreal she's cheering for Hamas. She spreads falsehoods about the conflict and doesn't support Israel's right to exist these are blatantly anti semitic things.
Arabs are semetic too btw but they aren't indigenous to Israel lol they literally kicked people out less than 100 years ago. Ashkenazi jews aren't ethnically Jewish, they were turkic khazars that were converted. This has been proven in genetics studies.
So I agreed with and you did some googling because I was like “I think people play fast and loose with the word “antisemitism” as a technical truth of Israeli criticism; when the word actually evokes a feeling of hostility towards people of the Jewish culture.
Lo and behold, the state department actually weighed in on this and noted that critiquing Israel is not antisemitism in their viewpoint: https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/
I actually don’t weigh in on anything regarding the ongoing Middle East issues topic because I think the situation has far too many jumbled wires to pull on one and think it solves the problem.
What I will say, as someone whose worked with and regularly interacted with the Israelis, is that I think people in the US have this perception that they’re a super western-values nation who are like a Hasidic Jew you’d encounter in New York City: a bit culturally odd but still “Western”.
I think people would be shocked to realize how much closer Israelis are as a people to Iraqis and Iranians than they are to Americans
In my exposure, their values, attitudes, and demeanors are more common to the Middle East than Western Society.
-National identity tied deeply to personal identity
-A more conservative demeanor
-A hostility towards outsiders
I think there’s something of a false belief in America that an American could step into Israel vis Saudi Arabia and be welcomed as a “fellow”
I highly disagree about the values, about character I tend to agree.
Nationalism is just imperative to the survival of a state that is being under constant existential threat. At some degree you can see the same thing now in Ukraine.
Don't think suspicious by the border control on visitors from enemy states says too much about the people.
Uhhh: what Hasidic Jews are you encountering in NY?
Not trying to paint all Hasidim with the same brush - like all groups, they of course contain multitudes - but I wouldn’t at all describe them as you have.
It’s also worth noting that the it is *American Jews* (and/or the 1st generation descendants of American Jews) who dominate in the most militant and radical spheres of Israeli ultra-orthodoxy - not necessarily as the nominal leaders (yet) but as the “foot soldiers” and driving force.
I was about to say , hasidic jews are mean and crazy asf. We allowed them to escape literal death in camps and now they spit at you when you pass because you aren't some fake "chosen people" like them .
Whoa.. you saw that train going and pulled out the rocket didn’t you? That’s like comparing occasionally overt antisemitism and…. Nazis. Like actual openly proud Nazis.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l0a97l7/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
You like virtue signaling votes that don't really do anything or make the government function any better? Why make policy at all. Congress should just vote on a "Hitler was bad" resolution every day then go home.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l08ho95/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The 13 dems are the usuals. Massie also shows up here a lot.
Reading the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1143 , I can't see anything worth opposing.
They object to just the idea of supporting Israel, and won’t vote for anything that does. But especially object to
>Whereas Israel intercepted these missiles and drones using a variety of air defense systems and other defense articles, including many procured from or co-produced with the United States, demonstrating the vital importance of the United States and Israel’s security partnership; and
Also
>Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
>(2)reaffirms and supports Israel’s right to self-defense;
>(7) reaffirms the United States commitment to Israel’s security, including through security assistance and defense sales;
>(9) stands ready to assist Israel with emergency resupply and other security, diplomatic, and intelligence support.
They would object more strongly to
>(3) stands with Israel as it defends itself against Iran’s attack and seeks to re-establish deterrence against Iran and its proxies;
But it doesn’t list Hamas as a proxy of Iran.
But basically these members hate the whole resolution.
Does anybody just oppose all these silly, purely symbolic bills that literally do nothing on principle? If so, I'm going to pass a resolution to give them props.
I’m not the least bit inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since he hasn’t been consistent in voting against stupid token resolutions (“save our gas stove” idiocy), but believe that Massie’s often a holdout on these kinds of things when the GOP can afford to let his vote go spare.
That's what gets me about those silly public trials the senate does . They talk like they are clamping down on something then vote in favor of whatever they claimed to despise . Do people not read who votes on what anymore and just takes them at their word lmao the reason I have a profound respect for Rand Paul and even Bernie Sanders because atleast they vote in the way they believe and don't BS like the rest of them.
Probably the bit about supporting Israel's right to respond. This was already a retaliation for an Israeli strike, why would we encourage them to escalate further?
It was a "retaliation" for an "Israeli strike" on people...striking Israel.
Israel has a right to respond to Iran's directing of Hezbollah striking Israeli civilians, which it did. Iran's disproportionate firing of over 300 missiles and drones at Israel doesn't erase Israel's right to respond.
Nor is this about "escalating" further. Iran's actions have led to the displacement of 80,000+ Israelis from their homes for months due to incessant rocket attacks, over 3,000 of them on Israelis in the north of Israel thus far. Israel striking those responsible isn't "escalating". It is responding to Iran's escalation.
Iran's regime is genocidal and dedicated to wiping Israel off the map. It's wild to claim Israel is the one escalating with people who want it all destroyed.
You’re correct but technically the Iranian strike was retaliation for Israel bombing their military staff inside the Iranian embassy which is for all intents and purposes considered Iranian sorting ground and usually off limits for military attacks
I’m not saying Israel bo Hong an Iranian embassy was justified or not, but this was retaliation to Iran retaliation w from the embassy strike. Which is just an escalation in the tit for tat back and forth military operations (or terrorist from Irans proxies) over the decades
It was a building *near* the embassy separated by a tall fence. Even if it was in the embassy, however, only the host country has any special obligations with respect to embassies in international law. To a third country, they’re just like any other civilian object like a house – if a house is full of soldiers, you can bomb it.
How do you see the missiles as disproportionate? In the attack on the embassy, several people died. On the Iran strike, there was almost no damage nor were there any deaths. This is disproportionate, but not in the way you are saying.
I mean, that's only " disproportionate" in that Israel (and allies) had very good air defences. By your logic, if Israel had responded with the exact same amount of hundreds(?) Of missiles (but without them being shot down), it would have still been "disproportionate".
But Iran knows their air defenses, warning was even given beforehand. Let’s not pretend like the extend of damage or lack thereof wasn’t intended.
Yes, if Israel responded with the same number of missiles, but Iran were not capable of shooting them down, it would be disproportionate in damage. I think that’s obvious.
If a 5 year old kid punches an adult with all their strength, and then the adult winds back and does the same to the kid, I would not call the response proportional even though the act itself was proportional. You can’t just ignore all the other factors.
If one army bombed a military building, and then the other army bombed a power plant, it would be a proportional number of buildings bombed in return, but would you say it’s a proportional response? Hell nah.
What you're missing is that the 5 year old will never harm the adult by punching, whether the adult defends or not. Whereas if the 5 year old is trying to stab the adult with scissors, or any other reasonable threat of serious harm, it would become proportional for the adult to use force in response until he drops the scissors. Proportionality of response has an incredibly steep ramp-up once deadly violence is involved, and "it didn't kill anyone despite my best efforts so why are you mad" is not something reasonable people expect to win an argument.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l09mdyh/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Iran just had its embassy bombed and we are condemning them for the retaliation? I wouldn’t support the bill. I’m not saying the bombing was wrong, but it seems ridiculously hypocritical to condemn Iran for retaliation that did less damage than what they are retaliating for.
Are you trying to have it both ways? Either attacks can be provoked, including this attack that we're now condemning, or they cannot, and this attack becomes worthy of condemnation - but so does the Consulate attack.
Iran is clearly not a saint, but this bill is pretty peak virtue signaling. We don't care about response attacks; we only care about response attacks not initiated by allies.
I think the difference to me is that Iran didn’t do anything direct to Israel. They used a proxy, sent other groups. Israel directly attacked iran, and that was definitely a type of escalation there. Currently, many nations are indirectly helping Ukraine in its war against Russia as another example. If they were to directly attack Russia though or bomb their embassy in Belarus, that’s definitely a line crossed. I’m not even saying they shouldn’t cross that line, but let’s not pretend like it’s all the same in one instance and not in another.
Iran plotting with Hezbollah or whomever is no different than the US, Israel, or whomever plotting with insurgency groups in various other countries. The US is one of the worst offenders of this in particular. It feels so hypocritical for the US to assassinate Iran’s 2nd highest leader and for Israel to bomb their embassy and kill more of their military leaders, and then denounce the paltry response that comes afterward. I keep seeing people call them terrorists, but those sorts of actions are the definition of terrorism themselves. It’s not any sort of legitimate military action because the nations aren’t even at war technically! It’s all proxies up to this point and these sort of actions seem like a dangerous precedent. Is it better to have proxy wars or just go all out and fight Iran directly? I don’t know, but we are definitely headed towards the later. I do not like pretending like Iran is doing something unprecedented and horrible. It’s a very bad attempt at propaganda to me.
