Fetterman rejects progressive label, as left wing attacks him over his position on Israel and immigration

[Valletta]

Fetterman’s comments come as he has faced attacks from the left wing of his party over his pro-Israel rhetoric amid the country’s war with Hamas and his support of the Senate immigration negotiations that progressives have rejected.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/john-fetterman-progressive-democrats/index.html

Good for him for standing up to the systemic racism within his party. And more and more Democrats are admitting the border crisis is a true disaster.

 

[Fantine]

I am a little confused. I see a nation founded by Jews of primarily of European descent practicing genocide on the Palestinians who lived there preceding them. The imminent famine will get those who survived the bombings.

And you are calling those of us who oppose the genocide "racist?"

I guess that's what happens when citizens elect indicted criminal Netanyahu.

A warning to our country, to be sure.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Fetterman’s comments come as he has faced attacks from the left wing of his party over his pro-Israel rhetoric amid the country’s war with Hamas and his support of the Senate immigration negotiations that progressives have rejected.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/john-fetterman-progressive-democrats/index.html

Good for him for standing up to the systemic racism within his party. And more and more Democrats are admitting the border crisis is a true disaster.

I don't think it's a case where he's "standing up to systemic racism within his party"... I didn't hear him specifically mention that, nor do I think that the Democrats have a particular propensity toward "systemic racism" per say.

I know some on right will try to label progressive overcorrection efforts to address past racism, as being racist efforts themselves, but I don't think that rhetorical approach is particularly productive when context is factored in.

For instance if a person wants to set minimum racial quotas for college admissions, reasonable people can disagree about whether or not that's an unproductive or ill thought-out overcorrection that fixates on race, but it's not coming from the same malicious place of race fixation that once sought to make certain institutions unattainable for racial minorities in the first place.

Or to put it more succinctly... No, affirmative action programs aren't as bad as the historical racist business practices they seek to correct for. (despite both using a racial lens, they're not equivalent in terms of intent)



I think Fetterman's comments are more in-line with the chorus of similar statements we've seen from other people similar to his age (who used to be regarded as progressive, but stayed put when the Overton Window moved, and now aren't considered quite as "progressive" anymore by the "new standard")

He wouldn't be the first Gen-X person who conveyed some variation of the sentiment "I didn't leave the Left, the Left left me". It didn't really take that much of a "radical" set of viewpoints (by today's standards) to be considered "progressive" in 1990-2008. Most 2020's moderates are more "progressive" than your average Democrat was during that time window.

 

[Laodicean60]

He wouldn't be the first Gen-X person who conveyed some variation of the sentiment "I didn't leave the Left, the Left left me". It didn't really take that much of a "radical" set of viewpoints (by today's standards) to be considered "progressive" in 1990-2008. Most 2020's moderates are more "progressive" than your average Democrat was during that time window.

Just call me old fashioned but I didn't know that the progressives disliked Israel that much. I've noticed it here in these forums because of the lengthy arguments. Is this a recent thing and why?

 

[Fantine]

I don't think the average Israeli agrees with the current leader. He is seen as desperately trying to stay in power through the war.
Jews have suffered and are always in the side of the persecuted and oppressed.

 

[Laodicean60]

Nevermind I found out.

How the Activist Left Turned On Israel

Why factions of the grassroots left appeared to celebrate the terrorist attack by Hamas as an act of Palestinian heroism

time.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Just call me old fashioned but I didn't know that the progressives disliked Israel that much. I've noticed it here in these forums because of the lengthy arguments. Is this a recent thing and why?

I think if you look back, you'll see that it wasn't uncommon...the overt protesting wasn't as "in your face" as protests and activism tend to be today, but the same critiques were still there.

