Yikes. I posted Part I just two days ago, and realized then that I had too many items to cover for a single post. Then anti-Israel demonstrations amassed in Washington, D.C.. and outside the White House, Barack Obama made a fool of himself, “The Squad’s” most anti-Semitic member (but it’s a close race) stopped even pretending she was anything else, and heaven knows what I’m facing today. Well, as Hercules said as he faced the Augean stables, “Might as well start shoveling”….
1. The star of this shit-show is undoubtedly Rep. Rashida Tlaib, elected by a largely Palestinian district, who narrowly escaped an expulsion vote in the House after every Democrat voted her way (and over 20 Republicans too, presumably because they believe that saying disgusting things and holding opinions that defy American values shouldn’t get someone kicked out of Congress by anyone but voters. I have to agree with them). She posted a social media video showing her constitutes chanting “from the river to the sea.” That’s a call for Israel to be eliminated. That’s all it can mean, and that’s all it has ever meant. Formerly Democratic maverick Senator Kristen Sinema, tried to educate her old party’s members, posting this:
The immediate reaction from the Jew Hate gallery was to deny this undeniable fact, using absurd gerrymandered maps to show there might be some topographically possible way to simultaneously have a version of Israel and a Palestine state that reached “from the river to the sea.” These are unethical, untrustworthy human beings who lie routinely. Tlaib, who has already made it clear what she desires for Israel, went full Jumbo: “Me? Anti-Semitic?” “From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate,” Tlaib wrote in a post on X/Twitter. “My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.”
Right. As with all of the Left’s wailing about poor, abused Gaza, this gaslighting relies on the utter ignorance of listeners, especially college students marinated in intersectionality. Hamas’s 2017 constitution states, “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.” It was not “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence,” and Tlaib knows it. It has been used by Hamas and other terrorist organizations for years, and its intent has never been in doubt.
“From the river to the sea” was devised by Palestinian nationalists in the 1960s, when the entire Palestinian movement openly sought Israel’s destruction. Mainstream Palestinian groups dropped the phrase after Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization formerly recognized one another after the 1993 Oslo Accords, but it was then revived by the Hamas terrorist group and others hostile to Jews.
2. Speaking of ignorance, star rapper Macklemore-–I’m sure you are all big fans and can quote his lyrics— made an unscheduled appearance at the huge pro-Hamas protest in DC over the weekend to condemn Israel, explaining that while he isn’t a Middle Easy scholar, he’s done sufficient research to know he’s right, and Israel is committing “genocide.” I have heard multiple celebrities, college students and activists claim that their “research” supports their position. This is a tell (see the headline). There is literally no way competent research on the history of the region, Jews, or what genocide means could yield a conclusion that Hamas’s attack was justified and Israel has no right to respond as it has. Those who talk like Macklemore are either badly educated, bigots, liars, or stupid. There is no fifth diagnosis.
3. Then there’s Bernie Sanders. On CNN, Dana Bash showed Sanders the Tlaib video. Before she did, she asked the Senator from Vermont about his reactions, and he said,
Well, this is what you’ve got. And it’s, I think, clear to most people, what Hamas did, and Hamas is an awful terrorist organization, is they slaughtered 1,400 people in cold blood. Israel has a right to defend itself. But what Israel does not, in my view, have a right to do, is to kill thousands and thousands of innocent men, women, and children who had nothing to do with that attack. So the immediate concern, Dana, to my mind, is we have got to stop the bombing now! You had 600- over 600,000 people pushed out of their homes. Where are they going? They’re staying in United Nations facilities. Overcrowded. There’s not enough water, there’s not enough food, there’s not enough medicine. Not enough fuel. You have a humanitarian disaster. It has to be dealt with right now.
Before I get into Bernie’s response to “from the river to the sea,” I must note that that statement is another embodiment of the “proportional response” fallacy. Hamas started a war, and Israel is waging war. In a war, nations have a right to use bombs and deadly weapons, and when you use bombs and deadly weapons, especially against a terrorist government that uses its own people, hospitals and schools as shields, civilians are going to die. Hamas can stop the war any time by releasing the hostages and surrendering—that’s the way war works. The Palestinians who put Hamas in charge of Gaza are not “innocent,” and the claim that they “had nothing to do” with the attack (is that somebody’s script? Because Bernie’s not the first one to use it…) is simply wrong. In wars, people are pushed out of their homes.
