AIPAC support pro Israel candidates. These candidates usually also have other strenghs and their opposition usually also have other weakneses.
Well, House members are supposed to representate their district, be the voice of them and
their interest to the country.
Tlaib kind of does that by representive Dearborn interests, but there are more areas in the district. Inkster, west Detroit, Southfield, etc. Her district is 45% black accoding to DRA.
Now, Tlaib's stances on domestic issues appealing to a good part of the black and white democrat electorate there. That´s her main appeal. The way to confront her on that would be running someonw with "experience getting democrat goals done".
Kinniebrew isn´t a bad fit like Dolan, but he isn´t a strong candidate. He can´t run on any record agaisnt Tlaib. I can see him trying to make himself better know for 2026, and get some ties for the next primary...
If across the country, Democrats get to choose between two otherwise identical candidates, but one supports genocide of the Palestinians and the latter opposes genocide of the Palestinians, the former would be blown completely out of the water.
Yeah, but this is a moot point since no one is committing genocide against the Palestinians. This is simply an objective fact. Words have meaning. If you want to argue some individuals on the Israeli side have committed war crimes (and I would argue this is the case), there’s definitely room for discussion there. And I’ve long argued Israel has been (and is continuing to) commit crimes against humanity in the West Bank. However, genocide is a clearly defined term for good reason and there simply is no reasonable argument that Israel’s actions in Gaza are a genocide.
That is the lowest of low bars to clear. It doesn’t mean Israel didn’t commit war crimes or even crimes against humanity. It simply means they aren’t committing genocide there, no more and no less. If the ICJ claims that they are committing genocide, then that will be an act of anti-Israel virtue signaling for propaganda purposes by the ICJ and one with no true basis in reality. Like, the ICJ tried to add teeth to its attack on Israeli sovereignty when it ordered them to withdraw from Rafah by invoking genocide definition language while describing conditions there in their demand. So instead of talking in a reality-based way about the situation in Rafah and forcing the “Israel has never done anything wrong” crowd to address the horrible conditions there, the ICJ made it easy to hand waive away as not worth taking seriously due to the ridiculously inaccurate and dishonest use of genocide language.
To be clear, Israel should withdraw from Rafah immediately and unconditionally (provided it can do so while making clear that it used the ICJ order as toilet paper) and really shouldn’t have gone in until Hamas was cleared out of the rest of Gaza and both Deif and the Sinwar brothers had been dealt with)
I honestly don’t know why folks on the anti-Israel side are so obsessed with the word “genocide.” It is unambiguously a wildly inaccurate claim and always shifts the debate from the litany of legitimate criticisms one can make of both Israeli conduct during the ongoing Gaza campaign and Israeli treatment of Palestinians in general. I get that it has become buzzword propaganda, but it perfectly sets up pro-Israel hardliners to avoid an of the actual issues with Israel’s conduct and policies.
For example, instead of talking about how horrible yesterday’s bombing in Rafah was, a person who was so inclined could easily deflect and opt not to acknowledge the airstrike/footage of the aftermath at all in favor of derailing the conversation by converting it into a debate over whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza (which it very much is not). But I digress…
