WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2023
What's in a bunch of words? Yesterday, Rashida Tlaib was censured by the House.
Along the way, she seems to have adjusted her language. Headline included, here are two excerpts from the New York Times report about the censure vote:
House Censures Rashida Tlaib, Citing ‘River to the Sea’ Slogan
[...]
[The measure] cited Ms. Tlaib’s embrace of the phrase “from the river to the sea,” a pro-Palestinian rallying cry that many regard as calling for the eradication of Israel and has been deemed antisemitic by the Anti-Defamation League. The resolution called the phrase “a genocidal call to violence to destroy the state of Israel and its people to replace it with a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”
Ms. Tlaib has said the slogan, which was used by pro-Palestinian protesters featured in a video she posted accusing President Biden of supporting genocide in Gaza, is “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate.”
During debate of the resolution, Ms. Tlaib grew emotional on the House floor as she reiterated her calls for a cease-fire, defended her criticism of the Israeli government and pleaded for sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people.
“I can’t believe I have to say this, but Palestinian people are not disposable,” she said, appearing to choke back tears as Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, stood up to comfort her. “The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me.”
Ms. Tlaib said her criticism had “always been” of the Israeli government, not the Israeli people, and warned her colleagues that the movement urging a cease-fire was “growing every single day.”
The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me? In our view, that's the kind of language people should be urged to get behind.
That said, Rep. Tlaib had originally gone with “from the river to the sea.” In this passage from the Times report, Rep. Jeffries pushes back against that choice of words:
Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, said in a statement before the vote that echoing “slogans that are widely understood as calling for the complete destruction of Israel—such as ‘from the river to the sea’—does not advance progress toward a two-state solution. Instead, it unacceptably risks further polarization, division and incitement to violence.”
For the record, Rep. Jeffries didn't vote in favor of censure, though 22 Democrats did. In our view, the Times report should have noted that fact.
What's in a bunch of words? Over at The Atlantic, Juliette Kayyem has criticized Tlaib for her original formulation, but also has complimented her for adopting more nuanced language. Here's how her essay ended:
KAYYEM (11/8/23): The burden of promoting a more civil discourse shouldn’t fall only on Tlaib and others sympathetic to the Palestinians. Supporters of Israel should not assume that pro-Palestinian means pro-Hamas. Students on many campuses genuinely view Israeli administration of the Palestinian territories as immoral; to portray their activism as mere anti-Semitism is to stifle legitimate inquiry. To defend any and all Israeli military actions by pointing out that Hamas started the war is to deny Israel agency.
Rather than making reasoned arguments that might win other people over, Tlaib has made herself the story by defending From the river to the sea. In response, the House passed a resolution last night to censure Tlaib for her comments. In a statement earlier yesterday, Tlaib accused her critics of trying to silence her. But she also took a notably more nuanced stance than her social-media posts did. “I will continue to work for a just and lasting peace,” she said, “that upholds the human rights and dignity of all people, centers peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, and ensures that no person, no child has to suffer or live in fear of violence.”
That comment shows a belated recognition that the choices members of Congress make about language are important, and that good causes are seldom served by dubious and loaded slogans.
What's in a bunch of words? Rightly or wrongly. Kayyem applauds Tlaib's transition from a "dubious and loaded slogan" to a new statement in which Tlaib says that she wants to uphold "the human rights and dignity of all people," Israelis and Palestinians alike.
No one is required to agree with those views, but that's where Tlaib has now gone.
“The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me?” In our view, that's a very strong foundational statement.
Meanwhile, Rep. Jeffries said that Tlaib's original choice of words "does not advance progress toward a two-state solution." How many Americans could speak with clarity about that choice of words?
What exactly do people seek when they seek a "two-state solution?" To its credit, the Washington Post explores that very question today. The very question might seem a bit strange when searchers can simply click a link and find themselves reading this lengthy report about the "State of Palestine," which already has a flag and already seems to exist.
On blue tribe cable, our favorite reporters and friends have returned to our tribe's favorite topic:
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Jail!
No legal trivia gets left behind as they pleasure us with these ruminations. But what would a "two-state solution" be like?
Over the course of the past many years, not to mention within the past month, have you seen our favorite stars make an attempt to explain those familiar words?
ReplyDeleteWhat prevents any progress toward a "two-state solution" (which is, btw, hardly a solution to anything) is, of course, decades of building Jews-only roads and settlements on the territory of the mythical "Palestinian state". Not to mention Zionists creating and financing Hamas, to weaken secular PLO.
But hey, as we all understand, politicians will say anything.
