This seems like the kind of ridiculous purity test that divides potential coalitions. He’s got a ton of Jews and Muslims in his district but he was speaking out against aid to Israel before it was cool.
How would/did you vote differently? And other than what it means for how he serves his very divided constituents, why does the nuance of his position on Zionism matter here?
I genuinely question the intent of both comments you’ve made in this thread.
I would like him not to invest in israeli wepons and not support making bds illegal for basics and would rather he not support the existense of a settler colonial ethnostate if it stops being so blantant in its genoicdes but what do i know.
I didn’t ask how you would prefer he be, I would prefer that too. I would not say he sucks though, at least compared to the status quo. But for you he sucks enough to make it the point of your (in my opinion) unhelpful and nuancephobic comment, in the context of celebrating progressive gains.
He’s taken heat for pursuing radical solutions to homelessness, he criticized aid to Israel before it was cool, and he got arrested for trying to hold ICE accountable.
So I’m asking who you would have supported instead. That’s all.
they are a “liberal” zionist who is for conditioning aid to israel but I for don’t trust that if Israel stops actively invading and returns to status quo where they are still occupying and slowly ethnically cleansing the west bank, gaza, syria, southern lebanon it seems to me he would support giving them aid. He also with that believes in Israel’s existence and thus legitimizes a settler colonial outpost.
Brad Lander is a boss hog. If it wasn’t going to be Zohran, it needed to be Brad. They cross endorsed.
I thought that you should never cross endorsements.
In ranked choice in a crowded field, why wouldn’t you?
Brad sucks sorry but he’s a self professed zionist for example.
This seems like the kind of ridiculous purity test that divides potential coalitions. He’s got a ton of Jews and Muslims in his district but he was speaking out against aid to Israel before it was cool.
How would/did you vote differently? And other than what it means for how he serves his very divided constituents, why does the nuance of his position on Zionism matter here?
I genuinely question the intent of both comments you’ve made in this thread.
I would like him not to invest in israeli wepons and not support making bds illegal for basics and would rather he not support the existense of a settler colonial ethnostate if it stops being so blantant in its genoicdes but what do i know.
I didn’t ask how you would prefer he be, I would prefer that too. I would not say he sucks though, at least compared to the status quo. But for you he sucks enough to make it the point of your (in my opinion) unhelpful and nuancephobic comment, in the context of celebrating progressive gains.
He’s taken heat for pursuing radical solutions to homelessness, he criticized aid to Israel before it was cool, and he got arrested for trying to hold ICE accountable.
So I’m asking who you would have supported instead. That’s all.
Ahh fuck really? I thought they were 100% against funding aid to Israel?
they are a “liberal” zionist who is for conditioning aid to israel but I for don’t trust that if Israel stops actively invading and returns to status quo where they are still occupying and slowly ethnically cleansing the west bank, gaza, syria, southern lebanon it seems to me he would support giving them aid. He also with that believes in Israel’s existence and thus legitimizes a settler colonial outpost.