samurai_science said:Stone Choir said:
Wanting your tax dollars to stay at home and not go overseas is anti-Semitic somehow. Just a crazy world we live in.
Now do Ukraine and being "pro Russia"
Stone Choir said:samurai_science said:Stone Choir said:
Wanting your tax dollars to stay at home and not go overseas is anti-Semitic somehow. Just a crazy world we live in.
Now do Ukraine and being "pro Russia"
I support keep all money locally and no foreign aid anywhere unless we get a return on the investment.
That's not what San Marcos is stating.Hondo, said:
Why is this so hard to understand?
You are FREE to donate as much of your OWN money to any and all causes you wish! But there is no justification for using taxpayer funds for foreign governments!
pagerman @ work said:It's federal tax money, and the "local" part of it is a calculation of the federal taxes paid by the citizens of San Marcos per citizen.CrackerJackAg said:AgNav93 said:
When did San Marcos become such a limp wristed liberal town?
I think it is absolutely insane. That local taxpayer money is going to fund Isreal.
I find it 1000 times more insane that supposed to conservative people on this forum have lost sight of the actual issue here.
The idea, that in the United States, you cannot be antisemitic without punishment. You should have the right to be anti-whatever it is you want to be. Pro-whatever you want to be.
Should it be a crime to be anti-black?
Should it be a crime to be anti-Chinese?
The absolute absurdity that is going on here blows my mind and so many of you think it's correct.
This is not state money, and is the equivalent of the hippie peackniks and sovereign citizen wackos declaring that they don't have to pay X dollars of their taxes to support the "war machine" in DC or whatever.
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it antisemitic. I read the entire statement and challenge you to point out a single antisemitic sentence within it. Call it hyperbolic or lacking context or outright false if you can, but stop conflating anti-Israel sentiment with antisemitism.Champion of Fireball said:Captain Pablo said:
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1NknoEMd7G7qx06HhmoeZG77J9ZOd9EbTzQy3GAUgKQY/mobilebasic?pli=1
The resolution draft
Good lord
Wow!!! Yeah that is not even vailed antisemitism.
2. Support an end to the State of Israel's apartheid, occupation, and blockade of Palestine, including Gaza and the West Bank, to guarantee the self-determination and preservation of life for all Palestinian people.esteban said:Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it antisemitic. I read the entire statement and challenge you to point out a single antisemitic sentence within it. Call it hyperbolic or lacking context or outright false if you can, but stop conflating anti-Israel sentiment with antisemitism.Champion of Fireball said:Captain Pablo said:
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1NknoEMd7G7qx06HhmoeZG77J9ZOd9EbTzQy3GAUgKQY/mobilebasic?pli=1
The resolution draft
Good lord
Wow!!! Yeah that is not even vailed antisemitism.
Captain Winky said:
That is quite the leap to think that #2 is calling for the end of Israel.
LOL. Read the letterGig em G said:
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2025/05/01/israel-ceasefire-resolution-san-marcos-texas-greg-abbott-threatens-funding/83389321007/
I didn't hear about the story until this weekend, but apparently the San Marcos City Council claimed more than $4.4 million in city residents' tax dollars went to Israel rather than to domestic priorities. The city council also proposed an Israel-Hamas ceasefire resolution (which admittedly is strange for a Texas city to do) scheduled for a vote on May 6th. The proposal also includes support for ending U.S. military funding of Israel with federal and local tax dollars.
Abbott is not happy, saying it is "Pro-Hamas" and "I have repeatedly made clear that Texas will not tolerate antisemitism. Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies." He is threatening that to cut off state funding to San Marcos if the resolution passes, due to it violating House Bill 89 that prohibits any governmental contracts with entities that boycott Israel. San Marcos City Council has said this does not constitute a boycott of Israel but rather a call to reevaluate funding priorities.Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies.
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) April 29, 2025
Sent a letter to the City of San Marcos today condemning its proposed antisemitic resolution openly flouting Texas state law.
Texas will NOT tolerate antisemitism. pic.twitter.com/17gJkFu6hv
Which brings me back to a question I keep having recently. Does it make you "antisemitic" if you don't want your tax dollars should go to another foreign government, or even perhaps critical of the Israeli government or the actions of the IDF? That alone does not have to do with your perception of Jewish people or the Jewish faith. Also Abbott himself has publicly criticized how money has been sent to Ukraine. I don't see how this is all that different.Joe Biden needs to stop giving money to foreign countries like Ukraine and start providing it to our fellow Americans.
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) January 9, 2025
Homes are burning down and lives are being lost. It's tragic and outrageous.
