Except there have been antisemitic incidents, namely verbal harassment. You can condemn antisemitism and condemn Israel. You can also protest Israel without spewing epithets at any Jew you come across.
And god forbid Biden condemn Palestinian hate, right?
Right and the BLM protests were all about causing violence and looting?
I’m sick of this right wing tactic of focusing on some inconsequentially insignificant portion of multiple events, many with zero instances of the priority complaint even occurring and using that to frame the entire movement to discredit it.
“Oh but Biden also wrapped it up with a throw away comment saying he’s totes mcgotes not okay with the happening right now genocide that he is materially supporting”
Advantageous looting follows a lot of civil unrest. Not sure how that’s relevant here.
The fact is that people on campus were being harassed solely based on their background. That’s okay?
It’s not really insignificant when you’re looking at Columbia in particular. Maybe at other schools, but you just said you don’t like people bringing in irrelevant events to the discussion, so I won’t go there.
I see you completely ignored the part where Biden condemned Israel, since it doesn’t fit your narrative. Let me guess, you won’t support the democrats because “both parties are the same”.
He didn’t condemn Israel, he “condemn[s] those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians”, which is such passive language that it could just as easily be interpreted as ‘condemning people who don’t understand Israel’s response to violent Palestinians’.
He’s walking a tightrope and intentionally being vague so as not to piss-off AIPAC donors.
US sanctions to Israel would instantly stop the Genocide and make Netanyahu’s government fall within a week.
The actions that the Biden’s Administration’s choses to take: send them 2000lb bombs which the US itself almost never uses because of their huge collateral damage and likelihood of killing innocent civilians.
Earlier in Israel’s Genocide that’s exactly the way his spokesperson used the “antisemitism” accusation in a White House press conference so it makes sense to conclude that’s still exactly how Biden and his Adminstration use it.
Edit: I was a bit incorrect. She’s been doing it by saying that using “from the river to the sea” is antisemitic up until the point in a briefing in December when she was confronted with how Netanyahu’s son himself had used that sentence and “does that mean he is an antisemite”, by which point she fumbled and suddenly discovered they were “out of time”.
Also at least until that point (in mid December) the Biden Administration would talk about “antisemitism in demonstrations” because people had chanted “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”.
It wasn’t in “a” White House Press Conference, it was in multiple White House Press Conferences and went on at least until mid December and that specific question from a journalist of “so would you say Netanyahu’s son is antisemite”, so already well into the point when Israel had already murdered tens of thousands of Palestinians including over 10 thousand children.
Notice how “from the river to the sea” has no meaning in the Jewish Religion, so it’s entirelly about Israel, so things which were about Israel and not about the Jewish Religion were being deemed “antisemitism” by this Administration.
I understand that it happens, I see it myself. Im specifically asking about where Biden has done this. I didn’t read the article, but I did search it for both Biden and president and neither had a hit. So if that article does actually point out him doing this, could you quote the part?
I could’ve sworn he said the “anti zionism is antisemitism” line, but that might have just been sensationalism from the December house resolution. Apparently it was pretty controversial among democrats so I don’t even know anymore.
He was asked to comment about the Columbia University Palestinian protests happening right now, and he said he condemns antisemitic protests.
That’s pretty clearly insinuating pro-Palestinian protests are antisemitic, but I suppose he’s smart enough (read: politically adept enough) not to say those words verbatim.
I did a brief search and couldn’t find the actual question he was asked. I can see many ways that they could have asked the question, that would have fit the way the article described it. Some could indicate what you are claiming, and some would make it a stretch.
So do you know what he was actually asked? Or is this really just kind of based on an assumption?
It’s a sky news video (so if you’d rather not give them the view that’s fine), but it’s the first result when filtered by ‘in the last week’ (it’s just the first 30 seconds or so): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLtgKhXNwB8
He was asked “Do you condemn the antisemitic protests on college campuses” and answered in the affirmative, then was asked “should the Columbia university president resign” and he said he needs to look into it.
As far as I know, there are no 'Antisemitic protests happening" other than the pro-Palestinian protests happening at Columbia and Vanderbilt. I suppose he could claim ignorance, but seeing as how it’s been in the news since last week i’m not sure how he could not know.
Thanks for the link. It seems like it was a softball no-brainer question. Of course he is going to say he opposes antisemitic protests. Any other answer would have been picked apart.
