The House passed a GOP-led resolution on Tuesday to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib over comments critical of Israel and in support of Palestinians amid Israel’s war against Hamas.
The move amounts to a rare and significant rebuke of the Michigan Democrat, who is the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress. The vote was 234 to 188 with four Republicans voting against and 22 Democrats voting in support of the censure resolution.
The resolution, which was introduced by Georgia GOP Rep. Rich McCormick, advanced earlier in the day after a Democratic-led effort to block the measure failed.
I don’t care for the precedent of censuring a Representative for an unpopular stance. Censure should be for things that actually bring disrepute on Congress itself, like obtaining a seat through false pretenses or violating decorum by screaming during the State of the Union.
Apparently there have been 9 (now 10?) censures in the House since 1966.
Our government is an embarrassment. This punishment is supposed to embarrass the censured member, but it embarrasses every member that voted Aye far more
Can’t embarrass someone who can’t feel shame
Our government is under siege.
And not the kind with the big tiddy blonde hiding in the cake.
Republicans no longer debate ideas, they hunt them down and kill them.
While I am not at all going to pretend it was the actual reason for the censuring, Tlaib went farther than just having an unpopular stance (which, like a lot of US politics, is actually what The People want in polls…).
“From the river to the sea” is a MAJOR dog whistle, if not outright hateful rallying cry. Because it very much is about getting rid of all Israelis “from the river to the sea”. Whether that means politely exiling them or engaging in ethnic cleansing is up to interpretation.
And… I kind of do think government representatives should at least get a slap on the wrist if they are spewing hateful bigotry. Even if it is unintentional (I see a LOT of leftists who think “this is just a figure of speech”…). Doesn’t matter what the target group is.
It is right up there with “all lives matter”. On its own… it is a saying that can be argued as “neutral”. But in context, it is real fucked. And people should at least get a whack on the nose for saying it so they can understand “don’t fucking say that”
Hey, she supports a 1 state solution. That’s from the river to the sea, ain’t it? Kind of doesn’t need to be a dog whistle
Edit: I googled this and unless someone has some more info, it’s definitely not a pro-hamas or anti-israel slogan. It’s a chant that originated with calls for the one state solution, no reason to think it’s a dog whistle.
Its most famous usage was the PLO in the 1960s when it explicitly was a call for the dismantling and expulsion of all the Jewish people in the old territory of Mandatory Palestine to generate an Arab ethnostate. That’s why people keep saying “It’s a dogwhistle” it’s not easy to say “Oh, the old call for ethnically cleansing the area just took a new, happier meaning!”
Tangential, but I think that is a uniquely millenial mindset.
Boomers and the like? They always just said “Stop being a snowflake, it is just words” or “Gay means stupid” and so forth.
Whereas millennials grew up learning “words have meaning and they hurt”. And basically everyone knows the homophobic slur that means “a bundle of sticks” and what the implication of that is.
Which… led to a strong push to argue that “we are taking the word back”. The obsessive focus on “wait, he used a soft ‘r’, not a hard ‘r’” with respect to the n-word. Or the completely asinine South Park Libertarian approach of “I am not talking about gay people. I am talking about obnoxious motor cyclists” and so forth. And we still see it show up. This is “a rallying cry for freedom” not a call for counter-genocide. Or “I am not saying being ‘gay’ is bad, I am saying it would be funny if this person I don’t like is gay” and so forth.
And a lot of it comes from influencers who wanted to keep saying slurs or doing racist caricatures basically arguing that they are using a different definition or whatever. And our parasocial relationships means we argue for it too.
Whereas gen z tends to acknowledge things are slurs and dog whistles. Now, there is the issue of people who just don’t care and are intentionally using the hateful interpretation but… at least they are honest bigots?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
Yes, it is advocating for a “one state solution”. A Palestinian state. It is officially a part of the Hamas platform and has been increasingly associated with genocide of the Israelis who are “in the way”
This is literally the “all lives matter” bullshit all over again. “Well, here is this phrase that if you interpret in an incredibly literal sense and ignore all context of why it is being used or even what it would entail, is not bigotry.”
According to Tlaib:
Hamas used the phrase. There’s a clear association, and it’s because of a concerted effort to make Palestinian freedom sound extremist. Have violent radicals adopt a normal phrase, it gets associated with them.
It was wrong to censure her, but she really shouldn’t have used the phrase. I’m sure she genuinely meant it in a free, peaceful sense, but there shouldn’t be any room for ambiguity – if people say it’s an antisemitic phrase, then don’t use it!
If we want criticism of Israel to be separate from antisemitism, you have to take a strict no tolerance policy on anything which could possibly be related to it, even an association like this. Criticizing Israel using phrases the opposition considers to be antisemitic is absolutely counterproductive for separating your criticism from antisemitism.
Yea… “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free!”
Angry Goose meme: “From what? From what motherfucker?
From being kept in an open air prison, denied self-determination.
Then accept any of the two state solutions that have repeatedly been proposed? Walking away with no counterpoint and immediately starting violence tells me the Palestinian self-determination isn’t as important as the other, unsaid, goal.
While I agree about her recklessness, congress shouldn’t try to reprimand speech. It is up to the public and the voters to show her the ramifications of her actions.
The Public generally gets one chance every couple years.
And I think “speech” very much should be reprimanded when it is hate speech.