Rep. Tlaib rejects offer to visit Israel under 'oppressive conditions'

For the right to understand the left, they need to understand victimhood. This is what drives the left most of the time. Victimhood trumps laws. This is why the headlines are always about victims and oppressors. Children in cages trumps immigration laws, thus open the borders to end the suffering.

Covering the “Squad” Msnbc. Look at victimhood. And there are a whole lot of defense from MSNBC. The "Squad’ is the victim.

  1. Reb. Talib rejects offer to visit Israel under ‘oppressive’ conditions
  2. Fmr. Dem Rep. Edwards: Israel blocking Trump rivals shows Netanyahu’s weakness
  3. Unprecedented: Trump demands Israel retaliate against ‘The Squad’
  4. Fmr. Dem Rep. Edwards: Israel blocking Trump rivals shows Netanyahu’s weakness

When the left covers Trump, he is the oppressor.

  1. Trump shames protestor says: campaign built on love.
  2. Trump nominates “ethanationalism” for judgeship
  3. Danger of Trump, urgency of his removal unites democratic camp
  4. Obama adviser: Trump is danger to world economy
  5. Beto O’Rourke: taking the fight places terrorized by Trump
  6. Trump relinquishes US moral authority with sympathy for dictators
  7. Army veteran calls Trump ‘the biggest enemy

See when covering Trump he is the pressor, when covering the democrats they are the victim. It is not surprise.

To understand this is a way to try and navigate the divide. I have no idea how to navigate it.

I don’t get her racism comment against Israel. Which group of people has said the other group of people have no right to exist?

I am not sure how to understand this. Is it a horrible thing? or this is just normal talk which people understand on the left. I find the use of “oppressive conditions” quite exaggerated. It just does not makes sense to me. However I do know left wing is about feelings. Nothing wrong with that, but it just does not make sense.

Before I trigger some. I am not saying she is a terrorist, this is just an analogy, and I am known to make bad analogies.

Imagine an ISIS spokesperson wanted to come to the U.S. and speak to ISIS leaders and not U.S. politicians. Should the U.S. have the right to ban them? or would that be oppressive conditions? Would that be a muslim ban for the speaker?

Israel spoke about this and what she and the other congressman where going to do. It was not in Israels best interest. Why is that bad?

I am at a lost here.

Which group did say that of the other group? Did that really happen?

Once I was researching a topic unrelated to the Palestinians and Israelis and I came across 972mag , that’s the name of the website, there is nothing bad about it from what I see but they are not Pro-Ruling-Government of Israel but the website claims to be written by Israelis, Palestinians and others. I find nothing sinister about the website if you wish to read basically a non-offensive opposition source, they aren’t bad. They may have used “apartheid state” in the past, I object to that word. I think they’ve tried to tone it down.

You know, I don’t get that website but it is like almost all conflicts or disagreements we see in the world, often it’s not black and white, people A hate people B. Though, of course, I don’t think there is any room for terrorism and hate. It’s been going on for too long.

Apologies if website is too far out… maybe it is.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.