Current Events > Do you believe what Rep. Rashida Tlaib said about the Holocaust was antisemitic?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'll link to CNN although it's been reported by multiple outlets, if only to give her as much credit as possible in interpreting what she said and because they have the most complete set of quotes. Also note that she's an advocate of a one-state solution for the Israel/Palestine conflict, and I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt here in that she doesn't know there were already Jews living in the region when Israel was made, and that it wasn't just created for European Jews fleeing the Holocaust.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/politics/rashida-tlaib-holocaust-comments/index.html

Speaking on an episode of Yahoo News' "Skullduggery" podcast that was released Friday, Tlaib was asked about her support for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She began by noting the recent observance of Holocaust Remembrance Day before veering into the historic position of the state of Israel.

"There's kind of a calming feeling I always tell folks when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors, Palestinians, who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people's passports," Tlaib said.

She continued, "I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time, and I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right, and it was forced on them. And so when I think about a one-state, I think about the fact that, why couldn't we do it in a better way?"

When asked whether advocating for a one-state solution could be seen as reckless, Tlaib replied, "No, I'm coming from a place of love, for equality and justice, I truly am."

"I want a safe haven for Jews," she added. "Who doesn't want to be safe? I am humbled by the fact that it was my ancestors that had to suffer for that to happen, but I will not turn my back and allow others to hijack it and say that it's some extremist approach because they're coming from a place of... whatever it is... of division, inequality."

---

Yes.
---

Nope shes right as usual

I think I get what she was driving at but that phrasing is atrocious
---

To quote from Paul Waldman in the Washington Post:

If you read Tlaibs words and decided that she said that thinking of the Holocaust itself gave her a calming feeling, youd have to be too stupid to be capable of tying your own shoes.

---

Silver Bearings posted...

Yes.

This. She literally said Palestinians have suffered due to Nazis slaughtering Jews.

No, I don't think she literally is calmed by the thought of Jews taking acid showers or being roasted in ovens, but that doesn't mean she isn't anti-Semitic.
---

I'm not reading all that.

However, I do want to go on record and say once and for all that I do believe that the holocaust was antisemitic.
---

When you think of the Holocaust, Palestinians shouldn't be the first topic that comes to mind.

Her comment is very stupid.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

When you think of the Holocaust, Palestinians shouldn't be the first topic that comes to mind.

The question she was responding to was specifically about Israel and her support for a one-state solution
---

Antifar posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

When you think of the Holocaust, Palestinians shouldn't be the first topic that comes to mind.

The question she was responding to was specifically about Israel and her support for a one-state solution

And?

She brought up the Holocaust and said what she said.
---

No, very blatantly no. Shes not wrong about the fact that Palestinian people were erased in favor of Jewish people.
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

No, very blatantly no. Shes not wrong about the fact that Palestinian people were erased in favor of Jewish people.

They weren't, though.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

And?

And the context matters; her brining up the Holocaust was in service to a larger point, more directly related to the issue at hand
https://twitter.com/RepRashida/status/1127759449526013953
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

No, very blatantly no. Shes not wrong about the fact that Palestinian people were erased in favor of Jewish people.

They weren't, though.

Yes I understand that youre trolling and arent looking for an honest conversation
---

I don't see it as antisemitic, but apparently the bar of what constitutes anti-Semitism has been lowered by a certain political party (while ironically raising it for their president)

I feel like "You're anti-Semitic!" is the rights version of "You're racist!" by the left.
---

I can't think of anything ToS-friendly to call her.

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

No, very blatantly no. Shes not wrong about the fact that Palestinian people were erased in favor of Jewish people.

They weren't, though.

Yes I understand that youre trolling and arent looking for an honest conversation

You realize that the Ottoman empire which collapsed at the end of the war was a secular nation consisting of both jews and muslims, right? And that the two state solution proposed when the empire collapsed was so that both peoples would have a nation since the former empire's boundaries no longer existed. And that it was Palestine that rejected the solution which would have given them full statehood at the very beginning.

Also, while we're at it, when the Ottoman empire was carved up, it created Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. So why is it that of all those countries, only Israel is the one has questionable legitimacy?

