We can’t have people organizing to oppose my political goals. That’s dictatorship!
1 Like
I’m driving the government!
2 Likes
I don’t wanna create another thread just for Rashida Tlaib, so figured this could be merged into the Omar Thread. All hail the Squad Thread!
Democrats criticize Rep. Rashida Tlaib for her pro-Palestinian comments (nbcnews.com)
If you haven’t seen the ad, here ya go.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1720520713226908144
In another tweet, Tlaib wrote: “From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate. My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.”
There’s some of that revisionist history we’ve heard so much about.
Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz slammed Tlaib’s “from the river to the sea” remark in a tweet Sunday: “This phrase means eradicating Israel and Jews. Period. Dressing it up in a new PR ploy won’t change that. Only a return of hostages, eliminating Hamas and liberating Gaza from oppressive terror will save civilian lives and secure the peace, justice and dignity you seek.”
Michigan Senate President Pro Tem Jeremy Moss suggested Tlaib’s tweet was insensitive to Jewish people: “This is not how Jews view the phrase ‘from the river to the sea.’ This is not how Hamas views the phrase ‘from the river to the sea,’" he wrote on X.
He can’t speak for all Jews for sure, maybe he has an in with Hamas, I don’t know. What about everyone else?
Does it matter? You can’t change the meaning of words to suit your position, yeah?
“From the river to the sea” has a very specific meaning in Isarael and in Gaza. Who cares what it means in Milwaukee? 
Cornell West was chanting it last week as well. Zero in the media about it.
That’s the whole point. You can’t change the meaning of words by imparting meanings to them that they don’t have in themselves. People have been doing a lot of that lately for emotive value to shore up (apparently weak?) arguments.
2 Likes
People have been doing that for as long as I can recall. British convicts often tattoo A.C.A.B on themselves, everyone knows what it means but if a cop asks them what it means they say something like “Always carry a bible”. 
Well, there is indeed a larger phrase it represents here “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. I’ve not heard other than that. Is that necessarily eliminationalist toward people?
Well it’ll be interesting to see how the boomers in powers who agreed with all the intersectional crap of dividing people up in to groups to empower them react when those not so little cells start exercising that power.
What did AOC say a while back about a handful of people are capable of altering the course of history?
No one lays the smack down better than the democrats on their own electorate in an election year. It’s beginning to stink like 1968.
I’ve understood it to mean the eradication of the Jews. So, ya.
No, that you have understood something to mean something does not mean that it actually means that!
Let’s say we’re accusing Tlaib of wanting to eradicate the Jews in Israel. Has she made other statements that would support that? That she wants Palestine to be free “from the river to the sea” doesn’t mean so in itself.
I’m not following you. The Jews are the ones saying it. wouldn’t they know?
I accept their meaning, and the fact that eradication of the Jews is written into Hamas’ charter and the point we all want to not see which is that the distance between Palestinian and Hamas is quite narrow— seemingly expressed in the use of that phrase across the globe in the last few weeks.
What that I said don’t you understand? As I said at the outset it is obviously wrong to assume all Jews see it the same way.
Why isn’t it considers hate speech? If that is what it means, and the source says it is.
That’s what it means to me. I’ve already come that conclusion. You take your time and work it out. Lol
I’m trying to think of another expression that is equally vile and banned. The Germans banned a lot of nazi phrases if I’m not mistaken.
As I said, “You can’t change the meaning of words by imparting meanings to them that they don’t have in themselves.” You seem a little desperate to do so here.
From may perspective you could be more clear.
Some Jews, yes, they disagree on the true meaning, yet that’s an example of what we’re discussing though, isn’t it? . They can disagree but they can’t have it their way simply because of that disagreement. It is what it is, not what they want it to be in some post mod revisionist way.
I’m not suggesting changing the meaning at all.
I’ve reread this exchange and decided that this
Could have been presented a bit better. Lol
This seems to be what I am saying here;
Sometimes I feel we’re just walking through the door at the same time and getting stuck.
Or do you feel I have misread something again? 
It seems that you want to have your “own truth” on this that supersedes objective fact. The words don’t mean what you are suggesting in themselves. It’s on you (or the writer of the article above, etc.) to show that they do.
I don’t see a bit of difference in what you wrote and what I wrote.
The objective fact being what? You tend to leave out like really important stuff like that. It causes confusion. As does the quoted sentence. You might think that means something, but I’m thinking it’s a word salad served on generalized rye.
Squad under fire in primaries amid deepening divides on Israel (msn.com)
I guess American politicians supporting terrorists over Israel is a dealbreaker for some voters, even when you parade their victim/shields in front of them. Who knew?