No, what has prevented progress is the unwillingness of the Palestinians (and other Arab nations) to negotiate with the Israelis, because it would acknowledge the existence of the state of Israel.
DeleteFrom Reuters: "Matthew Levitt, a former U.S. official specialised in counterterrorism, estimated the bulk of Hamas' budget of more than $300 million came from taxes on business, as well as from countries including Iran and Qatar or charities.
Last February, the State Department said that Hamas raises funds in other Gulf countries and gets donations from Palestinians, other expatriates and its own charities."
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-cash-to-crypto-global-finance-maze-israels-sights-2023-10-16/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20State%20Department%20has,shipping%20transactions%20and%20precious%20metals.
We all understand that zealots will say anything too.
Just as there is a split in Israel between secular Jews and the ultra religious conservative Jews who support Netanyahu, there is a split between the secular Palestinians support the PLO and the Islamic religious Palestinians who elected Hamas. Different religions, but religious revivalism and extremism exist in both Israel and among Palestinians and are exacerbaing this conflict. Just as religious extremism is represented in our own conservative right wing and has affected yesterday's election, where pro-abortion voters swung various states to the Democrats. The dysfunction on the right that has immobilised Congress can be traced back to extremism among MAGA supporters, especially Mike Johnson's Christian Nationalism.
DeleteThe real culprit may not be Palestinian or Israeli intransigence but religious extremism.
The real culprit may not be Palestinian or Israeli intransigence but religious extremism."
DeleteBingo.
Nonsense. Zionism, just like Nazism, is a perfectly secular movement.
DeleteThe term Zionism means nothing today.
DeleteSomerby apparently wants no mention of Trump on cable news. Today he accuses cable of entirely neglecting any discussion in order to talk about Trump all the time. We know that isn't what is happening, so why does Somerby portray their programming that way? He isn't talking about Fox News, so we must assume it is to condemn mainstream news. Who benefits from that? Putin, Trump and the forces who are willing to dismantle our democracy, since a free and active press is essential to the functioning of our democracy. Those who want to turn viewers away from mainstream news and have them only watch Fox perhaps hope to make them easier to manipulate, in service of reelecting Trump and hastening the autocracy Trump wishes to create in place of our current government.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps Somerby has other reasons, although I cannot understand why he would make such a dishonest critique of our cable journalists.
This is why some of us regard Bob as basically a hateful kook whose bottom line, no matter what is at stake, is to screw MSNBC.
DeleteSomerby wants them to focus on Trump’s mental illness (or “mental illness”) rather than his legal problems. Whatever it takes to remind voters how vile Trump is, go for it. That’s why he lost in 2020. Not sure why it matters so much to him which of the two.
Delete"Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) said that he’s “not going anywhere” and remains focused on the state, indicating that he will not be a candidate in the 2024 presidential election, NBC News reports."
ReplyDeleteYay yay yay yay!
Household wealth for college graduate has increased 95% since 1989 while remaining flat for non-college graduates.
ReplyDeleteWhy then does Somerby keep knocking college education? It would be the surest way to increase prosperity for his students and most teachers try really hard to prepare their students to attend college. Somerby spends a large proportion of his time here knocking education. That strikes me as not only odd, but contrary to what someone who actually likes kids would wish for them.
Mexicans and Blacks want Trump.
ReplyDeleteNot all of them.
DeleteMaybe Moms for Liberty will adjust their language.
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/moms-for-liberty-had-a-bad-night-on-tuesday/
They will adjust by doing what republicans always do when they lose: double down on the losing strategy and amp up the vitriolic language.
DeleteA two state "solution" was already tried and it failed. All the Palestinians need to do to protect their children is to stop attacking Israel. So far they have not been willing to do so. A state of their own in Gaza did not convince the Palestinians there to stop attacking Israel.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, we are seeing the failure of an attempted two state solution." In a real sense, Gaza was a Palestinian state. All Israelis withdrew many years ago. Unfortunately, having their own state did not prevent the Palestinians living in Gaza from organizing attacks against Israeli civilians. Not just the horrible attack a few weeks ago, the enormous numbers of rocket aimed at Israeli civilians.
Didn’t you read Somerby? Apparently the idea of a two state solution only materialized when the Washington Post reported on it today and will never get anywhere if Nicolle Wallace keeps having her friends on.
DeleteI find this quasi defense of Tlaib really odd coming from Somerby. It wasn’t that long ago that he was content to pass along charges of antisemitism against Ilhan Omar when she was rude or to Elliot Abrams in a hearing … or something.
ReplyDeleteMaybe she said something bad on one occasion and something good on another.
Delete