As far as I know, there are no 'Antisemitic protests happening"
Well, first, I will note that in the article linked by the OP, there are pro-Palestinian protesters distancing themselves from some other protests that have sprung up around it, seemingly due to their antisemitism. Additionally we have both claims and videos of people protesting around Columbia throwing out clearly antisemitic shit, like telling jewish people that “the 7th will be every day for you.”
Second, the POTUS does not know everything all of the time. If he had been more nuanced and said “well those protests weren’t antisemitic” and then someone found someone being antisemitic, it would be a political shitshow. His answer to the question asked is pretty much the only sane one. And, more importantly, it certainly does not indicate that he thinks or is implying that any protest of Israel is antisemitic. I would argue that also bringing up Palestine and their suffering right after that indicates and implies he does not think that at all.
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt as you are, he’s still repeatedly affirmed his zionist beliefs and has been loath to condemn Israel’s actions (even if he’s condemned Bibi directly). If Bibi was voted out tomorrow, the issue of Israeli occupation would not go away, and that is a big part of the protests happening throughout the country now. That he avoids making that clarification is evidence enough that him taking any decisive action against Israel is pretty much a forgone conclusion.
A couple of months ago his spokesperson did exactly that in a White House press conference though they stopped doing it as that specific propaganda trick started working in reverse.
I can’t be arsed wasting my time Googling it for what sounds suspiciously like a hasbara sockpuppet. Anybody genuinelly interested can find it him/herself.
Anybody genuinelly interested can find it him/herself.
So, basically, because you can’t provide it, you aren’t genuinely interested in it.
Seriously, how am I supposed to know what you are talking about? If it doesn’t exist, I could be searching forever and still not prove it doesn’t exist. If you aren’t willing to back up a claim, don’t make it.
I saw it live, on TV (not even a US channel), on a news segment coverage of a White House press conference.
The effort necessary to dig the video if at all possible or actual written news of it in a language you understand (as that was not in an English-speaking channel) isn’t justfied to answer a random poster on the Internet using a style of demand for “proof” which is very common amongst trolls, astroturfers and sockpuppets, especially because if you are one of such bad faith actors, you would just come up with some other “argument” willfully denying the obvious such as “yeah, but Joe Biden himself didn’t do it”.
Given your totally illogical argument (bad faith or just irrational?!) that me not wanting to dig it out to see it again is the same as me not being interested in it, I’m sure I’ll manage to endure the stress from the risk that you’re actually not a bad faith actor and still do not believe me…
Edit
here Karine implies that Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib made antisemitic remarks by using the phrase “from the river to the sea”, then backtracks but not quite.
and here , a month later Karine is confronted with the son of Netanyahu having himself used “from the river to the sea” and is asked if he is thus antisemite, which apparently he is not and then she suddenly discovers that they’re “out of time”.
So I was off: the White House doesn’t directly call people antisemitic, they just imply they are if they use sentences like “from the river to the see”, but if the person is the son of Netanyahu, then the phrase is not antisemitic after all. In other words, it’s the person not the sentence.
There’s also A LOT of press briefings where she says pro-palestinian protests were antisemitic which as SkyezOpen in this thread has pointed out is based on things like claiming that using “from the river to the sea” (as in: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”) is antisemitic. Again, this time indirectly, it’s the good old claim that “from the river to the sea” is antisemitic that apparently only applies to some people, not others.
Want to dig for yourself, here’s the Google search:
“How dare you not just believe what some random person on the internet is claiming. You must be a troll” is easily one of the most dumb arguments a person can make.
But to then to go on and make up my response to your alleged evidence, label that response unreasonable, and because “I” made argument, I must be unreasonable because of it. . .well, just that’s just peak hilarity.
You really proved that I’m the unreasonable one arguing in bad faith. lol
using a style of demand for “proof” which is very common amongst trolls, astroturfers and sockpuppets
Nah. It’s trolls, astroturfers, and sock puppets who come in, make extraordinary claims, and say it’s too hard to find so you should go find it yourself.
Yes yes everything critical of the Israeli genocide machine is antisemitism, we’ve heard that one before Joe.
How about you stop funding genocide instead of trying to paint people as racist for resisting.
Except there have been antisemitic incidents, namely verbal harassment. You can condemn antisemitism and condemn Israel. You can also protest Israel without spewing epithets at any Jew you come across.
And god forbid Biden condemn Palestinian hate, right?
Right and the BLM protests were all about causing violence and looting?