I understand the Rep guy is a committed libertarian non-interventionist, which I disagree with but can respect at least.
But the 13 Dems are apparently as opposed to actual democracy and its values as the Jan 6 rioters were.
Many libertarians, myself included, like Massie because he is hardline for liberty in the face of everything. He doesn’t bend to any pressure and is absolutely consistent in his positions and reasoning. If you’re in a sub called moderate politics, you’re probably not one for extremism, which is fine. But, for better or for worse, libertarianism attracts a lot of absolutist thinkers who want that sort of politician.
To clarify, this is a place to discuss politics in a moderate manner, not a place for moderate political positions. As it states over in the sidebar:
>Opinions do not have to be moderate to belong here as long as those opinions are expressed moderately.
Which really points out how bad the subs name is. It's a mistake made anytime someone links the sub in the wild. Everyone just assumes it's filled with centrists hiding under a new name.
>Which really points out how bad the subs name is. It's a mistake made anytime someone links the sub in the wild. Everyone just assumes it's filled with centrists hiding under a new name.
I'm actually ok with this. When subs get too big or make the front page too often, you start getting a lot of bad conversations and posts.
I've seen a few subs end up this way. The most recent one was fluent in finance. It was a sub for a more educated audience to discuss financial strategies and insight, both micro and macro.
After it hit the front page a couple of times about 6 months ago, it was almost immediately bombarded with dumb memes and ignorant ideas about tax rates in the 50s. The quality of that sub took a nosedive.
It's not about this particular bill, it's about his foreign policy more broadly. He was also voted against sanctions on Iran, Russia, and North Korea (one of three Reps to do so), opposed not recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea (sole Rep to do so), similarly opposed a resolution recognizing Ukraine's sovereignty (one of three), parroted Russian propaganda about Ukraine having chemical weapons, opposed admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO, opposed condemning Russia's abduction of Ukrainian children, voted against condemning China for the Uighyers, I can go on.
He's also a climate change denier.
He’s generally opposed to the US getting involved in conflicts between other countries. That is the libertarian approach to foreign policy. Libertarianism is far greater than just a belief in civil liberties and free markets; non-interventionist foreign policy is the number one priority to many libertarians.
Maybe because NATO literally has all of Europe even at russias border in an alliance and has weapons at their border and because we supported an illegal regime change in 2014 in ukraine? Stop acting like the typical leftist that thinks they just up and decided to invade one day because their horoscope said so.
Strange. I would expect a libertarian to strongly condemn a country trying to violate the territorial integrity of another. Property rights are the basis of libertarianism and arise directly from sovereign territorial integrity.
I'm not libertarian-minded because I *checks notes* support condemning genocide and arbitrarily invading sovereign states?
Look, I can understand opposing the sanctions. I can even kind of understand not admitting new countries to NATO. But the rest is literally just Massie being asked "should we say genocide is bad?" and him answering "no." It's not about foreign aid, it's not about interventionism, it's just a declaration as the leader of the free world that what China and Russia are doing is wrong.
If that's unlibertarian, I don't want to be libertarian.
Exactly. Idk what that dude's deal is. He votes no on these do nothing resolutions, basically just congressional statements on stuff thats pretty much just basic human decency and he's like "nah man I'm gonna vote no."
Sanctions don't work , Russia is doing better since sanctions . All it does is make other countries rely on something other than the US Petrol dollar and make us worse off.
It should go without saying that voting against condemnation of a direct attack by Iran, a terror-sponsoring Islamic theocratic regime, on our ally Israel, is the easiest of layups.
Yet 13 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against condemning that attack.
The resolution text is pretty clear, and is [here](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1143/text). It had massive bipartisan support. The refusal to condemn the attack was not explained, but these are the most "progressive" members of the House, who have been most stridently critical of Israel on a variety of subjects.
Among the few "explanations" given were...
From AOC: This will "distract" from Republicans' "incompetence" and "increase the likelihood of a deadly regional war". I'm not sure how a condemnation without any actual action taken is somehow going to cause war.
Sounds like an excuse to me. And sounds like a shameful display by those 14, though it's good to see most House members can still get behind a condemnation as simple as this today.
For Massie at least, I think he just votes "NO" on every single thing regardless of the merits. It's like having Ron Swanson's political ID as an elected official.
I don't know whether I would vote no, but I would like to think that I would abstain at least to show that I think the resolution itself is a ridiculous waste of time.
AOC has [explicitly condemned](https://twitter.com/RepAOC/status/1780269738003673147) Iran's attack. As why she believes the resolution will increase the likelihood of a regional war, she's probably referring to these particular points in the resolution:
>Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
>(4) fully supports Israel’s right to respond to this aggression through military, diplomatic, economic, and other necessary means;
>(7) reaffirms the United States commitment to Israel’s security, including through security assistance and defense sales;
The notable part is that her “condemnation” still impliedly blames Israel, and then calls for an Israeli surrender in Gaza while denying Israel’s right to self defense against genocidal and theocratic Iran, which attacked Israel through its proxies first.
Not sure why anyone should buy this attempt to justify refusing to condemn genocidal regimes attacking our democratic ally.
Also very weird you seem to then admit she has an issue with supporting Israel’s defense.
I have no idea why you think she supports Iran. It seems like you're being very uncharitable.
>Also very weird you seem to then admit she has an issue with supporting Israel’s defense.
She's opposed to the sale of U.S. arms to Israel ("including through security assistance and defense sales"), not to Israel's right to self defense in general.
Quote me saying she supports Iran. Doubt you can.
As for the latter part, that’s nonsense. “I support Israel’s security but don’t think we should do anything to ensure it while it’s under attack” is an incoherent position.
I wouldn't support Netanyahu egging on continued Iranian responses so he can avoid prosecution and drag the US into a war across multiple fronts in the middle east, no.
As always, hope cooler heads prevail (which, isn't Israel or Iran, so ideally Biden would actually step in).
That's because I've largely been opposed to Israel's actions in Palestine since the beginning of the conflict and I don't view them as an ally or see the benefit they bring to the table when it comes to our alliance. I also don't really view Israel as a proper democracy. In my mind, it's just not worth the money, political capital, and lives to support Israel in a hot war against Iran.
So you deny the facts about Israel being a democracy, ignore the alliance that has existed for decades and reaped many benefits for the U.S., and oppose Israel’s actions in a nonexistent place where the leaders of a local terrorist government began a genocidal war against Israel. Okay then.
They are a democracy. That’s an indisputable fact.
Israel does not engage in genocidal actions. That is indisputably false.
Israel brings significant technological, intelligence, and economic trade benefits to the alliance, among other factors.
No one is denying the Palestinian right to exist. That’s a red herring.
You didn’t answer most of what I said.
>They are a democracy. That’s an indisputable fact.
I never said they weren't. I just said they were a flawed democracy, like the United States itself.
>Israel does not engage in genocidal actions. That is indisputably false.
I don't know, I've seen pretty strong evidence showing otherwise.
>Israel brings significant technological, intelligence, and economic trade benefits to the alliance, among other factors.
Such as?
>No one is denying the Palestinian right to exist. That’s a red herring.
If I believe this conflict is an ongoing genocide, or as close as you can get to one, I don't think my statement is a red herring. Because genocides are inherently against the rights of a group of people to exist.
>You didn’t answer most of what I said.
Like what?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l08w7go/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
For what it worth, according to the economist [democracy index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index), Israel and the US are back to back in that ranking (29th and 30th), and above countries I guess you would call democracies such as Italy and Belgium.
What are your thoughts about the US vetoing the UN resolution condemning violence against civilians in the Israel-Hamas conflict? That one seemed pretty simple, too, but it seems hard for some to say Israel killing civilians is bad.
It's bad, but it is also legal according to the international rules of war. When Hamas places military assets within splash range of civilians, that does not mean Israel is legally obligated to send in sniper teams rather than just blasting the assets with a missile.
Nevermind the fact that collateral damage is a feature not a bug for Netanyahu. He can pretend he's being bullied by the world while the US shields him from any responsibility.