Later, Bernie doubled down on nonsense…
But clearly, yeah, the have- Israel has a right to defend itself. Hamas has sworn- that’s what its goal is, is to destroy Israel. They gotta deal with that. But there’s got to be a better way than killing thousands of men, women, and children. So, once again: the immediate concern is, you gotta have a pause in the bombing, you gotta take care of the immediate disaster. Israel’s gotta change their strategy. Let me just say this: the United States of America provides $3.8 billion every year to Israel. We have a right- Israel can do what they want, they’re an independent country. But we have a right to say, sorry, you need a new military strategy. Go after Hamas, but that means — but do not kill innocent men, women, and children.
And again we have that pesky, is he stupid, or is he evil problem. Yeah, okay, Hamas wants all Jews dead and launched a 9-11 style terror attack on unsuspecting civilians, but “there’s got to be a better way” to wage war than to kill people. No, Bernie, you idiot, there isn’t a better way. Not if Israel doesn’t want to have more dead Jews in the future, and it doesn’t, shouldn’t, and can’t.
Imagine: this guy was the choice of millions of young voters to be President of the United States. On the dumbest day of Donald Trump’s life, he never uttered anything as irresponsible as Sanders’ “analysis” of the Israel-Hamas war.
Why did I drag Trump into this? Here’s why: this was Bernie’s response to Bash after he showed him the “From the river to the sea” video:
Look- what’s going on right now is a horror show. We don’t have to quibble about words. Thousands of men, women, and children are being killed. It has got to end right now. And one of the things that concerns me Dana is, there’s not been enough talk about what right-wing Republicans are doing — they don’t want any aid to go to the Palestinians. Somebody should be talking about that. Somebody should be talking about how Trump wants to expel Palestinians from this country. So it’s, you know, you can disagree with Joe Biden, but on his worst day, he’ll be 100 times better than trump and the right-wing Republicans are coming from…Rashida Tlaib…is a friend of mine, her family comes from Palestine, I think she has been shaken as all of us are about what goes on- is going on right there, right now. We have to address the humanitarian crisis. But if anyone thinks that Trump is going to be better than Biden on this issue or any other issue, for that matter, I think they are sorely mistaken.
In a rare example of CNN pushback on a leftist pol’s doubletalk, Bash replied, “I know you know that words matter. And I want to ask about what she said…”
To which Bernie doubletalked…
I don’t- Look. Words matter, but what matters more, Dana is you have a horrible humanitarian disaster that has to be dealt with right now. You call it whatever you want to call it. It has to be dealt with. Women and children cannot be bombed with 2,000-pound bombs. And we need the entire world community to stop that.
Translation: 1) Never mind that, look over there! 2) Do something! 3)Think of the children!
Bash pressed on, saying, “So when she says, “from the river to the sea”- when she says “from the river to the sea”, which the ADL says is anti-Semitic, she says, it’s aspirational, but the ADL says it is anti-Semitic, do you want her to stop using terms like that? And others?”
Ready for Sanders’ response? Are you sure?
Dana, you know, it’s not what I want or anything else. This is what you’ve got. President Obama just said the other day, I think quite correctly, and we’ve all gotta deal with it. This is an enormously complex issue, and slogans like “the river to the sea”, if that means the destruction of Israel, that’s not going to work. People who are saying, “Israel, right or wrong, we are for you all the way”, that’s not going to work. This is a horrendously complex situ– you have a right-wing government in Israel which is racist and the people- by the way, the good news is, last poll I saw, only 18% of the people of Israel want Netanyahu to stay in office. I hope they get rid of him. I hope they put in a government which understands the severity of the crisis and can help us move towards a two-tier state…On the other hand, in terms of Hamas, you’ve got a terrorist organization that cannot be trusted for a minute. This is, as President Obama said, a very complex issue.
Ugh. So Sanders’ gives us a “What about Trump?” deflection, a series of rationalizations, appeals to the authority of Barack Obama’s fatuous and offensive comments, calls Israel racist, and still refuses to condemn Tlaib.
And I’m already out of space. Yes, there will be a Part Three.
Ethics Alarms 
I was watching a panel late last week, of people attempting to talk about the current state of the conflict, and this exact topic came up.
What you have to remember is that a lot of the people on the Palestinian side are young and stupid. They don’t know about the history of the area, they don’t know why things are the way they are, they don’t know what the slogans mean. To some of them, it goes no deeper than a surface level understanding of Marxist oppressor/oppressed paradigms, and from that frame of reference, Israel is obviously wrong.
