yeah, but Netanyahu wasn't talking about the Holocaust. He was talking about Israel's violence on Gaza. As such, the Amalek reference functions as a call to genocide.

This is a disingenuous argument. The adornment on the Hague was created in the rhetorical context of the Holocaust and the remembrance of Holocaust victims. By contrast, Netanyahu cited the Amalek reference in the rhetorical context of Israel's violent siege on Gaza. In this context, it functions as an incitement to genocide against the people of Gaza. The citation of Amalek is of course a direct reference to genocidal violence:

"I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." - 1 Sam. 15:2

traanquil
-2Edited

Yeah what happened is that an Israeli leader compared the enemy to animals, and by extension hardcore Zionists make this dehumanizing association with the entire population of Gaza, which is then used to give a justification for genocide. Other Israeli leaders have predictably stated that there are no innocents in Gaza. We all know this is how racist dog whistles work

Yeah he was talking about Hamas but of course the language nonetheless operated as a devaluation of all life in Gaza because that’s how dehumanizing rhetoric works. Netanyahu also had openly genocidal rhetoric with his horrible amalek statement

It stems from anti black racism, Which is core to right wing ideology

traanquil
-1Edited

No what happened was that a democrat decided to take the weak, moderate path in order to appease the right. You see that reflected in Obamas rhetoric about this. Obama had a supermajority of democrats from around 2009 to 2013 that he failed to take advantage of. https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/us/obama-says-abortion-rights-law-not-a-top-priority-idUSN29466420/

Min wage in California is 16/ hour which isn’t enough to buy a box to live in

“Abortion rights advocates found an ally in then-Sen. Barack Obama, who told Planned Parenthood early in his Democratic White House bid that “the first thing I’d do as president” would be to codify Roe by signing the latest iteration of the Freedom of Choice Act. But four months into his presidency, Obama said it was “not my highest legislative priority” and suggested energy would be better spent reducing unintended pregnancies. “ source: https://19thnews.org/2022/01/congress-codify-abortion-roe/

traanquil
1Edited

Yeah definitely democrats, with a few exceptions, support the racist, genocidal state of Israel

traanquil
OP
-3Edited

No I chose not to since it is an obvious genocide. If there was an article about someone complaining about the modern rules of baseball, I would not put the word baseball in quotes

Yeah I guess conveniently ignoring the genocide is probably a common position for the Biden crowd

These people found that Biden has been absolutely unwilling to scale down the violence in Gaza and is completely non responsive to their advocacy so , no, resigning in protest is the better option

What do you mean? The appointee is protesting the genocide

Democrats are intentionally weak and ineffective. Ultimately their job is to create the illusion of choice for voters. Both parties are owned by the same class of billionaires. Over the last 30 years democrats have failed to: - pass a meaningful minimum wage increase - codify roe v wade - pass universal healthcare - reduce college costs - disinvest from Israel - get rich people to pay their fair share - reverse overall income inequality