Why do so many Jews in the US vote Democrat?

[Athanasius]

The Democrat party has members that are anti-semitic. Because the party as a whole is not speaking out against them or marginalizing them, their viewpoints are becoming mainstream in the party. This should bother not just Jews but Americans as a whole. And yet.

Qui tacet consentire videtur. "He that is silent is understood to consent."

As the young people would say, "silence is consent for violence" or even just, "silence is violence". Sadly, a sentiment that has been stripped of its meaning by means of indiscriminate application.

[Oscar_Kipling]

What are some of the antiemetic views that are being mainstreamed in the democratic party?

[Fenris]

What are some of the antiemetic views that are being mainstreamed in the democratic party?

An "antiemetic" is a drug that prevents nausea and vomiting.

Do you mean antisemitic?

[Oscar_Kipling]

What are some of the antiemetic views that are being mainstreamed in the democratic party?

An "antiemetic" is a drug that prevents nausea and vomiting.

Do you mean antisemitic?

No, I meant antiemetic...I wanted someone to tell me about the democrat's proposed legislation to legalize medical marijuana for treating nausea...and like how the views on that is becoming mainstream. haha, yes of course, I spelled it wrong, I meant antisemitic.

[Fenris]

I meant antisemitic.

Let's talk about the instant case. Mamdani running for NYC mayor.

Mamdani has expressed support for "globalizing the intifada". When interviewed in the media, he was given the opportunity to revoke his support, but declined to do so.

What does this phrase mean, "globalize the intifada"?

What is the intifada?

It was a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians. Between 2000 and 2005, more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered. Israelis on busses. In restaurants. In shopping malls. On the street. For the crime of being a Jew in the middle east.

So when someone talks about "globalizing the intifada", it's a call for violence against Jews anywhere and everywhere that they may be found. And violence against Jews for being Jews is antisemitic.

It's even more worrisome because he's running for mayor of a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.

And he's being supported by the Democrat party.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I meant antisemitic.

Let's talk about the instant case. Mamdani running for NYC mayor.

Mamdani has expressed support for "globalizing the intifada". When interviewed in the media, he was given the opportunity to revoke his support, but declined to do so.

What does this phrase mean, "globalize the intifada"?

What is the intifada?

It was a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians. Between 2000 and 2005, more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered. Israelis on busses. In restaurants. In shopping malls. On the street. For the crime of being a Jew in the middle east.

So when someone talks about "globalizing the intifada", it's a call for violence against Jews anywhere and everywhere that they may be found. And violence against Jews for being Jews is antisemitic.

It's even more worrisome because he's running for mayor of a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.

And he's being supported by the Democrat party.

Well, can't say that I completely agree with your characterization of the intifada [especially the first one], but there is no denying that between 2000 and 2005 that Hamas and other terrorist groups killed over a thousand Israelis [overwhelmingly civilians] in terrorist attacks. Mamdani making that statement it in 2025 is baffling to say the least because even if he did mean standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people in aggressive nonviolent resistance it would require a belief that peaceful anti-zionist solidarity is the association in the forefront of people's minds, or that people would be willing to receive and understand his particular intended meaning...which, like why would he believe that, its friggin' 2025? I'm unconvinced of the idea that Mamdani made that statement with the guileless optimism of youth--on some level he knew what he was doing, but I'm also not willing to simply accept that what he meant was that violence should be visited upon the jewfish people wherever they are merely for the fact that they are.  Anyway, I highly doubt we can actually have a conversation about that, because its 2025. 

Anyway, do you have more examples that you don't mind sharing? 

[Fenris]

Well, can't say that I completely agree with your characterization of the intifada [especially the first one], but there is no denying that between 2000 and 2005 that Hamas and other terrorist groups killed over a thousand Israelis [overwhelmingly civilians] in terrorist attacks.

 Mamdani making that statement it in 2025 is baffling to say the least because even if he did mean standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people in aggressive nonviolent resistance it would require a belief that peaceful anti-zionist solidarity is the association in the forefront of people's minds, or that people would be willing to receive and understand his particular intended meaning...which, like why would he believe that, its friggin' 2025? I'm unconvinced of the idea that Mamdani made that statement with the guileless optimism of youth--on some level he knew what he was doing, but I'm also not willing to simply accept that what he meant was that violence should be visited upon the jewfish people wherever they are merely for the fact that they are.

Politician expresses the wish of globalizing terrorist attacks against Jews, but you're not willing to accept that he meant it? That's great, he wasn't talking about violence against you. He was talking about violence against Jews. Does the fact that Jews find his rhetoric frightening mean anything to you? Or is it only when you yourself decide that it's problematic that it becomes antisemitic?

I honestly can't tell if you're here to troll or just be contrarian. But you're not here for having a legitimate discussion.

[Sojourner]

I meant antisemitic.

Let's talk about the instant case. Mamdani running for NYC mayor.

Mamdani has expressed support for "globalizing the intifada". When interviewed in the media, he was given the opportunity to revoke his support, but declined to do so.

What does this phrase mean, "globalize the intifada"?

What is the intifada?

It was a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians. Between 2000 and 2005, more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered. Israelis on busses. In restaurants. In shopping malls. On the street. For the crime of being a Jew in the middle east.

So when someone talks about "globalizing the intifada", it's a call for violence against Jews anywhere and everywhere that they may be found. And violence against Jews for being Jews is antisemitic.

It's even more worrisome because he's running for mayor of a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.

And he's being supported by the Democrat party.

