this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
699 points (96.5% liked)
World News
32348 readers
473 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
AOC has been calling for a cease fire and more aid since last year. She might not have used the word genocide until now, but it's not like she has been cool with things up till now either.
The fact that Alex Jones beat her to the punch on calling it a genocide is embarrassing.
The only reason he did that was because it allowed him to rail against jews. Had it been done by America, Jones would have cheered.
The US isn't complicit. It (along with several European countries) are active participants by supplying weapons, intelligence and as is rumoured, bodies on the ground
My point still stands. The main perpetrators pf and main agitators for an extended bombing campaign (read genocide) are Israeli politicians. If the US under a republican President were to bomb the gaza strip to shut without israeli consent, Jones would be silent.
Honestly this whole drama is so immature.
"What Israel is doing is terrible, on top of their mistreatment of the Palestinian people for decades they've now crossed a line and seem to be willing to remove them all from existence. This is a genocide, and we should enforce a cease fire and an embargo."
"What Israel is doing is terrible, on top of their mistreatment of the Palestinian people for decades they've now crossed a line and are killing people indiscriminately. The fact that some people are calling it a genocide is telling of the immense gravity of the situation, and we should enforce a cease fire and an embargo."
"How could you NOT call it a genocide??!?!?"
Both statements are virtually the same thing, have the same worries and are calling for the same solutions, yet the later get shat on because it doesn't virtue signal. There are lots of seemingly dumb reasons why politicians and PR departments may choose to use some terms and avoid others, and some of those decisions are mere pragmatism that doesn't change in essence their goal or effect. I think AOC has flaws, just like almost any politician, but making a gigantic deal out of this smells like it's been promoted by grifters looking to start drama.
At the beginning she was very much on the Israel side. The well known "israel has the right to defend themselves". Even back then Israel was hitting hospitals.
She only flipped recently. Faster than the pure establishment Democrats, but still a very bad look.
This article from back in October of '23 does not state that at all, and I never read her take the position of "Israel has the right to defend themselves", but rather the opposite.
But it's easier to make things up without citation, so people are probably going to, in the end, believe the other guys sadly.
She calls protest marchers anti-Semitic ?
No, there were pro-Palastine people at the event who were being anti-Semitic and she called them out. But in the article you see that while she has called the attack by Hamas an evil act she also stated that it was brought about by Israel's treatment of Arabs in that country. She's been asking for them to not slaughter innocent Palestinians since the beginning. It's literally right there at the end of everything you quoted.