EDIT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution#History_of_the_two-state_solution

The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The recommended partition proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine,[8][9] and was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership.

Partition was again proposed by the 1947 UN Partition plan for the division of Palestine. It proposed a three-way division, again with Jerusalem held separately, under international control. The partition plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership. However, the plan was rejected by the leadership of Arab nations and the Palestinian leadership, which opposed any partition of Palestine and any independent Jewish presence in the area. The 1948 ArabIsraeli War for control of the disputed land broke out on the end of the British Mandate, which came to an end with the 1949 Armistice Agreements. The war resulted in the fleeing or expulsion of 711,000 Palestinians, which the Palestinians call Nakba, from the territories which became the state of Israel.[10]

---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

No, very blatantly no. Shes not wrong about the fact that Palestinian people were erased in favor of Jewish people.

They weren't, though.

Yes I understand that youre trolling and arent looking for an honest conversation

Are you aware that there are about as many Palestinian people today as there are Jews?

Or were you talking about the wars, started by the countries surrounding Israel in order to remove the state of Israel, in which Palestinian people were killed?
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

I can't think of anything ToS-friendly to call her.

Probably because youre a racist

thanks-gohan posted...

Antifar posted...

To quote from Paul Waldman in the Washington Post:

If you read Tlaibs words and decided that she said that thinking of the Holocaust itself gave her a calming feeling, youd have to be too stupid to be capable of tying your own shoes.

Yet people will still think Candace Owens argued in favor of Hitler.

Because thats verbatim what she was doing
---

darkjedilink posted...

This. She literally said Palestinians have suffered due to Nazis slaughtering Jews.

The Nakba was a link at the end of that chain of historical events. It's no more anti-Semitic to say that than it's anti-Serb to say that Gavrilo Princip's assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand led indirectly to the Armenian genocide or to the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia.
---

thanks-gohan posted...

Because thats verbatim what she was doing

Lmfao

Thank you for proving my point.

Lmfao

Nice rebuttal
---

s0nicfan posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

No, very blatantly no. Shes not wrong about the fact that Palestinian people were erased in favor of Jewish people.

They weren't, though.

Yes I understand that youre trolling and arent looking for an honest conversation

You realize that the Ottoman empire which collapsed at the end of the war was a secular nation consisting of both jews and muslims, right? And that the two state solution proposed when the empire collapsed was so that both peoples would have a nation since the former empire's boundaries no longer existed. And that it was Palestine that rejected the solution which would have given them full statehood at the very beginning.

Also, while we're at it, when the Ottoman empire was carved up, it created Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. So why is it that of all those countries, only Israel is the one has questionable legitimacy?

EDIT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution#History_of_the_two-state_solution

The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The recommended partition proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine,[8][9] and was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership.

Partition was again proposed by the 1947 UN Partition plan for the division of Palestine. It proposed a three-way division, again with Jerusalem held separately, under international control. The partition plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership. However, the plan was rejected by the leadership of Arab nations and the Palestinian leadership, which opposed any partition of Palestine and any independent Jewish presence in the area. The 1948 ArabIsraeli War for control of the disputed land broke out on the end of the British Mandate, which came to an end with the 1949 Armistice Agreements. The war resulted in the fleeing or expulsion of 711,000 Palestinians, which the Palestinians call Nakba, from the territories which became the state of Israel.[10]

You sure love saying a lot of shit that in no way refutes what I said.
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

You sure love saying a lot of shit that in no way refutes what I said.

Nobody was erased, but no amount of actual historical accuracy is going to change your mind on the subject so I'm not sure why I bothered.
---

s0nicfan posted...

The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The recommended partition proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine,[8][9] and was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership.

The Peel Report recommended that nearly a quarter of a million Palestinian Arabs should be "transferred" from areas allocated to the proposed Jewish state. Peel had suggested that 225,000 Arabs be uprooted from their homes in Galilee to make breathing space for a state of 385,408 Jews -- nearly half of whom had, at that time, lived in Palestine for less than five years. Furthermore, while the Jewish part of Palestine would be granted its own independence the Arab part would not, being incorporated instead into Transjordan under Hashemite rule.