He's had many opportunities to walk back the "globalize the intifada" phrase, but declines to do so because he identifies with it. That, and being a hard core socialist makes his nomination a troubling development. Like all socialists, his appeal to voters is the "free" stuff he holds out like a carrot on a stick. Not sure what his chances are, but if he wins, NYC is going to change drastically--especially after he appoints like-minded people to city boards and commissions who will better facilitate his radical agenda. At any rate, I don't look for any honest attempts to quell antisemitism in NYC on his watch.

[Fenris]

At any rate, I don't look for any honest attempts to quell antisemitism in NYC on his watch.

Why would he quell antisemitism? He's the one dispensing it!

[Oscar_Kipling]

Politician expresses the wish of globalizing terrorist attacks against Jews, but you're not willing to accept that he meant it? That's great, he wasn't talking about violence against you. He was talking about violence against Jews. Does the fact that Jews find his rhetoric frightening mean anything to you? Or is it only when you yourself decide that it's problematic that it becomes antisemitic?

I honestly can't tell if you're here to troll or just be contrarian. But you're not here for having a legitimate discussion.

Well, as I said I disagree with your characterization of intifada. Firstly because you restricted your definition to the second one, and only then to the homicidal terrorist activities of the second one. Secondly you've boiled down the grievances of the intifadas to "the crime of being a Jew in the middle east.".

Now to give you the benefit of the doubt, it would be insane to talk about the second intifada in any way where the headline wasn't the violence, the terrorist attacks and the military response. My problem is with the fact that you only talked about the second one while ignoring the first one which is to put it mildly a major antecedent of the second one and one could argue that the violent response by the Israeli's was a radicalizing moment for many of the violent actors in the second. It is imo important contextualizing information if you are actually interested in defining intifada.

Additionally outside of the undeniable organized militarized terrorist attacks by terrorist in the second one, there were mass protests, tax strikes, labor strikes, and boycotts. Confining the activities to just terrorism again removes pertinent context from what the intifadas were.

The second issue is I think even more egregious because "the crime of being a Jew in the middle east." does not accurately describe the grievances of the Palestinian people in either intifada. It was among other things, the Israeli military occupation, Settlement expansion, political disenfranchisement, disenfranchisement from land and property rights, economic inequality and so on.

So when you say that  "Globalize the intifada" definitely means "globalizing terrorist attacks against Jews", it is because you define intifada as a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east....I say that you have artificially defined the only meaning you are willing to accept into it.

[Fenris]

So when you say that  "Globalize the intifada" definitely means "globalizing terrorist attacks against Jews", it is because you define intifada as a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east....I say that you have artificially defined the only meaning you are willing to accept into it.

I'm defining it the way Jews understand it: as a call for violence against Jews. Because that's what it was.

Oscar: Someone calling for a "final solution to the Jewish problem" isn't necessarily advocating violence against Jews. They might just be looking for a final solution.

Words mean things. When Mamdani calls for globalizing the intifada, Jews know what he means. And Jew haters know what he means, too. It's useful idiots like you that go "well akshully..." and make excuses for him.

You're not serious person.

Go away.

[Sojourner]

At any rate, I don't look for any honest attempts to quell antisemitism in NYC on his watch.

Why would he quell antisemitism? He's the one dispensing it!

That's my point. Antisemitism would flourish with him in the Mayor's office.

[Sojourner]

In the estimation of many Gentiles (and even some liberal Jews), antisemitism is overblown. But recent figures reveal that attacks against Jews are on the rise--including in NYC. And in a recent survey, 24 percent of respondents said they believed the attacks were “understandable," given the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. So, non-Israeli Jews in the US minding their own business are fair game for antisemitic attackers. As with pro-Palestinian activists in Universities, Jews everywhere are culpable because they're Jewish. I suspect that type of mindset laid the foundation for what developed into the Holocaust.

[Fenris]

In the estimation of many Gentiles (and even some liberal Jews), antisemitism is overblown. But recent figures reveal that attacks against Jews are on the rise--including in NYC.

Especially in NYC. And it's all from the far left.

So, non-Israeli Jews in the US minding their own business are fair game for antisemitic attackers.

Yes, precisely. The people saying "globalize the intifada" aren't calling for attacks against Israelis. They're calling for attacks against Jews. It's not Israel's existence as a state that bothers them. It's Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

As with pro-Palestinian activists in Universities, Jews everywhere are culpable because they're Jewish. I suspect that type of mindset laid the foundation for what developed into the Holocaust.

And every other instance of bigotry and violence against Jews.

What's happening to America?

[Oscar_Kipling]

I'm defining it the way Jews understand it: as a call for violence against Jews. Because that's what it was.

Well, I cannot speak for the Jewish people's understanding of the intifadas, but I can say that the there are records of the events that constituted the intifadas as well as the issues that motivated them and "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east" is insufficient to describe it. If you are going to stand by that definition and attribute it to all Jewish people, then I can't stop you, but you are factually incorrect on several points that I clearly and plainly addressed.

Oscar: Someone calling for a "final solution to the Jewish problem" isn't necessarily advocating violence against Jews. They might just be looking for a final solution.

You're not serious person.

Go away.

If Mamdani had actually said that, he'd have a significantly weaker basis to argue that  what he actually meant was aggressive nonviolent solidarity with the plight of the Palestinian people. I'll accept the mantle of unserious, if you admit to flatly distorting the plain truth about what the intifadas are because you refuse to acknowledge that many of the grievances of the Palestinian people are both valid and were major motivating factors behind the intifadas because if you do then you don't get to cast this as a great struggle of good against evil instead of the tragic and often reprehensible but predictable reaction to the systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of a people.