Support for Israel in U.S. at 63%, Near Record High

For the first time since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, more than 6 in 10 Americans -- 63% -- say their sympathies in the Middle East situation lie more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians. Fifteen percent side more with the Palestinians, down slightly from recent years.

news.gallup.com

Point of reference, this was polling from 2010, and they described the 63% of support for Israel at the time as a "near record high" level of support. Support for Israel in the middle east conflicts was in the mid-30%'s in the 80's (and that's for the entire country, and during the Reagan era no less...which means that a lot of conservatives were critical of Israel at the time too)

Per the article:
For the first time since 1991, more than 6 in 10 Americans -- 63% -- say their sympathies in the Middle East situation lie more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians.

(and in that referenced year of 1991, one could make a solid guess that the level of support for Israel was artificially inflated due to some of the actions of Yasser Arafat of the PLO since that was the same year in which he vocalized support for Iraq during the gulf war) -- think of it sort of like "If it's Joe vs. Bob, and Joe starts vocalizing support for <insert perceived bad guy here>", it's going to make people more sympathetic to Bob than they'd normally be.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think the average Israeli agrees with the current leader. He is seen as desperately trying to stay in power through the war.
Jews have suffered and are always in the side of the persecuted and oppressed.

Unfortunately, there's already been a bad precedent set in which there's no way for the US to condemn Netanyahu's stance of "Not going to step down and/or allow people to pick a new leader, because we're at war, it's a bad time", and still be viewed as consistent, because we just got done spending 2 years unequivocally supporting Ukraine and their leader just did the same thing.

Ukraine's president rules out holding elections next spring and calls for unity in fighting Russia

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has ruled out a presidential vote next spring and is urging his countrymen to avoid political divides, saying the country must concentrate all its resources on fighting Russian aggression.

apnews.com

Now, if top brass in the US openly condemned Zelensky's decision to, for all intents and purposes, cancel their presidential elections and took a hard line with them and said "no, regular elections still need to move forward", then we'd have a leg to stand on in playing hardball with Netanyahu.

 

[ralliann]

Fetterman’s comments come as he has faced attacks from the left wing of his party over his pro-Israel rhetoric amid the country’s war with Hamas and his support of the Senate immigration negotiations that progressives have rejected.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/john-fetterman-progressive-democrats/index.html

Good for him for standing up to the systemic racism within his party. And more and more Democrats are admitting the border crisis is a true disaster.

they will try to get a court to disqualify him lol

 

[ralliann]

I am a little confused. I see a nation founded by Jews of primarily of European descent practicing genocide on the Palestinians who lived there preceding them.

It doesn't confuse you the Palestine as a nation founded primarily by the same Torture and rape children burned alive, babies burned to death in ovens in front of their parents?

The imminent famine will get those who survived the bombings.

And you are calling those of us who oppose the genocide "racist?"

Who is opposing genocide? Israel went to war to get rid of Hamas, not Arabs, not Muslims.

I guess that's what happens when citizens elect indicted criminal Netanyahu.

A warning to our country, to be sure.

I see a warning, and it isn't Israel ridding itself of Genocidal terrorists for neighbors.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It doesn't confuse you the Palestine as a nation founded primarily by the same Torture and rape children burned alive, babies burned to death in ovens in front of their parents?

Who is opposing genocide? Israel went to war to get rid of Hamas, not Arabs, not Muslims.

I see a warning, and it isn't Israel ridding itself of Genocidal terrorists for neighbors.

Well, here's the conundrum...

While I support Israel over Palestine in the grand scheme of things...

Certain stats and numbers do make me question certain boundaries.

By the IDF's most favorable sounding estimates, of the 20,000 people killed (that number is likely much higher), only 8,000 were confirmed to be directly affiliated with Hamas (that number is likely much lower)

I've commented at length about why we wouldn't expect "casualty parity"...Hamas uses human targets and strategically places hostile infrastructure in non-combatant areas, that's on them...I get it.

But at what point does it get labelled as excessive?

