House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi criticized El-Sayed on a recent episode of the On Brand podcast. Host Donny Deutsch claimed El-Sayed had made “concerning” comments opposing the existence of a Jewish state. “That’s antisemitic as far as I’m concerned,” he said.

“No, it’s more than concerning. It’s wrong,” Pelosi said. “It’s wrong, and it isn’t a reflection of the Democrats in the Congress of the United States. This new person in Michigan, we’ll see if he gets elected to the Congress.”

...

Again, with Stevens, we see Democrats placing continued support for Israel before the success of their own party and their own constituents. Is it any wonder that Stevens lost?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 1 week ago

The answer is pretty clearly stated:

It’s wrong, and it isn’t a reflection of the Democrats in the Congress of the United States.

The issue with a lot of the far left is that "allyship" is prioritized to the point where it's impossible for anyone to denounce anything or anyone as long as it's nominally "on our side."

on multiple occasions I've found leftists that are incapable of even denouncing Hamas, a terrorist organization that has deliberately murdered women and children. Should be very easy to say "I'm pro-Palestine, but I denounce Hamas, those guys aren't a part of my movement." But we don't want to offend any allies so let's not say anything like that!

So if you're in an extreme allyship culture it's difficult to understand someone saying they don't want to be associated with someone even if they are on the same side on many issues. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Really the pro-Palestinian movement would have a lot more success if it could separate itself from terrorist groups like Hamas and from overt antisemitism. But vibe-based internet movements with no clear goals are incapable of understanding when someone that's nominally "on your side" is more of a liability than an asset.

The uncommitted movement are explicitly single issue voters, and GOP is way better at attracting vaguely racist single issue voters into their tent. If the Democratic Party becomes a party that is about appeasing the vaguely racist single issue voters, then how is it any different from the GOP? The typical "both sides are the same" voter suppression tactic becomes true at that point.

And sure you may be used to being the ones labeling others as being racist and it really stings when you're the ones being labelled as such. But it's obvious that while not everyone that's critical of Israel is antisemitic, all antisemites are critical of Israel. Do you need an Venn diagram? Given the anti-Israel coalition refuses to recognize there is any antisemitism in the ranks (must never reject an ally!), they're not doing anything about it. Must never criticize those that criticize Israel!

But yeah criticizing people, even those within the same party is normal. What's actually weird is being incapable of having any kind of rational response to it, other than to attack. Always attack never defend, the mantra of cults everywhere.

It's also obvious that the uncommitted are more comfortable with being allies with Hamas and overt antisemites than being allies with the Democratic party.

  • source