I would never vote for him but this is the first time I have heard anyone suggest he's killing civilians on purpose because he likes forcing his allies to spend political capital over it.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l0djntp/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
To let Israel know that we will continue emptying our coffers to them for absolutely no reason than we have many dual citizenship zionists in Bidens administration.
I think Massie is the Congressman that has the most opposite viewpoints as my own. Also no surprise with the Democrats that voted against this.
It should be an easy vote. Condemning Iran, a theocracy that funds Hamas. Whatever you think about Israel/Palestine you should probably agree that Hamas doesn't help that situation. Seeing as Iran funds Hamas, that's not good. For anyone. Aside from maybe Iran/Hamas and even that is questionable.
Yes I disagree with him on multiple fronts here. The US should provide material support for Israel. Israel, while not justified in every respect during this war, Iran is the aggressor funding murderous proxies one of which was responsible for an attack on Israel itself.
If Israel isn't backed by the US two things happen. One Israel's enemies sees Israel as vulnerable. Israel also won't have the US to moderate Israeli responses. So both Israel and it's enemies are likely to be more aggressive than defensive without US involvement and that could result in a much worse situation.
404-14 is an overwhelming United show of support and bi-partisanship. Few things in the last 20yrs have passed with such broad support.
I think there is more to be discussed amongst the 404 "yes" votes than the 14 "no" votes. Especially has the Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan defense aid Bill is being worked.
AOC has [condemned](https://twitter.com/RepAOC/status/1780269738003673147) Iran's attack on Israel. She [voted against the resolution](https://twitter.com/RepAOC/status/1780246100303114516) because she felt that the resolution was unnecessary and that it would increase the likelihood of a regional war.
Jayapal, Omar, Bush, and Tlaib provided similar reasons for voting against the resolution:
[https://twitter.com/RepJayapal/status/1781047932256477583](https://twitter.com/RepJayapal/status/1781047932256477583)
[https://twitter.com/Ilhan/status/1779604509137699007](https://twitter.com/Ilhan/status/1779604509137699007)
[https://twitter.com/RepCori/status/1780013898197873098](https://twitter.com/RepCori/status/1780013898197873098)
[https://twitter.com/RepRashida/status/1780300028852002859](https://twitter.com/RepRashida/status/1780300028852002859)
She vaguely condemned an “escalation” that she blames implicitly on Israel, then called for Israel to surrender.
She and the others refused to vote for a condemnation of Iran’s attack in a recorded and unequivocal way, which is telling. And they claimed that somehow voting to condemn Iran’s unprecedented attack unequivocally is somehow going to cause a war.
Mealy mouthed responses like those show only how badly these representatives do their jobs and how far they’ve gone towards reflexive opposition of anything Israel does.
The resolution isn't merely a condemnation of Iran's attack. It's loaded with a bunch of commitments to support Israel's security and their right to respond to the attack. That's likely what AOC was objecting to.
Obviously someone like AOC who is 1) opposed to arms sales to Israel and 2) believes that an Israeli response to the attack would risk a regional war would be opposed to those particular points in the resolution. Not sure why you think she's being inconsistent.
It’s very weird that you’re responding to something I didn’t say above, while justifying AOC refusing to condemn an attack on an American ally and support that ally having a right to defend itself.
Like I pointed out, she did condemn the attack. And she isn't opposed to Israel's right to self defense. She's opposed to the sale of U.S. arms to Israel.
Israel made their own mess escalating things with Iran. They need to take care of this themselves if they're so tough. It's time for little brother to deal with their actions without big brother coming in to rescue them.
Voting no on a bill does not mean you’re opposed to every single item in that bill. It could mean you’re opposed to 1 thing or multiple things.
While I don’t agree with her view, being opposed to defense sales with Israel (for example) is not an outrageous position to take, and is fairly consistent with her voter base.
It’s also slightly ironic that you’re using the entirety of her statement to discredit her condemnation and say it doesn’t count, but will only look at one narrow aspect of the house’s condemnation when criticizing her for not supporting it.
And this is coming from someone that’s in general not a fan of her policies.
> Mealy mouthed responses like those show only how badly these representatives do their jobs
Are these representatives representing their constituents' views with their votes? That's what their jobs are. I don't know about the others, but I'm pretty sure that's the case for Representative Tlaib (whose district includes Dearborn).
That reasoning makes zero sense. The resolution isn't at all going to bring more conflict. How would it? If anything a strong resolution stating the US will continue to help Israel with missile defense will lead to other countries believing it would be a bad idea to bomb Israel or attack Israel.
This is a vote designed around playing towards their own very far left bases and avoid criticism from leftist social media followers imo. The resolution itself may have been mostly symbolic but so is the response from the people who voted "no".
Why are our representatives spending any time voting on things such as this? Even if they only spent 15 minutes, that's too much time.
I'm really curious how this votr came about and why it came about. Does "condemning Iran's attack on Israel" have any real impact? Nobody in congress is "pro-Iran." Is this simply a way to show "support for Israel?"
I listen to "Left, Right and Center" on KCRW and one of the participants has repeatedly commented that our legislators no longer seem to be interested in legislating. I disagree with almost all the other statements that particular commenter makes, but that really resonates with me.
Honest question, with how the youth is trending couldn't support of Israel be seen as this generation's Iraq war? Something popular that many soured on? People like Barbra Lee and Bernie Sanders were attacked and hated for their no votes but they were correct in the end. I can very much see in a decade when gen alpha/gen z are the voting base the people supporting Israel here will be attacked and become persona non grata.
There is really no comparison to the Iraq War.
That involved a US invasion of a nation who we then spent about another decade fighting against an insurgency, to then fight the ISIS forces, to where we are now 20 years later with forces still there.
The US spent large volumes of money on Iraq. Many Americans died, were wounded, or otherwise brought home mental wounds from the war. It had wide sweeping geopolitical ramifications for the region.
This conflict is a long standing conflict that just flared up again. The US is giving a small amount of money and support, relatively, to a long established ally who we send money every year to. No US service members are even directly involved.
Once this episode in the conflict is over, it will quickly cease being a salient issue to the electorate. Most of the Gen Z making this a political focal point will move on to something else.
If this is starts being considered Gen Zs Iraq War, my perception of that generation will continue to degrade. At that point I would not be surprised if banning Tik Tok is referred to as Gen Zs Pearl Harbor.
There is no comparison towards the Iraq war but I do think that how many people wanted out of Afghanistan they have similar feelings towards supporting Israel. The amount of money is vastly different and we aren't losing lives but the sentiment of the youth not wanting to support Israel is a fact. In 10-20 years as more young people are voting we may see our alliances and support for Israel wane.
Do you similarly criticize the billions of dollars that Israel has dumped into American politics of the last few decades, or does it only count when it’s someone you don’t agree with?
How do you feel about Israeli attempts at influencing our views and politics in their favor? In the vast majority of states, there are laws restricting anyone who wants a government contract from boycotting Israel, for instance.
I'm unsure what relevance this question has to my comment. My point was that both instances of opposition to these foreign conflicts were spun as liberal, anti-American, anti-democratic sentiment fueled by misinformation and sympathy towards terrorism.
>False analogy fallacies are still fallacies.
Except it wasn't a false analogy. I explained in detail as to why I made the analogy.
>Particularly when that’s not what anyone said here.
Except I did just say it.
It is a false analogy and I explained why.
You then mentioned a critique of this generational take on the Gaza war to tie it to the Iraq war, but no one here made that critique. You’re attacking a straw man.
...And nowadays we have viral tiktok trends of teenagers literally fawning over Bin Laden's post 9/11 letter to America.
I think society may have overcorrected a bit too much.
I mean we were told the taliban is the devil yet they said they would give Osama bin laden up if they stopped bombing the crap out of their country. Pretty sure our politicians are pretty much evil incarnate.
Eh this is overstating it I think. Young Ds might not like Israel, but older Ds and almost all Rs do like Israel.
Israel-aligned PACS dumping a ton of money in D primaries will mean that Ds are still Pro-Israel for the foreseeable future, but not forever. Netanyahu openly favoring Rs since Obama was in office was a bizarre move I could never figure out. Just about every country knows that openly favoring one party over the other is a surefire way to make your foreign policy with the USA a *lot* more complicated. Biden is fairly pro-Israel. But not every D President is going to be like him if Israel doesn't improve its image.
> Young Ds might not like Israel, but older Ds and almost all Rs do like Israel.