Such a person might actually think “from the river to the sea” is aspirational. They might actually think that there’s a possibility of a one-state solution where the people in the West Bank and Gaza are absorbed into Israel proper and they sing Kumbaya… And why even call it Israel? Why not call that new country Palestine? Or something.
I’m not saying this is smart, I’m saying that they might even believe it.
Remember, this is the same generation where “Queers for Palestine” groups exist on the same internet where Hamas has literally said they don’t want the support of those people because of their moral impurity. They don’t like being confused by facts. Vague reference on purpose.
But there are also people who like to be coy about the conflict, from both sides. Sanders knows what he’s saying, and who is right, but doesn’t want to go any harder on Tlaib because he doesn’t see it as politically advantageous. He’s being dragged in progressive circles for what he said, he’s captured by those voters, so he’s doing the cowardly but politically expedient thing and leading from behind.
Candace Owens is the reverse side of that coin. I don’t know whether she’s actually anti-Semitic or not, but she plays on on her show. I think it’s a related reason: Her audience is disproportionately stupid, racist and brown. Those demographics don’t like Jews. And so Candace coaches her comments in vagueness, meant to be misinterpreted by her followers.
“Well, I didn’t say that, if you think I meant it, it says something about you. No, I won’t clarify what I actually meant.”
We know who you are. We know what you said. We think we know what you meant. If we’re wrong: Not clarifying that is WILD. But she can get away with it. Because her audience ‘knows’ what she meant, and agree with it, regardless of what it actually was that she meant.
But back to “From the River to the Sea”
There’s a neat litmus test here. Right now, the Demographics are such that a “united” area would *barely* favor an Arab majority. The fear is that if Israel allowed the people who tried to kill them a couple of years ago full voting power, they would use that power to kill them now. It’s not that big a stretch considering Hamas’ constitution and all, but that’s the thought.
But it’s a fading thought, because Jewish birthrates far exceed Arab birthrates in the area. In 20 years, if the statistics keep to the status quo, there will be 1,000,000 more Jews in the area than Arabs, and it’s unlikely that the majority will vote for their own genocide.
So a question for a one-stater would be:
“If the resulting state, regardless of what it was called, was majority Jew, would that be acceptable to you?”
This isn’t a great question, because there’s still a matter of culture and tolerance, but it’s still telling…
Because the stupid kids will answer “Of course! Peace is all that matters!”
And the racists will answer “No.” Because it was really always about getting the Jews out.
Yes, this muddies the concept of responsibility. We know that children in Gaza (and elsewhere) are taught to hate Israel and Jews, and also that terrorism is just “freedom fighting.” It’s true: they never had a chance to understand the situation objectively. There is no excuse, though, for anyone coming out of the US educational system having the same deficits. And yet—here we are!
I wonder how many of these people know the history of the WWII Pacific campaign, and how that ended.
Humble Talent,
I am not following your analysis on Candace Owens.
I do not see what is unclear about her statement.
-Jut
Candace Owens didn’t randomly declare “Genocide is wrong” as though there isn’t a clear context of Israel being accused of Genocide. She can pretend like she’s making a clear moral statement that everyone agrees with. But, give the current circumstances where Israel is accused of committing genocide against the Palestinians, it seems pretty disingenuous to pretend like she isn’t accusing Israel of doing it.
This is right. Context matters.
From her interactions with Kanye to the current crisis, she has deftly and deliberately skirted a line of plausible deniability in a way that someone acting as an honest actor just doesn’t need to do.
“Genocide is bad” is a meaningless Truism to the point that I’d expect to see it on a progressive yard sign. What are you actually saying, Candace? Oh, you don’t want to clarify? I wonder why that is.
Maybe I needed more context then. I took it to mean the genocide of Jews by Hamas, as that intent is pretty clearly stated, whereas genocide of Palestinians by Israel, is specifically denied by Israel.
It might be my bias, as I don’t take seriously the accusation of genocide of Palestinians seriously, whereas the threat against Jews seems genuine.
-Jut
I have to agree with Jut. The claim that Israel is engaged in genocide is unsubstantiated. There is no doubt that Palestinians are being killed as part of the war but if you are going to commit genocide you don’t tell the people you are accused of wanting to exterminate to get out of the hostile zone ahead of time.
Those that practice genocide typically use dehumanizing propaganda to make the target something undeserving of life. Where has Israel practiced this? If you are going to commit genocide why has Israel not killed the Palestinians living in Israel first? You also don’t wait until the target attacks you first.
Simply because one side is claiming that the other is engaged in genocide does not make it true.
The statement that genocide is wrong is a true statement and only Hamas and similar organizations proclaim their desire to exterminate all those who will not submit to Islam. That is a documented fact in Hamas’ constitution.
Not one person here says Israel is committing genocide – but in the broader global conversation – that’s the accusation commonly leveled by *the majority* of people on this topic. Exactly zero people are accusing Hamas of genocide, even while it’s in their manifesto. The accusation of genocide is so commonly leveled at Israel that to hear anyone say “Genocide is wrong” in the context of the Hamas war – the reasonable assumption is that they are leveling the comment *at* Israel because of the common false claim that Israel is engaging in the practice.
https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1720511533136953699?s=20
This is Owens’ original comment.
No one says this out of the blue. Ever. Unless the topic is being discussed. And the topic is *ONLY* being discussed in the context of the majority of people’s assumptions that Israel is somehow trying to genocide the Palestinians – because most people do not think about this topic at all.
And to top it all off – even when the topic of Genocide is being discussed – the VAST majority of people don’t need to be told that genocide is bad. Everyone agrees.
So if this is being said it’s being said in some sort of context that the commenter thinks genocide is being approved of by the powers that be. And in the context of the Hamas war, the powers-that-be are Israel and the United States.
Therefore the *only* reasonable assumption is that Candace Owens is tossing sideways accusations at Israel.
Michael West, “ No one says this out of the blue. Ever. ”
I disagree. If you are a consistent supporter of Israel, I would bet that a common retort would be that you support genocide. Saying you do not support genocide would be a logical response.
I can imagine it is something that someone could say out of the blue under those circumstances.
-Jut
I’m not sure that’s what “out of the blue” means. But, you do recognize that it’s made in reference to accusations of Israel.
But the response to claims Israel is committing genocide isn’t “genocide is wrong”.
The response is “no, Israel is most provably not committing genocide.”
Michael
I understand what you are saying but simply because a great number of anti-zionists will accept the charge without challenge some could conclude that she was either harboring anti-Semitic views or giving credence to the charge that Israel was complicit in genocide.
I cannot infer from Candace Owens statement that she was playing fast and loose with the phrase genocide is wrong. I might further say such a statement does not require clarifying as well especially if I know that the Israelis are trying to minimize civilian casualties.
The understanding that I took from your original comment was that Candace Owens was trying to avoid calling out Hamas explicitly in order to claim plausible deniability if needed. You may be right but based on my knowledge of her political positions I cannot agree with that sentiment. Nonetheless, I will follow and evaluate her statements more carefully in the future because I do trust your instincts.
This is a bizarre misreading of everything everyone has said here. It’s almost like you put effort into misunderstanding it.
“I cannot infer from Candace Owens statement that she was playing fast and loose with the phrase genocide is wrong.”
Why not? What would “playing fast and loose” look like in this context?
“I might further say such a statement does not require clarifying as well especially if I know that the Israelis are trying to minimize civilian casualties.”
To…. You. And this is my point. What makes you think you were the target audience? What makes you think you have the context to make that statement? Why do you think your perspective is the intended one?
By being purposefully vague, she’s given you enough excuse to go: Yup, that looks good to me, which is probably actually what she intended, but it’s also obvious there’s more.
It just struck me.
This is kind of like “All Lives Matter”.
No one would have gone around saying that All Lives Matter like they were saying something profound, All Lives Matter was devised as a way to respond to Black Lives Matter, it drew attention to problems with the movement and allowed BLM activists to tell on themselves. It was deliberately provocative.
The difference here is Who is being provoked here, and Why they’re being provoked. And spoiler: She’s not aiming at people who like genocides.
Michael West,
Are you accusing me of being disingenuous?
-Jut
I won’t speak for him, but I’m waffling between that or stupid.
And, you would be wrong on both counts.
-Jut
Disingenuous would have to apply to someone whose as hyper-online as the commenting class and the people who jump into the Israel-Palestine fray – such as ill-informed college kids and too-much-online-types-like-me.
I would assume you stick primarily to reading news and commenting here.
But if you were to dive into the mess of modern online / college discourse where most of this “fray” is going on – the general narrative is 100% that Israel is “doing a genocide” in Gaza.
Never mind how absolutely stupid the assertion is, that’s the generally accepted narrative amongst the screaming class. And Candace Owens is very much part of that larger orbit.
I think this is too generous.