I can't begin to imagine why Palestine's Arabs might have rejected such an attractive proposal.

s0nicfan posted...

And that the two state solution proposed when the empire collapsed was so that both peoples would have a nation since the former empire's boundaries no longer existed. And that it was Palestine that rejected the solution which would have given them full statehood at the very beginning.

There was no "two state solution proposed when the empire collapsed", and the Palestinians were not offered "full statehood at the very beginning".
---

What time stamp in the podcast did she say the stuff?
---

Antifar posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

And?

And the context matters; her brining up the Holocaust was in service to a larger point, more directly related to the issue at hand
https://twitter.com/RepRashida/status/1127759449526013953

There was no need for her to bring up the Holocaust, though. Again, she made a stupid comment.

I'm surprised you aren't more critical and dissective of her comment, given that she is a politician in Congress.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Silver Bearings posted...

Yes.

This. She literally said Palestinians have suffered due to Nazis slaughtering Jews.

No, I don't think she literally is calmed by the thought of Jews taking acid showers or being roasted in ovens, but that doesn't mean she isn't anti-Semitic.

Agreed.

s0nicfan posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

You sure love saying a lot of shit that in no way refutes what I said.

Nobody was erased, but no amount of actual historical accuracy is going to change your mind on the subject so I'm not sure why I bothered.

Ok point to Palestine on a map and tell me again how their country wasnt erased? Youre arguing something false.

Im not in favor of a one state solution and I think the Palestinian leadership is disgusting before you go off on weird tangents about that again.

I know youre cranky that I proved you wrong in another topic (because you always pull this shit after youre proven wrong) but you can relax and take a deep breath instead of going off the deep end.
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

s0nicfan posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

You sure love saying a lot of shit that in no way refutes what I said.

Nobody was erased, but no amount of actual historical accuracy is going to change your mind on the subject so I'm not sure why I bothered.

Ok point to Palestine on a map and tell me again how their country wasnt erased? Youre arguing something false.

Im not in favor of a one state solution and I think the Palestinian leadership is disgusting before you go off on weird tangents about that again.

I know youre cranky that I proved you wrong in another topic (because you always pull this shit after youre proven wrong) but you can relax and take a deep breath instead of going off the deep end.

To point to a map and show that Palestine was erased you'd first have to show me an internationally recognized map that had a country of Palestine in the first place. Prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire it was always a region, not a country. You're saying something that never existed was erased, and that's where you're being disingenuous or ill informed.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139168

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time. Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled the Jewish Wars, the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews historic archenemy, the Philistines.

This province then became part of the Byzantine Empire and part of several different Muslim empires after that. For a brief stretch, part of the land fell into the hands of the Crusaders who called it The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. But under a thousand years of Muslim rule, Palestine never quite remained the same, having been subject to administrative adjustments over the years, with the name even falling into disuse for a period of time. In the last four hundred years of Ottoman rule, what was labeled Palestine changed over the centuries, as the territory was divided and sub-divided into separate entities. In the nineteenth century what we call historic Palestine today was actually divided into three different administrative entities.

So, the historical record says that Palestine was never a country, and was rarely ever an intact entity. At most it was a geographic entity like Scandinavia but, even as that, it changed over time.

---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

s0nicfan posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

You sure love saying a lot of shit that in no way refutes what I said.

Nobody was erased, but no amount of actual historical accuracy is going to change your mind on the subject so I'm not sure why I bothered.

Ok point to Palestine on a map and tell me again how their country wasnt erased?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:State_of_Palestine_(orthographic_projection).svg

Israel is occupying Palestine now because of security reasons. In the 70s Israel also included the Sinai Peninsula, but they gave that back to Egypt because they made peace with Egypt.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are treated unfairly in the name of Israeli security, but Israel isn't the only reason why Israeli-Palestinian peace has failed for so long. Palestine is also at fault.