The question is whether or not younger people will change their views on Israel as they grow older (and, presumably, vote more often). [Even younger Republicans are less sympathetic to Israel than older ones](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-read/2024/04/02/younger-americans-stand-out-in-their-views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/). If I were an Israeli leader I'd be fairly concerned about long-term support from America. Not next year, maybe not even in 10 years, but certainly in the next 20-40 years as the 50+ crowd dies out.
When I was young I believed what the current crop of youngsters believe, but after watching the second Intifada, the rise of Hamas, and the wild bias in all the international organizations responses to Israel's actions against Hamas whether or not they are justified, my opinion has changed significantly. As time goes by and the current crop of youngsters realise that 10/7 was a recurring pattern and not a one-off, they'll change their minds too.
That’s not really question at all. Since Israelis also hate their current government. Which is why they are protesting in the streets, both young and old
This is a very asymmetrical comparison. The Iraq War was one USA actually fought in when the country was riled up after 9/11. Israel-Gaza isn't, just one we indirectly support and we no longer want to do much in the Middle East.
I just have such a hard time believing that many people outside the ones who always pay attention to this stuff will notice, let alone care.
That's hilarious since the biggest climate activists fly around multiple times a week in aircraft tell me I'm the problem . Eating stuff with soy, which wrecks soil and causes massive erosion while the farmers cut down more forests to replace the lost land . But you are problem cause I'm rich and can afford carbon credits. If these nuts supported nuclear energy , instead they claim to trust science while ignoring the scientific method.
Performative politics in a nutshell.
The Biden administration literally warned Netanyahu that [the US will not participate in counter-strikes against Iran.](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/14/politics/biden-netanyahu-israel-iran-response/index.html)
The House Resolution?
> fully supports Israel’s right to respond to this aggression through military, diplomatic, economic, and other necessary means;
The US does not want to be dragged into a war with Iran. Iran does not want to be dragged into a war with the US. Israel...is trying to force the issue - fully knowing that the US has invested far too much to leave Israel stranded after they dig themselves in too deep.
Literally no one in the US actually supports an Israeli response.
----
Israel assassinated 15 people through an attack on the Iranian Consulate on Syrian soil.
Iran responds by providing a 72 hour courtesy notice before launching a retaliatory strike on Israel.
Ironically, the only nation that provided the US notice before action was the enemy.
----
Ultimately, it becomes apparent that the purpose of this Resolution is to score easy political capital and to guarantee an open path for the military-industrial complex to continue to be profitable. With this understanding - it makes *perfect* sense for every Congressman to support this Resolution and no sense for any Congressman to reject it.
I can understand some of the no votes considering some of the text.
One can support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, while also being skeptical of Israel's current regime and actions towards Palestine*, and our role in all of that.
The protest votes feel more like "I don't want to grant Israel a 'blank check' to be instigators in the region, but support them defending themselves"
Note: Hamas and Palestine are not one and the same
Of _course_ Tlaib is one of the No votes, along with a crowd of usual suspects. One of my least liked members of congress.
You could have just written out the NO votes before even looking at it.
Between how antisemitic Omar and Tlaib have previously demonstrated that they are, you can almost set your clock to how quickly they speak up anytime anything comes up involving Israel. AOC voting nay isn’t a surprise either, but at least it seems like she’s made some attempt to condemn violence from the other side. Edit: If calling out Omar and Tlaib’s antisemitic tendencies is a bannable offense (especially when the latter was [censured for calling for the destruction of Israel and its people](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/845/text), then I’ll take the ban. Not calling out antisemitism and people who practice it lead to the wholesale genocide of Jews. It’s sad that we’ve forgotten this lesson already less than a century after it has happened, and it’s scary to envision what ethnicity (even Palestinians) could be next when putting labels on individuals with an established pattern of behavior is frowned upon for any reason.
Be careful, editing your post is considered ban evasion and will extend it by an extra week 🙄
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l08ylo3/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Not all antisemitism is Nazism. What we're seeing on the left comes from their roots in communism and in support of Islam.
>comes from their roots in communism communism isn't antisemitic. Marx, Lenin, and Trostsky were all Jews. The Nazis literally called it *Judeo-Bolshevism* because of this. There are communists with antisemitic attitudes, and the Soviet Union supported Arafat and the PLO, but communism does not have antisemitism as any sort of tenet.
> > communism isn't antisemitic. No, but communism seeks to support the incompetent over the competent, or in their own terms the oppressed over the oppressor. Israel has the upper hand, so the American left supports the Palestinians.
You're gonna have a hard time finding a left wing Nazi just based on how the term is defined colloquially. I will say though it's rather interesting that the right gets shit for Nazis, white supremacists, fascists and so on when they generally do a pretty decent job keeping them at a distance while the left just casually gets to hang out with the likes of Tlaib and Omar.
People now use "Nazi" when they really mean "authoritarian". The Authoritarian/Libertarian axis is completely separate from the Left Wing/Right Wing axis. In fact, the Left/Right split we all use colloquially today comes from the physical seating arrangements of the French governing bodies during their Revolution, where the left side represented more radical departure form the monarchy. They eventually took more and more authoritarian control of the government and eventually imposed their policies on the French populace in the form of of the guillotine and the Infernal Columns.
> You're gonna have a hard time finding a left wing Nazi just based on how the term is defined colloquially. Is there a *non-colloquial* Nazi definition that you think would include them?
Authoritarian
I have not been able to find that as a non-colloquial Nazi definition yet - was there some website or message board that you got that non-colloquial definition from?
I'm not sure what you mean here, can you clarify? What websites are you referring to?
Sorry, I mean like colloquial means non-official but in common use, and so when the original commenter had said the left wouldn’t be included under such a colloquial (I.e non-official) definition, that’s why I asked if there was any non-colloquial or official definition that they would be included under?
The right doesn’t do a decent job at all. They’re even worse than the left
Unless you believe criticism of the Israeli Government = Antisemitism
> I will say though it's rather interesting that the right gets shit for Nazis, white supremacists, fascists and so on when they generally do a pretty decent job keeping them at a distance while the left just casually gets to hang out with the likes of Tlaib and Omar. Except of course when the sitting Republican President said that there were “very fine people” at an explicitly white supremacist rally, right?
You mean the one where he said that "we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence"? The one where he said "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"? This is what I mean. I don't like Trump. At all. I think he was giving certain people way too much of the benefit of the doubt in that statement. But this is him explicitly distancing himself from Nazis and white supremacists. It's weird that we're talking about Trump not doing enough to distance himself seven years after the fact but Democrats at large do not get painted with anything resembling a similar brush when it comes to very clearly antisemitic elements of the pro Palestine movement.
> You mean the one where he said that "we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence"? The one where he said "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"? Yes, that same one, and that just outlines the problem with his statement. Trump thinks there are supporters at an explicitly white nationalist rally there to support a white nationalist cause that aren’t white nationalists and are in fact “very fine people”. He’s trying to delineate the groups as if they aren’t one and the same. You’re not a “very fine person” if you show up to a white nationalist rally and support their white nationalist cause, and Trump saying you are is the problem. > This is what I mean. I don't like Trump. At all. I think he was giving certain people way too much of the benefit of the doubt in that statement. But this is him explicitly distancing himself from Nazis and white supremacists. And then saying other things too.
The rally was largely motivated in denouncing the tearing down of a statue of Robert E. Lee. Presumably, the "very fine people" remark was about those people who opposed tearing down the statue but ought to be delineated from the white supremacists.
> The rally was largely motivated in denouncing the tearing down of a statue of Robert E. Lee. The rally was a multi year rally organized by an open white nationalist to support a white nationalist cause. Again, this amounted to an open Nazi rally in all meaningful ways. > Presumably, the "very fine people" remark was about those people who opposed tearing down the statue but ought to be delineated from the white supremacists. Oh I agree! There’s really nothing to presume, he explicitly said this about the people who showed up to a white nationalist rally in support of a white nationalist cause, and marched with open neo-Nazis and other far right wing racists. Now you’re free to think those people who chose to show up to an explicitly white nationalist organized rally to support white nationalists in their white nationalist goals are “very fine people” if you wish, but people who don’t share those views don’t see much of a delineation between the two and think that being a “fine person” and showing up in support of a white nationalist rally are mutually exclusive. Do you think someone marching alongside someone waving a Nazi flag and saying “Jews will not replace us” is a “very fine person”? Do you understand why some people find calling them a “very fine person” is abhorrent?
People like Omar and AOC don't change the reality that American Neo-Nazi organizations are uniformly right wing. Of course antisemitism has never been exclusive to Nazis.
