393

The Democratic Socialists of America pulled its endorsement of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York this week, accusing the progressive congresswoman of being insufficiently supportive of the Palestinian cause and efforts to end the war in Gaza..

Her approach has increasingly strained her relationship with some of the left’s most strident critics of Israel. When she rallied last month in the Bronx with Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Jamaal Bowman, dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators angry over her endorsement of Mr. Biden chanted “You’re a fraud, A.O.C.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

They’re not all “tankies:”

In 1956, a "Tankie" was someone who endorsed the Stalin's tanks driving through Hungary to suppress a counter-revolution.

In 1989, a "Tankie" was someone who endorsed the Deng Xiaoping's tanks driving through Tienanmen Square to suppress a student riot.

In 2024, a "Tankie" is someone who thinks Netanyahu's tanks driving through Gaza to suppress the Al Aqsa Flood has gone too far.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

The DSA aren’t all tankies, the socialist majority caucus within the DSA, a majority caucus, is very lenient on their position concerning Israel:

Conditioning aid to Israel

The NPC had a brief political discussion about the progress of the “No Money for Massacres” campaign. Renée framed the conversation by walking through potential scenarios of an Israel military aid package, including the possibility of amendments that set conditions for the aid. One example is a recent Senate proposal that would require foreign aid recipients to comply with international law.

In the middle of this discussion, Marxist Unity Group members put forward a motion that would have, among other things. established DSA’s position as not supportive of harm reduction measures such as conditioning Israeli aid. This motion failed by a large margin with several abstentions, and it’s not difficult to see why: The motion was out of touch with our current political moment.

Currently, a supermajority of Congress has not publicly supported a ceasefire and remains supportive of military aid to Israel. Barring a massive shift in public and congressional opinion—which DSA is working diligently to achieve—an Israel aid package likely has the necessary votes for passage.

If aid is going to pass anyway, the very least DSA and our endorsed congressmembers can do is use the vote to propagandize. For example, when the House voted on a Republican Israel aid package last month, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced an amendment to bar the use of white phosphorus against civilians. 

AOC was almost certainly aware that there was no chance her amendment would pass; indeed, it wasn’t even brought to a vote. That’s because it wasn’t intended to pass. Rather it was a strategic move to highlight the war crimes Israel is committing against the Palestinian people. And if the amendment had been brought to a vote, it would have put pro-Israel Democrats on the defensive and forced them to vote down a clear rejection of war crimes. 

MUG’s motion missed the point of why amendments like this are filed in the first place. The motion would have required DSA not to support amendments like AOC’s, blurring the message we are trying to send about Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. 

That’s why we’re pleased that the NPC recently voted to endorse Sen. Sanders’ 502B(c) resolution, which would require the U.S. State Department to issue a report on Israel’s human rights practices within thirty days and cut off all security assistance if they fail to do so. Legislation like this can expose both parties’ blatant disregard for human rights and put pro-Israel congressmembers on the defensive.

I’m posting this significant portion because many don’t have time to read the whole position. I would encourage you to expand your opinion of what the DSA represents and its capabilities.

If you disagree with them, fine, but don’t misrepresent their positions.

this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
393 points (87.4% liked)

politics

19135 readers
1132 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS