108

Pennsylvania Governor and potential vice presidential nominee Josh Shapiro tries to distance himself from a recently uncovered op-ed he wrote in college in which he identified as a former volunteer in the IDF and argued that the Palestinians are too “battle-minded” to pursue peace with Israel.

Palestinians will not coexist peacefully,” Shapiro also wrote in the op-ed titled “Peace Not Possible.”

“They do not have the capabilities to establish their own homeland and make it successful even with the aid of Israel and the United States. They are too battle-minded to be able to establish a peaceful homeland of their own,” added the then-20-year-old.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jeffw@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Shapiro: criticizes campus protests for their antisemitism, publicly reaffirms his commitment to a 2-state solution, and calls Netanyahu an “obstacle” to the solution Lemmy: OMG!!! Terrible human! Walz: criticizes campus protests for their antisemitism Lemmy: Yay!!!

Edit: in case anyone actually cares about facts, the quotes are about the PLO and Arafat (you can find the whole op ed thing easily online and it’s like 1 page). He also describes his support for a 2 state solution in the article. He ends the article by saying that he hopes the two sides can get over themselves and stop fighting, despite his skepticism

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Shapiro: criticizes campus protests for their antisemitism

Which is a strawman. The protests are against genocide and in large part led by anti-zionist Jews.

publicly reaffirms his commitment to a 2-state solution

That's what they all say to sound like they're pro-peace without saying anything to endanger the legal bribes from AIPAC.

and calls Netanyahu an “obstacle” to the solution

Gonna need a source with full context on that one.

the quotes are about the PLO and Arafat

Oh, you mean the ones who were actually willing to negotiate in good faith and were then replaced by the initially Israel-funded terrorist group Hamas?

He also describes his support for a 2 state solution in the article. He ends the article by saying that he hopes

More empty rhetoric

the two sides can get over themselves and stop fighting

And a colossal false equivalence to go out on. Nice. 🙄

despite his ~~skepticism~~ bribes from AIPAC

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

“I believe everything you say except the stuff that makes Shapiro look good and challenges my narrow worldview”

That’s hilarious my dude, it’s pretty easy to google things.

And denying that any antisemitism happened during the protests is laughable. There were specific cases Shapiro named. He never issued a blanket condemnation of the protests, only specific instances

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

“I believe everything you say except the stuff that makes Shapiro look good and challenges my narrow worldview”

Another ridiculous strawman. Are you incapable of arguing in good faith or do you just choose not to at every opportunity?

That’s hilarious my dude, it’s pretty easy to google things

Says the Hasbarist whose sources are likely only pro-Israel ones such as Times of Israel, NYT, and Jerusalem Post 🙄

And denying that any antisemitism happened during the protests is laughable

I didn't. I said that wasn't what the protests were about any more than Black Lives Matter protests are about breaking things like the American Fascist Party pretends.

There were specific cases Shapiro named.

Cases such as the one where what Zionists had used as the basis of painting all the protesters with a broad brush as antisemites turned out to be a Zionist successfully trying to get protesters arrested?

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
108 points (87.5% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1950 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