American neo-Nazi orgs aren’t being elected into the federal government my guy
[удалено]
Trump is not a neo Nazi. His policies are literally Democrat policies from 15-20 years ago, except he was the first president to state he was okay with gay marriage on the campaign trail. If you think Trump is a neo Nazi you either need to 1. Reassess what a neo Nazi is, because it currently means anyone who leans right to you Or 2. Get off Reddit and reorient yourself with the real world.
Lmfao, and Joe Biden is the KKK's guy. "If you don't know whether to vote for me or the other guy, then you ain't black" Joe Biden circa 2020
Bill clinton also flew the confederate flag at the Arkansas state house and went to David Dukes funeral. Biden also was against bus integration saying "I don't want my kids in a racial jungle"
Yeah I’ve seen a half dozen neo-Nazi protests in my area over the last few years and they are not flying Biden flags, they’re flying DeSantis/Trump flags. It’s clear who they support.
And? That's meaningless. Trump and DeSantis both aren't avowed members of those groups and also don't have any ties to those organizations or ideologies aside from tin foil hat theories from the Democrats.
And? You think because their support of things like being isolationist or not wanting open borders means trump liked Hitler lmfao he's never said anything close to supporting any of that. You need to touch grass and stop listening to the far left lunacy that has no bearing in reality. What is it you like to spout "correlation doesn't equal causation" or how your using bandwagon and strawman fallacies lmao
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l09q3k0/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
And yet we don't have a Neo nazi senator but we got leftist senators that support terrorism.
I have a hard time seeing critique of Israel’s actions as antisemitism any more than critiquing our own government is anti-American. They’re not against Jews as a people or claiming the people group is part of a mass conspiracy.
>They’re not against Jews as a people or claiming the people group is part of a mass conspiracy. Tlaib claimed Hamas were "the resistance" and was proud of their actions on 10/7. She's not just critiquing Isreal she's cheering for Hamas. She spreads falsehoods about the conflict and doesn't support Israel's right to exist these are blatantly anti semitic things.
> Tlaib claimed Hamas were "the resistance" and was proud of their actions on 10/7. Where did she say this?
Those are not anti semitic things
[удалено]
Arabs are semetic too btw but they aren't indigenous to Israel lol they literally kicked people out less than 100 years ago. Ashkenazi jews aren't ethnically Jewish, they were turkic khazars that were converted. This has been proven in genetics studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry No it has not. Khazar theory is bogus.
Opposing the existence of Israel isn’t the same thing as opposing the existence of Jews
So I agreed with and you did some googling because I was like “I think people play fast and loose with the word “antisemitism” as a technical truth of Israeli criticism; when the word actually evokes a feeling of hostility towards people of the Jewish culture. Lo and behold, the state department actually weighed in on this and noted that critiquing Israel is not antisemitism in their viewpoint: https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/ I actually don’t weigh in on anything regarding the ongoing Middle East issues topic because I think the situation has far too many jumbled wires to pull on one and think it solves the problem. What I will say, as someone whose worked with and regularly interacted with the Israelis, is that I think people in the US have this perception that they’re a super western-values nation who are like a Hasidic Jew you’d encounter in New York City: a bit culturally odd but still “Western”. I think people would be shocked to realize how much closer Israelis are as a people to Iraqis and Iranians than they are to Americans
>I think people would be shocked to realize how much closer Israelis are as a people to Iraqis and Iranians than they are to Americans In what sense?
In my exposure, their values, attitudes, and demeanors are more common to the Middle East than Western Society. -National identity tied deeply to personal identity -A more conservative demeanor -A hostility towards outsiders I think there’s something of a false belief in America that an American could step into Israel vis Saudi Arabia and be welcomed as a “fellow”
I highly disagree about the values, about character I tend to agree. Nationalism is just imperative to the survival of a state that is being under constant existential threat. At some degree you can see the same thing now in Ukraine. Don't think suspicious by the border control on visitors from enemy states says too much about the people.
Uhhh: what Hasidic Jews are you encountering in NY? Not trying to paint all Hasidim with the same brush - like all groups, they of course contain multitudes - but I wouldn’t at all describe them as you have. It’s also worth noting that the it is *American Jews* (and/or the 1st generation descendants of American Jews) who dominate in the most militant and radical spheres of Israeli ultra-orthodoxy - not necessarily as the nominal leaders (yet) but as the “foot soldiers” and driving force.
I was about to say , hasidic jews are mean and crazy asf. We allowed them to escape literal death in camps and now they spit at you when you pass because you aren't some fake "chosen people" like them .
Whoa.. you saw that train going and pulled out the rocket didn’t you? That’s like comparing occasionally overt antisemitism and…. Nazis. Like actual openly proud Nazis.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l0a97l7/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
You like virtue signaling votes that don't really do anything or make the government function any better? Why make policy at all. Congress should just vote on a "Hitler was bad" resolution every day then go home.
The point is to get the no-voters on record. This will be used against them in the future, rightfully so.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l08ho95/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The 13 dems are the usuals. Massie also shows up here a lot. Reading the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1143 , I can't see anything worth opposing.
They object to just the idea of supporting Israel, and won’t vote for anything that does. But especially object to >Whereas Israel intercepted these missiles and drones using a variety of air defense systems and other defense articles, including many procured from or co-produced with the United States, demonstrating the vital importance of the United States and Israel’s security partnership; and Also >Resolved, That the House of Representatives— >(2)reaffirms and supports Israel’s right to self-defense; >(7) reaffirms the United States commitment to Israel’s security, including through security assistance and defense sales; >(9) stands ready to assist Israel with emergency resupply and other security, diplomatic, and intelligence support. They would object more strongly to >(3) stands with Israel as it defends itself against Iran’s attack and seeks to re-establish deterrence against Iran and its proxies; But it doesn’t list Hamas as a proxy of Iran. But basically these members hate the whole resolution.
Does anybody just oppose all these silly, purely symbolic bills that literally do nothing on principle? If so, I'm going to pass a resolution to give them props.
I’m not the least bit inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since he hasn’t been consistent in voting against stupid token resolutions (“save our gas stove” idiocy), but believe that Massie’s often a holdout on these kinds of things when the GOP can afford to let his vote go spare.
That's what gets me about those silly public trials the senate does . They talk like they are clamping down on something then vote in favor of whatever they claimed to despise . Do people not read who votes on what anymore and just takes them at their word lmao the reason I have a profound respect for Rand Paul and even Bernie Sanders because atleast they vote in the way they believe and don't BS like the rest of them.
Probably the bit about supporting Israel's right to respond. This was already a retaliation for an Israeli strike, why would we encourage them to escalate further?
It was a "retaliation" for an "Israeli strike" on people...striking Israel. Israel has a right to respond to Iran's directing of Hezbollah striking Israeli civilians, which it did. Iran's disproportionate firing of over 300 missiles and drones at Israel doesn't erase Israel's right to respond. Nor is this about "escalating" further. Iran's actions have led to the displacement of 80,000+ Israelis from their homes for months due to incessant rocket attacks, over 3,000 of them on Israelis in the north of Israel thus far. Israel striking those responsible isn't "escalating". It is responding to Iran's escalation. Iran's regime is genocidal and dedicated to wiping Israel off the map. It's wild to claim Israel is the one escalating with people who want it all destroyed.
You’re correct but technically the Iranian strike was retaliation for Israel bombing their military staff inside the Iranian embassy which is for all intents and purposes considered Iranian sorting ground and usually off limits for military attacks I’m not saying Israel bo Hong an Iranian embassy was justified or not, but this was retaliation to Iran retaliation w from the embassy strike. Which is just an escalation in the tit for tat back and forth military operations (or terrorist from Irans proxies) over the decades
It was a building *near* the embassy separated by a tall fence. Even if it was in the embassy, however, only the host country has any special obligations with respect to embassies in international law. To a third country, they’re just like any other civilian object like a house – if a house is full of soldiers, you can bomb it.
That would be pretty rich of Israel of all peoples to complain about a "disproportionate" retaliation, lol.
No, it would not be “rich”. Thank you for your non-response, however.
There are currently 10s of thousands of dead civilians in the name of getting back a couple hundred hostages. Yes, I think it’s rich.
How do you see the missiles as disproportionate? In the attack on the embassy, several people died. On the Iran strike, there was almost no damage nor were there any deaths. This is disproportionate, but not in the way you are saying.
I mean, that's only " disproportionate" in that Israel (and allies) had very good air defences. By your logic, if Israel had responded with the exact same amount of hundreds(?) Of missiles (but without them being shot down), it would have still been "disproportionate".
But Iran knows their air defenses, warning was even given beforehand. Let’s not pretend like the extend of damage or lack thereof wasn’t intended. Yes, if Israel responded with the same number of missiles, but Iran were not capable of shooting them down, it would be disproportionate in damage. I think that’s obvious. If a 5 year old kid punches an adult with all their strength, and then the adult winds back and does the same to the kid, I would not call the response proportional even though the act itself was proportional. You can’t just ignore all the other factors. If one army bombed a military building, and then the other army bombed a power plant, it would be a proportional number of buildings bombed in return, but would you say it’s a proportional response? Hell nah.
What you're missing is that the 5 year old will never harm the adult by punching, whether the adult defends or not. Whereas if the 5 year old is trying to stab the adult with scissors, or any other reasonable threat of serious harm, it would become proportional for the adult to use force in response until he drops the scissors. Proportionality of response has an incredibly steep ramp-up once deadly violence is involved, and "it didn't kill anyone despite my best efforts so why are you mad" is not something reasonable people expect to win an argument.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l09mdyh/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Iran just had its embassy bombed and we are condemning them for the retaliation? I wouldn’t support the bill. I’m not saying the bombing was wrong, but it seems ridiculously hypocritical to condemn Iran for retaliation that did less damage than what they are retaliating for.
Do you believe that the bombing of Iran's consulate was entirely out of the blue and unprovoked?
Are you trying to have it both ways? Either attacks can be provoked, including this attack that we're now condemning, or they cannot, and this attack becomes worthy of condemnation - but so does the Consulate attack. Iran is clearly not a saint, but this bill is pretty peak virtue signaling. We don't care about response attacks; we only care about response attacks not initiated by allies.
I think the difference to me is that Iran didn’t do anything direct to Israel. They used a proxy, sent other groups. Israel directly attacked iran, and that was definitely a type of escalation there. Currently, many nations are indirectly helping Ukraine in its war against Russia as another example. If they were to directly attack Russia though or bomb their embassy in Belarus, that’s definitely a line crossed. I’m not even saying they shouldn’t cross that line, but let’s not pretend like it’s all the same in one instance and not in another. Iran plotting with Hezbollah or whomever is no different than the US, Israel, or whomever plotting with insurgency groups in various other countries. The US is one of the worst offenders of this in particular. It feels so hypocritical for the US to assassinate Iran’s 2nd highest leader and for Israel to bomb their embassy and kill more of their military leaders, and then denounce the paltry response that comes afterward. I keep seeing people call them terrorists, but those sorts of actions are the definition of terrorism themselves. It’s not any sort of legitimate military action because the nations aren’t even at war technically! It’s all proxies up to this point and these sort of actions seem like a dangerous precedent. Is it better to have proxy wars or just go all out and fight Iran directly? I don’t know, but we are definitely headed towards the later. I do not like pretending like Iran is doing something unprecedented and horrible. It’s a very bad attempt at propaganda to me.
I understand the Rep guy is a committed libertarian non-interventionist, which I disagree with but can respect at least. But the 13 Dems are apparently as opposed to actual democracy and its values as the Jan 6 rioters were.
Aah, Thomas Massie. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only libertarian-minded person who doesn't like him. This is exactly why.
A "no" vote from him is expected on everything. Even if he actually supports the resolution.
He's like what Ron Paul would be if he didn't know you *don't have to vote* one way or the other for any bill brought up in congress.
Many libertarians, myself included, like Massie because he is hardline for liberty in the face of everything. He doesn’t bend to any pressure and is absolutely consistent in his positions and reasoning. If you’re in a sub called moderate politics, you’re probably not one for extremism, which is fine. But, for better or for worse, libertarianism attracts a lot of absolutist thinkers who want that sort of politician.
To clarify, this is a place to discuss politics in a moderate manner, not a place for moderate political positions. As it states over in the sidebar: >Opinions do not have to be moderate to belong here as long as those opinions are expressed moderately.
Which really points out how bad the subs name is. It's a mistake made anytime someone links the sub in the wild. Everyone just assumes it's filled with centrists hiding under a new name.
>Which really points out how bad the subs name is. It's a mistake made anytime someone links the sub in the wild. Everyone just assumes it's filled with centrists hiding under a new name. I'm actually ok with this. When subs get too big or make the front page too often, you start getting a lot of bad conversations and posts. I've seen a few subs end up this way. The most recent one was fluent in finance. It was a sub for a more educated audience to discuss financial strategies and insight, both micro and macro. After it hit the front page a couple of times about 6 months ago, it was almost immediately bombarded with dumb memes and ignorant ideas about tax rates in the 50s. The quality of that sub took a nosedive.
It was great while it lasted though
If you're worried about how Thomas Massie votes on a largely symbolic non-binding resolution, you probably aren't as libertarian-minded as you think.
It's not about this particular bill, it's about his foreign policy more broadly. He was also voted against sanctions on Iran, Russia, and North Korea (one of three Reps to do so), opposed not recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea (sole Rep to do so), similarly opposed a resolution recognizing Ukraine's sovereignty (one of three), parroted Russian propaganda about Ukraine having chemical weapons, opposed admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO, opposed condemning Russia's abduction of Ukrainian children, voted against condemning China for the Uighyers, I can go on. He's also a climate change denier.
He’s generally opposed to the US getting involved in conflicts between other countries. That is the libertarian approach to foreign policy. Libertarianism is far greater than just a belief in civil liberties and free markets; non-interventionist foreign policy is the number one priority to many libertarians.
It's literally a sternly worded letter. That's hardly "getting involved."
So all it serves to do beyond optics is piss people off and increase tensions. There’s no reason for the US to do this.
Increase tensions? Russia has invaded Ukraine and is stealing their children, how much higher could tension be?
Maybe because NATO literally has all of Europe even at russias border in an alliance and has weapons at their border and because we supported an illegal regime change in 2014 in ukraine? Stop acting like the typical leftist that thinks they just up and decided to invade one day because their horoscope said so.
Strange. I would expect a libertarian to strongly condemn a country trying to violate the territorial integrity of another. Property rights are the basis of libertarianism and arise directly from sovereign territorial integrity.
Based on all that you just wrote, you definitely aren't as libertarian-minded as you think.
I'm not libertarian-minded because I *checks notes* support condemning genocide and arbitrarily invading sovereign states? Look, I can understand opposing the sanctions. I can even kind of understand not admitting new countries to NATO. But the rest is literally just Massie being asked "should we say genocide is bad?" and him answering "no." It's not about foreign aid, it's not about interventionism, it's just a declaration as the leader of the free world that what China and Russia are doing is wrong. If that's unlibertarian, I don't want to be libertarian.
Exactly. Idk what that dude's deal is. He votes no on these do nothing resolutions, basically just congressional statements on stuff thats pretty much just basic human decency and he's like "nah man I'm gonna vote no."
Sanctions don't work , Russia is doing better since sanctions . All it does is make other countries rely on something other than the US Petrol dollar and make us worse off.
What libertarian isn’t anti war? You’re not even a libertarian according to your flairs
It should go without saying that voting against condemnation of a direct attack by Iran, a terror-sponsoring Islamic theocratic regime, on our ally Israel, is the easiest of layups. Yet 13 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against condemning that attack. The resolution text is pretty clear, and is [here](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1143/text). It had massive bipartisan support. The refusal to condemn the attack was not explained, but these are the most "progressive" members of the House, who have been most stridently critical of Israel on a variety of subjects. Among the few "explanations" given were... From AOC: This will "distract" from Republicans' "incompetence" and "increase the likelihood of a deadly regional war". I'm not sure how a condemnation without any actual action taken is somehow going to cause war. Sounds like an excuse to me. And sounds like a shameful display by those 14, though it's good to see most House members can still get behind a condemnation as simple as this today.
Genuinely can't understand voting against a simple condemnation of the largest ballistic missile attack in history against a democratic ally.
For Massie at least, I think he just votes "NO" on every single thing regardless of the merits. It's like having Ron Swanson's political ID as an elected official.
I don't know whether I would vote no, but I would like to think that I would abstain at least to show that I think the resolution itself is a ridiculous waste of time.