I’m sick of this right wing tactic of focusing on some inconsequentially insignificant portion of multiple events, many with zero instances of the priority complaint even occurring and using that to frame the entire movement to discredit it.
“Oh but Biden also wrapped it up with a throw away comment saying he’s totes mcgotes not okay with the happening right now genocide that he is materially supporting”
Advantageous looting follows a lot of civil unrest. Not sure how that’s relevant here.
The fact is that people on campus were being harassed solely based on their background. That’s okay?
It’s not really insignificant when you’re looking at Columbia in particular. Maybe at other schools, but you just said you don’t like people bringing in irrelevant events to the discussion, so I won’t go there.
I see you completely ignored the part where Biden condemned Israel, since it doesn’t fit your narrative. Let me guess, you won’t support the democrats because “both parties are the same”.
He didn’t condemn Israel, he “condemn[s] those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians”, which is such passive language that it could just as easily be interpreted as ‘condemning people who don’t understand Israel’s response to violent Palestinians’.
He’s walking a tightrope and intentionally being vague so as not to piss-off AIPAC donors.
Condemnation is words, and talk is cheap. I want action.
US sanctions to Israel would instantly stop the Genocide and make Netanyahu’s government fall within a week.
The actions that the Biden’s Administration’s choses to take: send them 2000lb bombs which the US itself almost never uses because of their huge collateral damage and likelihood of killing innocent civilians.
Earlier in Israel’s Genocide that’s exactly the way his spokesperson used the “antisemitism” accusation in a White House press conference so it makes sense to conclude that’s still exactly how Biden and his Adminstration use it.
Edit: I was a bit incorrect. She’s been doing it by saying that using “from the river to the sea” is antisemitic up until the point in a briefing in December when she was confronted with how Netanyahu’s son himself had used that sentence and “does that mean he is an antisemite”, by which point she fumbled and suddenly discovered they were “out of time”.
Also at least until that point (in mid December) the Biden Administration would talk about “antisemitism in demonstrations” because people had chanted “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”.
It wasn’t in “a” White House Press Conference, it was in multiple White House Press Conferences and went on at least until mid December and that specific question from a journalist of “so would you say Netanyahu’s son is antisemite”, so already well into the point when Israel had already murdered tens of thousands of Palestinians including over 10 thousand children.
Notice how “from the river to the sea” has no meaning in the Jewish Religion, so it’s entirelly about Israel, so things which were about Israel and not about the Jewish Religion were being deemed “antisemitism” by this Administration.
Can you point me to a time, specifically, where he labelled simple criticism of Israel “antisemitism?”
Basically every protest supporting Palestine. It’s not new. Here’s an article from 2021.
https://palestinelegal.org/news/2021/7/29/palestine-protests-weaponized-accusations-of-antisemitism-distract-from-palestinian-rights
I understand that it happens, I see it myself. Im specifically asking about where Biden has done this. I didn’t read the article, but I did search it for both Biden and president and neither had a hit. So if that article does actually point out him doing this, could you quote the part?
If you understand it happens, and see it yourself, then why the fuck did you just ask for one example as if they wouldn’t be able to?
Did you just stop reading after “I see it myself”? I literally and explicitly described what I was actually asking about in the next sentence.
I could’ve sworn he said the “anti zionism is antisemitism” line, but that might have just been sensationalism from the December house resolution. Apparently it was pretty controversial among democrats so I don’t even know anymore.
He was asked to comment about the Columbia University Palestinian protests happening right now, and he said he condemns antisemitic protests.
That’s pretty clearly insinuating pro-Palestinian protests are antisemitic, but I suppose he’s smart enough (read: politically adept enough) not to say those words verbatim.
I did a brief search and couldn’t find the actual question he was asked. I can see many ways that they could have asked the question, that would have fit the way the article described it. Some could indicate what you are claiming, and some would make it a stretch.
So do you know what he was actually asked? Or is this really just kind of based on an assumption?
It’s a sky news video (so if you’d rather not give them the view that’s fine), but it’s the first result when filtered by ‘in the last week’ (it’s just the first 30 seconds or so): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLtgKhXNwB8
He was asked “Do you condemn the antisemitic protests on college campuses” and answered in the affirmative, then was asked “should the Columbia university president resign” and he said he needs to look into it.
As far as I know, there are no 'Antisemitic protests happening" other than the pro-Palestinian protests happening at Columbia and Vanderbilt. I suppose he could claim ignorance, but seeing as how it’s been in the news since last week i’m not sure how he could not know.
