Ocasio-Cortez Loses the Democratic Socialists’ Endorsement Over Israel
Ocasio-Cortez Loses the Democratic Socialists’ Endorsement Over Israel
The New York congresswoman was blamed for not being supportive enough of the Palestinian cause and efforts to end the war in Gaza.
The Democratic Socialists of America pulled its endorsement of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York this week, accusing the progressive congresswoman of being insufficiently supportive of the Palestinian cause and efforts to end the war in Gaza..
Her approach has increasingly strained her relationship with some of the left’s most strident critics of Israel. When she rallied last month in the Bronx with Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Jamaal Bowman, dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators angry over her endorsement of Mr. Biden chanted “You’re a fraud, A.O.C.”
You're viewing a single thread.
Oh no the literal tankies are against her what will she do? These people are not Democratic socialists, they're not even leftists. These people suck the dick of totalitarianism.
What does tankie mean to you in this context? Actually curious, because I don't get it.. it's starting to become like "woke" in my mind.
ok, so people who pretend like the Russians and/or Chinese being communists and justifying their fascistic imperialist actions, while going on about American imperialism as the literal sole antagonist of the universe are by definition tankies.
and the DCA are tankies, you can find it in a lot of their publications if you read them, for example, the basis for supporting the free Palestine students movement isn't to support the Palestinian people in the creation of their own state, as a principle right of any group of peoples, but rather because they believe it would hemm in American imperialist power in the Middle East
Not OP but I think the groupthink here is just using tankie as a catch all whereas their main gripe is accelerationism.
Accelerationism is the new Nihilism for the disenfranchised. It doesn't take much to grasp and requires little to no input from its supporters in this phase.
Accelerationism is not the answer. I am old enough to see what the traditional tactics have bought us. That doesn't mean I am willing to watch the world burn so the soil is enriched.
Which sucks because nihilism wasn't a doomer outlook
Yes and no. As with most things, it's more complicated than that. While it's true that not many philosophers would claim to be "pure" nihilists, instead opting to qualify their position, there are nihilists who do have a very doomer outlook so to speak.
This is why in the article you linked, nihilism is qualified as "optimistic". This kind of nihilism is often associated with Nietzsche and later as your article mentioned, Sartre. Though I'm not sure Sartre would say he was a nihilist; Sartre was a huge figure for the existentialists. However, the two movements have a lot in common and one could argue that optimistic nihilism and existentialism are close enough to be considered the same thing. I am aware of some scholars who consider, for example, Nietzsche to be an early existentialist. It must be noted, however, that the optimistic qualification is of utmost importance. Nihilism says flatly that there is no meaning, existentialism says that we are able to decide what is meaningful.
Anyway, this is all to say that Nihilism (with a capital N) is a pretty pessimistic and "doomer" idea to have. Nietzsche himself argued that the solution to nihilism was to destroy all interpretations of the world so that we can start from zero and hopefully realize some actual meaning. Perhaps my understanding of doomer is wrong, but from where I'm standing, nihilism and doomerism are pretty much the same thing. Different flavours of nihilism will produce different conclusions about this connection.
"Tankie" is absolutely the chronically online moderate Democrat's version of woke.
I laughed reading all the responses below.. you're the most correct just based on that alone.
It's like The People's Front of Judeah sketch playing out in real time. Tribalism and the need for absolutism in uncertainty.
They’re not all “tankies:”
In 1956, a "Tankie" was someone who endorsed the Stalin's tanks driving through Hungary to suppress a counter-revolution.
In 1989, a "Tankie" was someone who endorsed the Deng Xiaoping's tanks driving through Tienanmen Square to suppress a student riot.
In 2024, a "Tankie" is someone who thinks Netanyahu's tanks driving through Gaza to suppress the Al Aqsa Flood has gone too far.
The DSA aren’t all tankies, the socialist majority caucus within the DSA, a majority caucus, is very lenient on their position concerning Israel:
Conditioning aid to Israel
The NPC had a brief political discussion about the progress of the “No Money for Massacres” campaign. Renée framed the conversation by walking through potential scenarios of an Israel military aid package, including the possibility of amendments that set conditions for the aid. One example is a recent Senate proposal that would require foreign aid recipients to comply with international law.
In the middle of this discussion, Marxist Unity Group members put forward a motion that would have, among other things. established DSA’s position as not supportive of harm reduction measures such as conditioning Israeli aid. This motion failed by a large margin with several abstentions, and it’s not difficult to see why: The motion was out of touch with our current political moment.
Currently, a supermajority of Congress has not publicly supported a ceasefire and remains supportive of military aid to Israel. Barring a massive shift in public and congressional opinion—which DSA is working diligently to achieve—an Israel aid package likely has the necessary votes for passage.
If aid is going to pass anyway, the very least DSA and our endorsed congressmembers can do is use the vote to propagandize. For example, when the House voted on a Republican Israel aid package last month, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced an amendment to bar the use of white phosphorus against civilians.
AOC was almost certainly aware that there was no chance her amendment would pass; indeed, it wasn’t even brought to a vote. That’s because it wasn’t intended to pass. Rather it was a strategic move to highlight the war crimes Israel is committing against the Palestinian people. And if the amendment had been brought to a vote, it would have put pro-Israel Democrats on the defensive and forced them to vote down a clear rejection of war crimes.
MUG’s motion missed the point of why amendments like this are filed in the first place. The motion would have required DSA not to support amendments like AOC’s, blurring the message we are trying to send about Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.
That’s why we’re pleased that the NPC recently voted to endorse Sen. Sanders’ 502B(c) resolution, which would require the U.S. State Department to issue a report on Israel’s human rights practices within thirty days and cut off all security assistance if they fail to do so. Legislation like this can expose both parties’ blatant disregard for human rights and put pro-Israel congressmembers on the defensive.
I’m posting this significant portion because many don’t have time to read the whole position. I would encourage you to expand your opinion of what the DSA represents and its capabilities.
If you disagree with them, fine, but don’t misrepresent their positions.
Typical neoliberal. Still using homophobic insults. But surely you’re not a bad person.
That's not a homophobic insult. It's a more vulgar way of saying they're in bed with them, which also isn't homophobic. It just means they're very close.