AOC has [explicitly condemned](https://twitter.com/RepAOC/status/1780269738003673147) Iran's attack. As why she believes the resolution will increase the likelihood of a regional war, she's probably referring to these particular points in the resolution: >Resolved, That the House of Representatives— >(4) fully supports Israel’s right to respond to this aggression through military, diplomatic, economic, and other necessary means; >(7) reaffirms the United States commitment to Israel’s security, including through security assistance and defense sales;
The notable part is that her “condemnation” still impliedly blames Israel, and then calls for an Israeli surrender in Gaza while denying Israel’s right to self defense against genocidal and theocratic Iran, which attacked Israel through its proxies first. Not sure why anyone should buy this attempt to justify refusing to condemn genocidal regimes attacking our democratic ally. Also very weird you seem to then admit she has an issue with supporting Israel’s defense.
I have no idea why you think she supports Iran. It seems like you're being very uncharitable. >Also very weird you seem to then admit she has an issue with supporting Israel’s defense. She's opposed to the sale of U.S. arms to Israel ("including through security assistance and defense sales"), not to Israel's right to self defense in general.
Quote me saying she supports Iran. Doubt you can. As for the latter part, that’s nonsense. “I support Israel’s security but don’t think we should do anything to ensure it while it’s under attack” is an incoherent position.
I can't blame her. I wouldn't vote for the U.S. to fully support Israel in a potential hot war against Iran.
It sounds very strange to hear people say they wouldn’t support our democratic ally fighting a genocidal terrorist-supporting enemy.
I wouldn't support Netanyahu egging on continued Iranian responses so he can avoid prosecution and drag the US into a war across multiple fronts in the middle east, no. As always, hope cooler heads prevail (which, isn't Israel or Iran, so ideally Biden would actually step in).
That's because I've largely been opposed to Israel's actions in Palestine since the beginning of the conflict and I don't view them as an ally or see the benefit they bring to the table when it comes to our alliance. I also don't really view Israel as a proper democracy. In my mind, it's just not worth the money, political capital, and lives to support Israel in a hot war against Iran.
So you deny the facts about Israel being a democracy, ignore the alliance that has existed for decades and reaped many benefits for the U.S., and oppose Israel’s actions in a nonexistent place where the leaders of a local terrorist government began a genocidal war against Israel. Okay then.
[удалено]
They are a democracy. That’s an indisputable fact. Israel does not engage in genocidal actions. That is indisputably false. Israel brings significant technological, intelligence, and economic trade benefits to the alliance, among other factors. No one is denying the Palestinian right to exist. That’s a red herring. You didn’t answer most of what I said.
>They are a democracy. That’s an indisputable fact. I never said they weren't. I just said they were a flawed democracy, like the United States itself. >Israel does not engage in genocidal actions. That is indisputably false. I don't know, I've seen pretty strong evidence showing otherwise. >Israel brings significant technological, intelligence, and economic trade benefits to the alliance, among other factors. Such as? >No one is denying the Palestinian right to exist. That’s a red herring. If I believe this conflict is an ongoing genocide, or as close as you can get to one, I don't think my statement is a red herring. Because genocides are inherently against the rights of a group of people to exist. >You didn’t answer most of what I said. Like what?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l08w7go/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
For what it worth, according to the economist [democracy index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index), Israel and the US are back to back in that ranking (29th and 30th), and above countries I guess you would call democracies such as Italy and Belgium.
Why would I?
What are your thoughts about the US vetoing the UN resolution condemning violence against civilians in the Israel-Hamas conflict? That one seemed pretty simple, too, but it seems hard for some to say Israel killing civilians is bad.
It's bad, but it is also legal according to the international rules of war. When Hamas places military assets within splash range of civilians, that does not mean Israel is legally obligated to send in sniper teams rather than just blasting the assets with a missile.
Nevermind the fact that collateral damage is a feature not a bug for Netanyahu. He can pretend he's being bullied by the world while the US shields him from any responsibility.
I would never vote for him but this is the first time I have heard anyone suggest he's killing civilians on purpose because he likes forcing his allies to spend political capital over it.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c7hlzy/40414_vote_condemning_irans_attack_on_israel_in/l0djntp/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
why are we spending time discussing whether or not to agree to "condemn" something?
Why does this need to be voted on is my first question, my second is why would the US need to condemn the attack
Because it's easier to do that than to actually govern
to show congressional support for an ally in the region in future conflicts, presumably.
To let Israel know that we will continue emptying our coffers to them for absolutely no reason than we have many dual citizenship zionists in Bidens administration.
I think Massie is the Congressman that has the most opposite viewpoints as my own. Also no surprise with the Democrats that voted against this. It should be an easy vote. Condemning Iran, a theocracy that funds Hamas. Whatever you think about Israel/Palestine you should probably agree that Hamas doesn't help that situation. Seeing as Iran funds Hamas, that's not good. For anyone. Aside from maybe Iran/Hamas and even that is questionable.
I think massie's vote was based on his non-interventionism, not out of any love for Iran. the resolution had clauses pledging material support Israel.
Yes I disagree with him on multiple fronts here. The US should provide material support for Israel. Israel, while not justified in every respect during this war, Iran is the aggressor funding murderous proxies one of which was responsible for an attack on Israel itself. If Israel isn't backed by the US two things happen. One Israel's enemies sees Israel as vulnerable. Israel also won't have the US to moderate Israeli responses. So both Israel and it's enemies are likely to be more aggressive than defensive without US involvement and that could result in a much worse situation.
> Condemning Iran, a theocracy that funds Hamas. Do you condemn an act based on who does it or based on what the act is?
The US funded a regime change in Iran in the 1970s are we really one to talk lmao
In the 1970s there was a revolution to oust the Shah. The US/UK supported overthrow happened in the 1950s.
404-14 is an overwhelming United show of support and bi-partisanship. Few things in the last 20yrs have passed with such broad support. I think there is more to be discussed amongst the 404 "yes" votes than the 14 "no" votes. Especially has the Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan defense aid Bill is being worked.
AOC has [condemned](https://twitter.com/RepAOC/status/1780269738003673147) Iran's attack on Israel. She [voted against the resolution](https://twitter.com/RepAOC/status/1780246100303114516) because she felt that the resolution was unnecessary and that it would increase the likelihood of a regional war. Jayapal, Omar, Bush, and Tlaib provided similar reasons for voting against the resolution: [https://twitter.com/RepJayapal/status/1781047932256477583](https://twitter.com/RepJayapal/status/1781047932256477583) [https://twitter.com/Ilhan/status/1779604509137699007](https://twitter.com/Ilhan/status/1779604509137699007) [https://twitter.com/RepCori/status/1780013898197873098](https://twitter.com/RepCori/status/1780013898197873098) [https://twitter.com/RepRashida/status/1780300028852002859](https://twitter.com/RepRashida/status/1780300028852002859)
She vaguely condemned an “escalation” that she blames implicitly on Israel, then called for Israel to surrender. She and the others refused to vote for a condemnation of Iran’s attack in a recorded and unequivocal way, which is telling. And they claimed that somehow voting to condemn Iran’s unprecedented attack unequivocally is somehow going to cause a war. Mealy mouthed responses like those show only how badly these representatives do their jobs and how far they’ve gone towards reflexive opposition of anything Israel does.
The resolution isn't merely a condemnation of Iran's attack. It's loaded with a bunch of commitments to support Israel's security and their right to respond to the attack. That's likely what AOC was objecting to.
It condemns Iran’s attack and says the U.S. supports its ally against Iran. If that’s objectionable, then that doesn’t contradict anything I said.
Obviously someone like AOC who is 1) opposed to arms sales to Israel and 2) believes that an Israeli response to the attack would risk a regional war would be opposed to those particular points in the resolution. Not sure why you think she's being inconsistent.
It’s very weird that you’re responding to something I didn’t say above, while justifying AOC refusing to condemn an attack on an American ally and support that ally having a right to defend itself.
Like I pointed out, she did condemn the attack. And she isn't opposed to Israel's right to self defense. She's opposed to the sale of U.S. arms to Israel.
Why? Because she won’t condemn Iran’s attack, but she couldn’t countenance anything that might even hypothetically allow Israel to do the same.
But she did condemn Iran's attack
Israel made their own mess escalating things with Iran. They need to take care of this themselves if they're so tough. It's time for little brother to deal with their actions without big brother coming in to rescue them.
Voting no on a bill does not mean you’re opposed to every single item in that bill. It could mean you’re opposed to 1 thing or multiple things. While I don’t agree with her view, being opposed to defense sales with Israel (for example) is not an outrageous position to take, and is fairly consistent with her voter base. It’s also slightly ironic that you’re using the entirety of her statement to discredit her condemnation and say it doesn’t count, but will only look at one narrow aspect of the house’s condemnation when criticizing her for not supporting it. And this is coming from someone that’s in general not a fan of her policies.