CNN is reporting on people using the Genocide rhetoric. Jack gave an example in this post of a celebrity using the term at a public protest. There are members of congress who have used the term, several of which were spoken about here. This isn’t a Tumblrism.
I think that if someone has managed to avoid that facet of the discourse, they’ve probably managed to miss out on enough that they probably shouldn’t comment too forcefully on the topic.
Fair
I had some twentysomethings talk to me about this last week. Both had gone to Israel and been on a tour where they were led by and talked to Palestinians. They were given the rosy one-worlder all-we-want-is-peace treatment. All the Palestinians told them that they only want peace, to be left alone, but that mean old Israel wants them all dead and mistreats them every day. Potemkin village anyone?
One of the founders of Hamas, Mahmoud al-Zahar, summarized their goals: “The entire planet will be under our law, there will be no more Jews or Christian traitors.” So, the goals of Hamas are not just the elimination of Israel, but the elimination of all Christians and Jews on the planet. As he points out, that is what Mohammed commanded. By the way, he is a physician by profession. So, these are the goals of the well-educated professionals in Gaza, but they put on a pretty face when the American college students show up.
Bernie’s an IDIOT. I consider him a classic example of the American Jew who thinks Soviet Russia was heaven on earth and that the Israelis should just cool it or kind of just go away.
Sometimes it is more streamlined, more authentic, clearer, and just better to listen to the comedians:
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1721024980123623891?s=20
While I appreciate Visegrad’s sentiment here – whoever made the movie are trying to avoid offending anyone – coward’s move: white women aren’t the ones tearing down the posters of the Israeli hostages.
Why is it the “Hamas-Israel” ethics train wreck and not the “Hamas / Progressive” ethics train wreck?
Has he heard of World War II?
Gaza has the same choice Japan did on August 5, 1945.
I think Ben Shapiro’s comment at Oxford was probably the best on the topic. Paraphrasing a lot:
During World War II, England Bombed a whole lot of German civilians, particularly hard hit was Dresden. By the end of the war, something to the tune of two million German civilians were dead. Maybe something like 70,000 English. Did England not have that right? Were they morally wrong to fight the Nazis?
Starting at about 10:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1NFirxhXWE
But also by the end of the war the Germans and Japanese had killed several tens of millions of civilians, more than the British and Americans could begin to conceive of.
Victor Davis Hanson, in the introduction to his course on the Second World Wars, made the point that one of the distinguishing features was that the losing countries killed so many more — mostly civilians — than the victorious powers. Wars hadn’t worked that way generally in the past.
But the meme someone posted here just after the October 7 attack is still very accurate and very telling — it was the one that showed where the Israelis protect civilians and Hamas uses civilians for cover.
And genocide? The only people wanting to commit genocide are the Palestinians.
“Germans and Japanese had killed several tens of millions of civilians”
Mostly their own. Despite Germany’s bombing campaign in the UK, there were only (and I can only say “only” there because of the relative numbers) 70,000 civilian deaths on the UK side. If you want to add the number of their own civilians Hamas has killed, I’m sure the number is more than 10,000.
Japan’s numbers were even more lopsided… One one hand, maybe 70 civilians died in Pearl Harbour, while America dropped the bombs.
I’m not condemning America, or Britain. I accept the premise and the reasons behind both campaigns.
I’m just amazed, absolutely gobsmacked, that the same people who called me a nazi over the last decade or so are suddenly so absolutely mask off. Which is kind of impressive itself, I mean, I’m usually the one pointing out that progressives don’t have principles
https://x.com/TIME/status/1721811730936783135?s=20
Check it out – Jewish guy just up and dies.
Oh, coincidentally, he had been at a pro-Israel protest and some pro-Hamas protesters were there too.
Yeah, got it, the article goes into detail. Most people don’t read articles, they read headlines.
Hanlon’s razor is getting thinner and thinner…
Jew-hatred really becomes the only option for explaining modern commentary on the Hamas War and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. There’s no way these people are actually ignorant.
Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Could you imagine what it would look like if a white nationalist had killed an elderly BLM supporter after both had attended one of their respective rallies?
Where’s the outrage guys?
Did the Jew have it coming?
Are Palestinian supporters so violent that a straight up murder doesn’t ping the radar?
What’s the excuse du jour?
Any more, I don’t think it’s low expectations any more that they shrug off with “oh those darned radical muslims, look at them again. Golly!” I think they are indifferent to the murderous actions because deep down they don’t disagree.
Here, I think you are being too generous.