Israel just feels that if they were to give in to Palestine's demands as they stand now, it would be the first step toward their elimination. And are they wrong?
---

Oh good, the Palestine never existed dogwhistle

Edit: to be clear, thats aimed at sonic, no D_U
---

Firewerx posted...

s0nicfan posted...

The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The recommended partition proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine,[8][9] and was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership.

The Peel Report recommended that nearly a quarter of a million Palestinian Arabs should be "transferred" from areas allocated to the proposed Jewish state. Peel had suggested that 225,000 Arabs be uprooted from their homes in Galilee to make breathing space for a state of 385,408 Jews -- nearly half of whom had, at that time, lived in Palestine for less than five years. Furthermore, while the Jewish part of Palestine would be granted its own independence the Arab part would not, being incorporated instead into Transjordan under Hashemite rule.

I can't begin to imagine why Palestine's Arabs might have rejected such an attractive proposal.

s0nicfan posted...

And that the two state solution proposed when the empire collapsed was so that both peoples would have a nation since the former empire's boundaries no longer existed. And that it was Palestine that rejected the solution which would have given them full statehood at the very beginning.

There was no "two state solution proposed when the empire collapsed", and the Palestinians were not offered "full statehood at the very beginning".

You might have a point if at any point in the past 80 years the Palestinians had offered or considered ANY proposal that wasn't literally a second Holocaust.
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Oh good, the Palestine never existed dogwhistle

You've done nothing but casually swat aside every source I've provided while yourself adding nothing of value beyond demanding answers of people. I'll say this again because you so deftly ignored it earlier:
s0nicfan posted...

Also, while we're at it, when the Ottoman empire was carved up, it created Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. So why is it that of all those countries, only Israel is the one has questionable legitimacy?

You want to claim Palestine was erased, but you don't want to engage with the fact that Palestine was never a country. You want to just say shit you want to be true and then when someone points out it's literally not you just pretend like it is anyway.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

s0nicfan posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

You sure love saying a lot of shit that in no way refutes what I said.

Nobody was erased, but no amount of actual historical accuracy is going to change your mind on the subject so I'm not sure why I bothered.

Ok point to Palestine on a map and tell me again how their country wasnt erased?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:State_of_Palestine_(orthographic_projection).svg

Israel is occupying Palestine now because of security reasons. In the 70s Israel also included the Sinai Peninsula, but they gave that back to Egypt because they made peace with Egypt.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are treated unfairly in the name of Israeli security, but Israel isn't the only reason why Israeli-Palestinian peace has failed for so long. Palestine is also at fault.

Israel just feels that if they were to give in to Palestine's demands as they stand now, it would be the first step toward their elimination. And are they wrong?

Quote my entire post
---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

Damn_Underscore posted...

Israel just feels that if they were to give in to Palestine's demands as they stand now, it would be the first step toward their elimination. And are they wrong?

Considering Palestinians literally elected a de-facto terrorist organization to run their government, train child soldiers, defend rocket attacks on innocent civilians, and literally have children's TV shows calling for the murder of Jews, I would argue that nobody can seriously argue that Israel is wrong to feel like that.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are treated unfairly in the name of Israeli security, but Israel isn't the only reason why Israeli-Palestinian peace has failed for so long. Palestine is also at fault.

ah yes,,,,, the people who throw rocks at the bulldozers destroying their home are partly to blame. this is a good opinion

Israel just feels that if they were to give in to Palestine's demands as they stand now, it would be the first step toward their elimination. And are they wrong?

would the elimination of an apartheid ethnostate be a bad thing?
---

Firewerx posted...

darkjedilink posted...

This. She literally said Palestinians have suffered due to Nazis slaughtering Jews.

The Nakba was a link at the end of that chain of historical events. It's no more anti-Semitic to say that than it's anti-Serb to say that Gavrilo Princip's assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand led indirectly to the Armenian genocide or to the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia.

You mean that war the Muslim Palestinians started while being ruled by the British?

How many times do Muslims get to start wars with Jews, and then lose, before people start to realize that maybe Muslims should stop trying to kill Jews?
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

s0nicfan posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

You sure love saying a lot of shit that in no way refutes what I said.

Nobody was erased, but no amount of actual historical accuracy is going to change your mind on the subject so I'm not sure why I bothered.

