We also must name the U.S. contribution to Cuban suffering: our sixty-year-old embargo. Last month, once again, the U.N. voted overwhelmingly to call on the United States to lift its embargo on Cuba. The embargo is absurdly cruel and, like too many other U.S. policies targeting Latin Americans, the cruelty is the point. I outright reject the Biden administration’s defense of the embargo. It is never acceptable for us to use cruelty as a point of leverage against every day people
AOC has been calling for a cease fire and more aid since last year. She might not have used the word genocide until now, but it's not like she has been cool with things up till now either.
The US isn't complicit. It (along with several European countries) are active participants by supplying weapons, intelligence and as is rumoured, bodies on the ground
My point still stands. The main perpetrators pf and main agitators for an extended bombing campaign (read genocide) are Israeli politicians.
If the US under a republican President were to bomb the gaza strip to shut without israeli consent, Jones would be silent.
"What Israel is doing is terrible, on top of their mistreatment of the Palestinian people for decades they've now crossed a line and seem to be willing to remove them all from existence. This is a genocide, and we should enforce a cease fire and an embargo."
"What Israel is doing is terrible, on top of their mistreatment of the Palestinian people for decades they've now crossed a line and are killing people indiscriminately. The fact that some people are calling it a genocide is telling of the immense gravity of the situation, and we should enforce a cease fire and an embargo."
"How could you NOT call it a genocide??!?!?"
Both statements are virtually the same thing, have the same worries and are calling for the same solutions, yet the later get shat on because it doesn't virtue signal. There are lots of seemingly dumb reasons why politicians and PR departments may choose to use some terms and avoid others, and some of those decisions are mere pragmatism that doesn't change in essence their goal or effect. I think AOC has flaws, just like almost any politician, but making a gigantic deal out of this smells like it's been promoted by grifters looking to start drama.
At the beginning she was very much on the Israel side. The well known "israel has the right to defend themselves". Even back then Israel was hitting hospitals.
She only flipped recently. Faster than the pure establishment Democrats, but still a very bad look.
This article from back in October of '23 does not state that at all, and I never read her take the position of "Israel has the right to defend themselves", but rather the opposite.
Earlier, she called the events of the weekend “devastating for all those seeking a lasting peace and respect for human rights in Israel and Palestine” and said, “I condemn Hamas’ attack in the strongest possible terms.”
But she also called for an “immediate ceasefire and de-escalation".™
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., condemned the “bigotry and callousness” displayed at a pro-Palestinian rally held this weekend and promoted by some of her allies.
The rally had been promoted by Democratic Socialists of America, a left-wing group that helped elect Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives, but it faced criticism from some of its own elected officials for endorsing the event, which was held even before Israel had been able to count the dead.
“It should not be hard to shut down hatred and antisemitism where we see it. That is a core tenet of solidarity,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement first shared with Politico's New York affiliate late Monday.
“The bigotry and callousness expressed in Times Square on Sunday were unacceptable and harmful in this devastating moment," the congresswoman continued. "It also did not speak for the thousands of New Yorkers who are capable of rejecting both Hamas’ horrifying attacks against innocent civilians as well as the grave injustices and violence Palestinians face under occupation.”
No, there were pro-Palastine people at the event who were being anti-Semitic and she called them out. But in the article you see that while she has called the attack by Hamas an evil act she also stated that it was brought about by Israel's treatment of Arabs in that country. She's been asking for them to not slaughter innocent Palestinians since the beginning. It's literally right there at the end of everything you quoted.
“The bigotry and callousness expressed in Times Square on Sunday were unacceptable and harmful in this devastating moment," the congresswoman continued. "It also did not speak for the thousands of New Yorkers who are capable of rejecting both Hamas’ horrifying attacks against innocent civilians as well as the grave injustices and violence Palestinians face under occupation.”
That's thanks to the excellent healthcare system. The country is still lacking in food, medical supplies, and building materials — all of which could just be imported as necessary like any other country if not for the embargo.
At this point, I think some American politicians and policy makers are afraid of Cuba surpassing the US in living conditions if the embargo is dropped, and Cuba is given a fair shot. A thriving Cuba would serve as fodder for a leftward push in politics in the US, and I don't think any of the lobbyists or their puppets want that, at all.
Not to mention that, given the average age of said politicians and policy makers, one can only assume many of their brains are heavily washed with the Red Scare era propaganda.
"I condemn Hamas’ attack in the strongest possible terms. No child and family should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing oppression and occupation in the region."
Yes, completely expected that despite her calling for a ceasefire, you would find something objectionable that is also 100% disqualifying. Weird that what you chose is the condemnation of a terrorist attack but okay.
Resistance to colonization is not terrorism. Its a really weird point coming from people who praise so much your own fight against the British colonization
It is literally, by definition, terrorism in this case. What you meant to say, if you put any thought into your position, is that terrorism isn't always bad. A significant weaker force using gorilla tactics and politics to fight a stronger force is the only hope they have to succeed. No one can expect Palestine to resist using conventional warfare.
Terrorism is a tool. The US engages in terrorism constantly. The police enforce their rule (in the US) by using terrorism. Just about every government uses terrorism. It's just only ok (as decided by the elites) when it's state sanctioned and by a stronger force against a weaker one.
"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims." I believe every definition of terrorism will be similar. Nothing about that definition has anything to do with morality though. Terrorism can be acceptable. It's only people who have bought into the mainstream ideas that think terrorism is always wrong. I would say you need to re-evaluate your ideals if you think Hamas can be correct but terrorism must be bad. One of those does not follow from the other. Terrorism can be used for good, and there's no reason to think otherwise.
And sure, terrorism can be used to defeat terrorism. You can have counter-terrorist terrorists. I would personally argue they always are, and I think it'd be difficult to argue against that.
Terrorizing military targets is completely different from terrorizing civilians. Civilian terrorism has never been an effective tool for the people doing the terrorism. It has always resulted in a huge backlash that basically destroys whatever movement it's working for.
If you want actual quotes from AOC, look at her social media. The mainstream media, where you likely got these false notions about when she called for a ceasefire from, is invested in getting her out of office.
Look this is true but AT LEAST it's how politics is supposed to work, it's not about choosing the most ethically and morally consistent person, it's about having a person in the seat who will vote the way their constituents want, no more