Thanks for the link. It seems like it was a softball no-brainer question. Of course he is going to say he opposes antisemitic protests. Any other answer would have been picked apart.
Well, first, I will note that in the article linked by the OP, there are pro-Palestinian protesters distancing themselves from some other protests that have sprung up around it, seemingly due to their antisemitism. Additionally we have both claims and videos of people protesting around Columbia throwing out clearly antisemitic shit, like telling jewish people that “the 7th will be every day for you.”
Second, the POTUS does not know everything all of the time. If he had been more nuanced and said “well those protests weren’t antisemitic” and then someone found someone being antisemitic, it would be a political shitshow. His answer to the question asked is pretty much the only sane one. And, more importantly, it certainly does not indicate that he thinks or is implying that any protest of Israel is antisemitic. I would argue that also bringing up Palestine and their suffering right after that indicates and implies he does not think that at all.
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt as you are, he’s still repeatedly affirmed his zionist beliefs and has been loath to condemn Israel’s actions (even if he’s condemned Bibi directly). If Bibi was voted out tomorrow, the issue of Israeli occupation would not go away, and that is a big part of the protests happening throughout the country now. That he avoids making that clarification is evidence enough that him taking any decisive action against Israel is pretty much a forgone conclusion.
Idk. I just think that’s funny.
That tracks.
A couple of months ago his spokesperson did exactly that in a White House press conference though they stopped doing it as that specific propaganda trick started working in reverse.
I can’t be arsed wasting my time Googling it for what sounds suspiciously like a hasbara sockpuppet. Anybody genuinelly interested can find it him/herself.
So, basically, because you can’t provide it, you aren’t genuinely interested in it.
Seriously, how am I supposed to know what you are talking about? If it doesn’t exist, I could be searching forever and still not prove it doesn’t exist. If you aren’t willing to back up a claim, don’t make it.
I saw it live, on TV (not even a US channel), on a news segment coverage of a White House press conference.
The effort necessary to dig the video if at all possible or actual written news of it in a language you understand (as that was not in an English-speaking channel) isn’t justfied to answer a random poster on the Internet using a style of demand for “proof” which is very common amongst trolls, astroturfers and sockpuppets, especially because if you are one of such bad faith actors, you would just come up with some other “argument” willfully denying the obvious such as “yeah, but Joe Biden himself didn’t do it”.
Given your totally illogical argument (bad faith or just irrational?!) that me not wanting to dig it out to see it again is the same as me not being interested in it, I’m sure I’ll manage to endure the stress from the risk that you’re actually not a bad faith actor and still do not believe me…
Edit
here Karine implies that Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib made antisemitic remarks by using the phrase “from the river to the sea”, then backtracks but not quite.
and here , a month later Karine is confronted with the son of Netanyahu having himself used “from the river to the sea” and is asked if he is thus antisemite, which apparently he is not and then she suddenly discovers that they’re “out of time”.
So I was off: the White House doesn’t directly call people antisemitic, they just imply they are if they use sentences like “from the river to the see”, but if the person is the son of Netanyahu, then the phrase is not antisemitic after all. In other words, it’s the person not the sentence.
There’s also A LOT of press briefings where she says pro-palestinian protests were antisemitic which as SkyezOpen in this thread has pointed out is based on things like claiming that using “from the river to the sea” (as in: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”) is antisemitic. Again, this time indirectly, it’s the good old claim that “from the river to the sea” is antisemitic that apparently only applies to some people, not others.
Want to dig for yourself, here’s the Google search:
Karine Jean-Pierre “antisemitic” +site:www.whitehouse.gov
I saw a live TV show not even a US channel that said you made up the story about what you saw on a live TV show not even a US channel ;)
Now that I’m not at work anymore, I’ve dug up and added evidence from White House Briefings.
Now you show me yours ;)
Sorry, I can’t find any evidence that I was off about whatever earlier ;)
You forgot the rest.
“How dare you not just believe what some random person on the internet is claiming. You must be a troll” is easily one of the most dumb arguments a person can make.
But to then to go on and make up my response to your alleged evidence, label that response unreasonable, and because “I” made argument, I must be unreasonable because of it. . .well, just that’s just peak hilarity.
You really proved that I’m the unreasonable one arguing in bad faith. lol
Nah. It’s trolls, astroturfers, and sock puppets who come in, make extraordinary claims, and say it’s too hard to find so you should go find it yourself.