Ok point to Palestine on a map and tell me again how their country wasnt erased?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:State_of_Palestine_(orthographic_projection).svg

Israel is occupying Palestine now because of security reasons. In the 70s Israel also included the Sinai Peninsula, but they gave that back to Egypt because they made peace with Egypt.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are treated unfairly in the name of Israeli security, but Israel isn't the only reason why Israeli-Palestinian peace has failed for so long. Palestine is also at fault.

Israel just feels that if they were to give in to Palestine's demands as they stand now, it would be the first step toward their elimination. And are they wrong?

Quote my entire post

The rest of it is not relevant to what I said. If anything, it agrees with what I said. If you think the Palestinian leadership is horrible (I assume you mean in a humanitarian way), then you should agree that Israel would be foolish to give in to them.

I think the best solution is for Israel to give Palestinians more rights.
---

averagejoel posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are treated unfairly in the name of Israeli security, but Israel isn't the only reason why Israeli-Palestinian peace has failed for so long. Palestine is also at fault.

ah yes,,,,, the people who throw rocks at the bulldozers destroying their home are partly to blame. this is a good opinion

Israel just feels that if they were to give in to Palestine's demands as they stand now, it would be the first step toward their elimination. And are they wrong?

would the elimination of an apartheid ethnostate be a bad thing?

Why are the bulldozers there again? Oh, that's right - that house was owned by someone shooting rockets at school busses and grocery stores.
---

Samurontai posted...

Probably because youre a racist

Not the direction I was going with that.

thanks-gohan posted...

Antifar posted...

To quote from Paul Waldman in the Washington Post:

If you read Tlaibs words and decided that she said that thinking of the Holocaust itself gave her a calming feeling, youd have to be too stupid to be capable of tying your own shoes.

Yet people will still think Candace Owens argued in favor of Hitler.

Or that Trump's infamous "animals" comment was aimed at illegal immigration and not MS-13.
---

thanks-gohan posted...

Samurontai posted...

thanks-gohan posted...

Because thats verbatim what she was doing

Lmfao

Thank you for proving my point.

Lmfao

Nice rebuttal

No matter how hard I will try to convince the stupid belief she was defending Hitler that she wasn't is the same effort trying to convince the stupid belief this person was saying the holocaust was calming.

You can argue in favor of someone without defending them. This is a thing that is possible, you do know that, right?
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Samurontai posted...

Probably because youre a racist

Not the direction I was going with that.

Couldve fooled me, especially given your shady posting history
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

s0nicfan posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

You sure love saying a lot of shit that in no way refutes what I said.

Nobody was erased, but no amount of actual historical accuracy is going to change your mind on the subject so I'm not sure why I bothered.

Ok point to Palestine on a map and tell me again how their country wasnt erased?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:State_of_Palestine_(orthographic_projection).svg

Israel is occupying Palestine now because of security reasons. In the 70s Israel also included the Sinai Peninsula, but they gave that back to Egypt because they made peace with Egypt.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are treated unfairly in the name of Israeli security, but Israel isn't the only reason why Israeli-Palestinian peace has failed for so long. Palestine is also at fault.

Israel just feels that if they were to give in to Palestine's demands as they stand now, it would be the first step toward their elimination. And are they wrong?

Quote my entire post

The rest of it is not relevant to what I said. If anything, it agrees with what I said. If you think the Palestinian leadership is horrible (I assume you mean in a humanitarian way), then you should agree that Israel would be foolish to give in to them.

I think the best solution is for Israel to give Palestinians more rights.

If you think I agree then why are you trying to argue?
---

darkjedilink posted...

You might have a point if at any point in the past 80 years the Palestinians had offered or considered ANY proposal that wasn't literally a second Holocaust.

I've already got a point, and it's that in history, the facts matter.
---

Samurontai posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Samurontai posted...

Probably because youre a racist

Not the direction I was going with that.

Couldve fooled me, especially given your shady posting history

Yes, I'm going to be racist toward an Arab woman for being racist toward Jews. That makes sense.

And what posting history are you speaking of?