I'm not so naive to believe that there won't be innocent causalities in the pursuit of defeating a greater enemy, and sometimes that's a trade off that has to be made (no doubt there were some innocent Germans who were killed in our pursuit to take down Hitler, and as sad as that may be, it was for a greater good and therefore, worth it in the long run)

But what is that acceptable ratio?

Because, to me, if (by the IDF's own most self-favorable sounding estimates), they had to kill 12k civilians to get 8k Hamas members...that certainly represents a ratio that warrants some scrutiny.

That's not to say that they couldn't make a compelling case for why it was unavoidable (if someone said "there was no way to get to Osama Bin Laden without killing these 5 innocent people, and could demonstrate that the assertion had merit, they could make a case with me and I'd be willing to accept it for what it is), but once the ratio reaches that sort of level, people are allowed to at least ask some hard-hitting questions.

If it turns out that they had no other option and innocent deaths were the only unavoidable pathway to preventing much more heinous things happening in the future, I'm willing to have that conversation and acknowledge the "brutal pragmatism" of it all. ....but I at least get to ask probing questions about it (given that my tax money is helping pay for it)

 

[ralliann]

Well, here's the conundrum...

While I support Israel over Palestine in the grand scheme of things...

Certain stats and numbers do make me question certain boundaries.

By the IDF's most favorable sounding estimates, of the 20,000 people killed (that number is likely much higher), only 8,000 were confirmed to be directly affiliated with Hamas (that number is likely much lower)

I've commented at length about why we wouldn't expect "casualty parity"...Hamas uses human targets and strategically places hostile infrastructure in non-combatant areas, that's on them...I get it.

But at what point does it get labelled as excessive?

I'm not so naive to believe that there won't be innocent causalities in the pursuit of defeating a greater enemy, and sometimes that's a trade off that has to be made (no doubt there were some innocent Germans who were killed in our pursuit to take down Hitler, and as sad as that may be, it was for a greater good and therefore, worth it in the long run)

But what is that acceptable ratio?

Because, to me, if (by the IDF's own most self-favorable sounding estimates), they had to kill 12k civilians to get 8k Hamas members...that certainly represents a ratio that warrants some scrutiny.

That's not to say that they couldn't make a compelling case for why it was unavoidable (if someone said "there was no way to get to Osama Bin Laden without killing these 5 innocent people, and could demonstrate that the assertion had merit, they could make a case with me and I'd be willing to accept it for what it is), but once the ratio reaches that sort of level, people are allowed to at least ask some hard-hitting questions.

Here is the missing reality here. How do you calculate all the lives that will be brutally lost if Hamas carries out what it says. They have already said it will happen again and again. What, until all Israel is wiped out? So what to do? Wait until they do it again, and sit and speculate how many is to many at each occurrence? I Think you mean well, but that is absurd. But it is the reality Hamas has set forth. And, I have to wonder what is it we or anyone else is thinking to speculate on this when it is not our lives, our children, parents spouses and our nation being threatened. What right do we have? Babies burned in a kichen range, in front of their parents, sending videos to loved ones as they raped a woman so badly her pelvis was broken, then shot dead in the head by the last in a line of ten men to rape her. Placing children in a small building, and lighting the inside on fire as they shut the door and locked them in. I am sorry, we have no business weighing in to this degree. When you consider this know that civilians being used by Hamas is being made a very effective thing to do. Encouraging more of it. Just like Israel cannot negotiate with a people that refuse, you cannot save lives that way. You just guarantee another time for more. What are we really doing? Sighing and saying I am tired of dealing with the whining? So let us put an end to this, simply to pick it up another day when more attacks occur.

 

[Fantine]

It doesn't confuse you the Palestine as a nation founded primarily by the same Torture and rape children burned alive, babies burned to death in ovens in front of their parents?

Who is opposing genocide? Israel went to war to get rid of Hamas, not Arabs, not Muslims.

I see a warning, and it isn't Israel ridding itself of Genocidal terrorists for neighbors.

Let's consider the damages. Hamas: 1369 murdered, little property damage, 240 hostages--many returned home.