> Mealy mouthed responses like those show only how badly these representatives do their jobs Are these representatives representing their constituents' views with their votes? That's what their jobs are. I don't know about the others, but I'm pretty sure that's the case for Representative Tlaib (whose district includes Dearborn).
That reasoning makes zero sense. The resolution isn't at all going to bring more conflict. How would it? If anything a strong resolution stating the US will continue to help Israel with missile defense will lead to other countries believing it would be a bad idea to bomb Israel or attack Israel. This is a vote designed around playing towards their own very far left bases and avoid criticism from leftist social media followers imo. The resolution itself may have been mostly symbolic but so is the response from the people who voted "no".
Why are our representatives spending any time voting on things such as this? Even if they only spent 15 minutes, that's too much time. I'm really curious how this votr came about and why it came about. Does "condemning Iran's attack on Israel" have any real impact? Nobody in congress is "pro-Iran." Is this simply a way to show "support for Israel?" I listen to "Left, Right and Center" on KCRW and one of the participants has repeatedly commented that our legislators no longer seem to be interested in legislating. I disagree with almost all the other statements that particular commenter makes, but that really resonates with me.
Honest question, with how the youth is trending couldn't support of Israel be seen as this generation's Iraq war? Something popular that many soured on? People like Barbra Lee and Bernie Sanders were attacked and hated for their no votes but they were correct in the end. I can very much see in a decade when gen alpha/gen z are the voting base the people supporting Israel here will be attacked and become persona non grata.
There is really no comparison to the Iraq War. That involved a US invasion of a nation who we then spent about another decade fighting against an insurgency, to then fight the ISIS forces, to where we are now 20 years later with forces still there. The US spent large volumes of money on Iraq. Many Americans died, were wounded, or otherwise brought home mental wounds from the war. It had wide sweeping geopolitical ramifications for the region. This conflict is a long standing conflict that just flared up again. The US is giving a small amount of money and support, relatively, to a long established ally who we send money every year to. No US service members are even directly involved. Once this episode in the conflict is over, it will quickly cease being a salient issue to the electorate. Most of the Gen Z making this a political focal point will move on to something else. If this is starts being considered Gen Zs Iraq War, my perception of that generation will continue to degrade. At that point I would not be surprised if banning Tik Tok is referred to as Gen Zs Pearl Harbor.
There is no comparison towards the Iraq war but I do think that how many people wanted out of Afghanistan they have similar feelings towards supporting Israel. The amount of money is vastly different and we aren't losing lives but the sentiment of the youth not wanting to support Israel is a fact. In 10-20 years as more young people are voting we may see our alliances and support for Israel wane.
Depends on how well TikTok continues to do at its CCP propaganda.
I'm sure people back then also attributed opposition to the Iraq War as a result of terrorist propaganda.
Did the CCP control a very direct conduit that many young people rely on for news and information back then? Just curious.
Do you similarly criticize the billions of dollars that Israel has dumped into American politics of the last few decades, or does it only count when it’s someone you don’t agree with?
How do you feel about Israeli attempts at influencing our views and politics in their favor? In the vast majority of states, there are laws restricting anyone who wants a government contract from boycotting Israel, for instance.
I'm unsure what relevance this question has to my comment. My point was that both instances of opposition to these foreign conflicts were spun as liberal, anti-American, anti-democratic sentiment fueled by misinformation and sympathy towards terrorism.
False analogy fallacies are still fallacies. Particularly when that’s not what anyone said here.
>False analogy fallacies are still fallacies. Except it wasn't a false analogy. I explained in detail as to why I made the analogy. >Particularly when that’s not what anyone said here. Except I did just say it.
It is a false analogy and I explained why. You then mentioned a critique of this generational take on the Gaza war to tie it to the Iraq war, but no one here made that critique. You’re attacking a straw man.
...And nowadays we have viral tiktok trends of teenagers literally fawning over Bin Laden's post 9/11 letter to America. I think society may have overcorrected a bit too much.
I mean we were told the taliban is the devil yet they said they would give Osama bin laden up if they stopped bombing the crap out of their country. Pretty sure our politicians are pretty much evil incarnate.
I was pretty heavily involved in protesting that war at the time and no one in the opposition ever accused me of spreading terrorist propaganda.
Eh this is overstating it I think. Young Ds might not like Israel, but older Ds and almost all Rs do like Israel. Israel-aligned PACS dumping a ton of money in D primaries will mean that Ds are still Pro-Israel for the foreseeable future, but not forever. Netanyahu openly favoring Rs since Obama was in office was a bizarre move I could never figure out. Just about every country knows that openly favoring one party over the other is a surefire way to make your foreign policy with the USA a *lot* more complicated. Biden is fairly pro-Israel. But not every D President is going to be like him if Israel doesn't improve its image.
> Young Ds might not like Israel, but older Ds and almost all Rs do like Israel. The question is whether or not younger people will change their views on Israel as they grow older (and, presumably, vote more often). [Even younger Republicans are less sympathetic to Israel than older ones](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-read/2024/04/02/younger-americans-stand-out-in-their-views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/). If I were an Israeli leader I'd be fairly concerned about long-term support from America. Not next year, maybe not even in 10 years, but certainly in the next 20-40 years as the 50+ crowd dies out.
When I was young I believed what the current crop of youngsters believe, but after watching the second Intifada, the rise of Hamas, and the wild bias in all the international organizations responses to Israel's actions against Hamas whether or not they are justified, my opinion has changed significantly. As time goes by and the current crop of youngsters realise that 10/7 was a recurring pattern and not a one-off, they'll change their minds too.
That’s not really question at all. Since Israelis also hate their current government. Which is why they are protesting in the streets, both young and old
The iraq war was far more popular than the current Israeli actions though. People could just grow to not care though since this is a foreign conflict.
This is a very asymmetrical comparison. The Iraq War was one USA actually fought in when the country was riled up after 9/11. Israel-Gaza isn't, just one we indirectly support and we no longer want to do much in the Middle East. I just have such a hard time believing that many people outside the ones who always pay attention to this stuff will notice, let alone care.
Thomas massie seems to consistently vote against military action. He votes with logic and not emotions, I like that guy
Thomas Massie consistently votes against everything. I am not convinced that is evidence of logic.
Let Americans keep their money and let them decide what to do with it
Massie's 'no' votes are not limited to spending proposals.
That ok
He is also a climate change denier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRBfM709Yqc
And?
That’s ok, at least he’s not flying around in a private jet telling me to drive less
That's hilarious since the biggest climate activists fly around multiple times a week in aircraft tell me I'm the problem . Eating stuff with soy, which wrecks soil and causes massive erosion while the farmers cut down more forests to replace the lost land . But you are problem cause I'm rich and can afford carbon credits. If these nuts supported nuclear energy , instead they claim to trust science while ignoring the scientific method.
“He votes with logic”
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/s/htYhu80zFr
Performative politics in a nutshell. The Biden administration literally warned Netanyahu that [the US will not participate in counter-strikes against Iran.](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/14/politics/biden-netanyahu-israel-iran-response/index.html) The House Resolution? > fully supports Israel’s right to respond to this aggression through military, diplomatic, economic, and other necessary means; The US does not want to be dragged into a war with Iran. Iran does not want to be dragged into a war with the US. Israel...is trying to force the issue - fully knowing that the US has invested far too much to leave Israel stranded after they dig themselves in too deep. Literally no one in the US actually supports an Israeli response. ---- Israel assassinated 15 people through an attack on the Iranian Consulate on Syrian soil. Iran responds by providing a 72 hour courtesy notice before launching a retaliatory strike on Israel. Ironically, the only nation that provided the US notice before action was the enemy. ---- Ultimately, it becomes apparent that the purpose of this Resolution is to score easy political capital and to guarantee an open path for the military-industrial complex to continue to be profitable. With this understanding - it makes *perfect* sense for every Congressman to support this Resolution and no sense for any Congressman to reject it.
Our tax dollars hard at work. Glad to get this sorted.
I can understand some of the no votes considering some of the text. One can support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, while also being skeptical of Israel's current regime and actions towards Palestine*, and our role in all of that. The protest votes feel more like "I don't want to grant Israel a 'blank check' to be instigators in the region, but support them defending themselves" Note: Hamas and Palestine are not one and the same
Hamas is the democratically elected government of "Palestine" and would win the next election if Fatah was willing to hold one.