Israel: At least 20 000 dead, half of them children. 40% of Gaza City leveled--and much more now. Famine, with 90% subsisting on less than one meal a day. Contaminated water. No power.

Israel just wants to get rid of Hamas? By murdering or starving 2.3 million people? Give me a break! Would you like to buy a bridge in beautiful downtown Brooklyn?

 

[Laodicean60]

I get the impression from all these posts is that most people think this is the first time Hamas attacked Israel. Or it's pure hate for one country for reasons unknown. Or is the hate because of Jesus.

 

[ralliann]

I get the impression from all these posts is that most people think this is the first time Hamas attacked Israel. Or it's pure hate for one country for reasons unknown. Or is the hate because of Jesus.

I know. Many here also know it's not the first time, and that Hamas has already said they will do it again and again. So, how can they say it is about saving lives? Just Israel is supposed to give up, and surrender themselves for more on another day. It'd like ,well let Hamas catch up on the number of dead. It is not Jesus

 

[Valletta]

I am a little confused. I see a nation founded by Jews of primarily of European descent practicing genocide on the Palestinians who lived there preceding them. The imminent famine will get those who survived the bombings.

And you are calling those of us who oppose the genocide "racist?"

I guess that's what happens when citizens elect indicted criminal Netanyahu.

A warning to our country, to be sure.

I agree, you are confused, and a would say not just a little. Israel has been attacked in a horrific and cowardly assault against babies, the elderly, and women, with Palestinian terrorist raping, torturing and mutilating. Even Palestinian civilians came in after the terrorist soldiers to rape. Many in Gaza celebrated and danced in the streets The Palestinians are holding hostages, and continue to send rockets into Israeli cites. Israel continues to seek out the terrorists and is trying to free the hostages. As to who lived their first, no matter what group it is not an excuse for any such savage conduct, many borders of countries have changed, in this case the Jews were given the land thousands of years ago.

 

[ralliann]

I get the impression from all these posts is that most people think this is the first time Hamas attacked Israel. Or it's pure hate for one country for reasons unknown. Or is the hate because of Jesus.

Another thought. Why does Hamas get to set the acceptable death toll? Especially since they use their own civilians for death tolls? Something is seriously wrong here.

 

[Valletta]

Let's consider the damages. Hamas: 1369 murdered, little property damage, 240 hostages--many returned home.

Israel: At least 20 000 dead, half of them children. 40% of Gaza City leveled--and much more now. Famine, with 90% subsisting on less than one meal a day. Contaminated water. No power.

Israel just wants to get rid of Hamas? By murdering or starving 2.3 million people? Give me a break! Would you like to buy a bridge in beautiful downtown Brooklyn?

Those numbers are baloney. The numbers of dead in Gaza are supplied by the treacherous Hamas, masters of propaganda. It is quite likely that the vast majority of those killed in Gaza were Hamas and Hamas supporters.. If Hamas admitted how many of their terrorists were killed it would be devastating to the moral of the rest of the Hamas terrorists. Such propaganda is hardly unusual, Japan boasted to their people of great victory after victory in battles where the Japanese took heavy losses or were completely wiped out. It's interesting, a Rabbi back on July 7th talked about what would happen in the future with anti-Semitism and propaganda about children killed when Israel defended itself.

 

[Fantine]

Many accounts come from organization like Doctors Without Borders and other paragons of goodness, staying at their posts despite the danger. Along with photojournalists and video evidence of Israel's scorched earth policy.
To them, every Palestinian is a potential Hamas--so why not kill them all?

 

[ralliann]

Many accounts come from organization like Doctors Without Borders and other paragons of goodness, staying at their posts despite the danger. Along with photojournalists and video evidence of Israel's scorched earth policy.
To them, every Palestinian is a potential Hamas--so why not kill them all?

Isn't that what Hamas threatened to do. Again and again? No need for second hand accounts, he made a video for the whole world to hear. Did you miss it?