What America needs is what President Trump will provide: an America first agenda. pic.twitter.com/AXcDLU5IgC
So, does prioritizing tax dollars for Americans first over more aid to Israel REALLY make you an antisemite? Criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza? Why is the line drawn here? There are Anti-Zionist Jews in this country, so what does that make them?
The West Bank has been under Israeli military occupation since '67. Israel appears to be in the process of occupying Gaza. There is nothing antisemitic whatsoever about opposing those actions by the Israeli government. It's essentially supporting a two-state solution, which was official Israeli policy until very recently.pagerman @ work said:Captain Winky said:
That is quite the leap to think that #2 is calling for the end of Israel.
Why would "including Gaza and the West Bank" need to be specifically mentioned as additions to Israel's "illegal occupation" rather than its totality?
The underlying assumption is that the State of Israel itself is illegally occupying "Palestinian lands", and thus the ending of this "illegal occupation" would necessarily mean the end of Israel.
It's not a leap, it's in the text.
which utterly ignores what I stated.esteban said:The West Bank has been under Israeli military occupation since '67. Israel appears to be in the process of occupying Gaza. There is nothing antisemitic whatsoever about opposing those actions by the Israeli government. It's essentially supporting a two-state solution, which was official Israeli policy until very recently.pagerman @ work said:Captain Winky said:
That is quite the leap to think that #2 is calling for the end of Israel.
Why would "including Gaza and the West Bank" need to be specifically mentioned as additions to Israel's "illegal occupation" rather than its totality?
The underlying assumption is that the State of Israel itself is illegally occupying "Palestinian lands", and thus the ending of this "illegal occupation" would necessarily mean the end of Israel.
It's not a leap, it's in the text.
I did. Calling for an end to the occupation is not the same as calling for the end of Israel nor is it antisemitic in any way. You're reading something extra into the statement that isn't there. You can question the underlying intent all you want, but the statement itself contains not one word of antisemitism. It's a political grievance with the actions of a foreign government.pagerman @ work said:which utterly ignores what I stated.esteban said:The West Bank has been under Israeli military occupation since '67. Israel appears to be in the process of occupying Gaza. There is nothing antisemitic whatsoever about opposing those actions by the Israeli government. It's essentially supporting a two-state solution, which was official Israeli policy until very recently.pagerman @ work said:Captain Winky said:
That is quite the leap to think that #2 is calling for the end of Israel.
Why would "including Gaza and the West Bank" need to be specifically mentioned as additions to Israel's "illegal occupation" rather than its totality?
The underlying assumption is that the State of Israel itself is illegally occupying "Palestinian lands", and thus the ending of this "illegal occupation" would necessarily mean the end of Israel.
It's not a leap, it's in the text.
Care to address what I actually wrote?
Gig em G said:
Tax dollars are mentioned in the city's resolution they drafted, and that's what I am referring to for the sake of this conversation. Regardless, I don't think supporting Palestinian sovereignty or an embargo on the State of Israel has anything to do with antisemitism. Again see Antizionist Jews as an example of how that label doesn't work here...
Stone Choir said:
Wanting your tax dollars to stay at home and not go overseas is anti-Semitic somehow. Just a crazy world we live in.
BonfireNerd04 said:Stone Choir said:
Wanting your tax dollars to stay at home and not go overseas is anti-Semitic somehow. Just a crazy world we live in.
There's a huge difference between "we shouldn't give aid to Israel because we need the money here" and "we shouldn't give aid to Israel because it's an illegitimate colonial settler state who deserved to be attacked on October 7, 2023."
They've been occupying and illegally settling the West Bank and terrorizing Gaza for the last 60 years. They've killed countless civilians, children, journalists, aid workers and accused them all of being terrorists. They're trying to starve what's left of the civilian population. You're free to support that with your time and money. I feel no such obligation.Science Denier said:Gig em G said:
Tax dollars are mentioned in the city's resolution they drafted, and that's what I am referring to for the sake of this conversation. Regardless, I don't think supporting Palestinian sovereignty or an embargo on the State of Israel has anything to do with antisemitism. Again see Antizionist Jews as an example of how that label doesn't work here...
Yes it does. Why else would you place an embargo on Israel? They've done nothing but fight back against terrorist that kidnapped, raped and murdered innocent Jews.
esteban said:They've been occupying and illegally settling the West Bank and terrorizing Gaza for the last 60 years. They've killed countless civilians, children, journalists, aid workers and accused them all of being terrorists. They're trying to starve what's left of the civilian population. You're free to support that with your time and money. I feel no such obligation.Science Denier said:Gig em G said:
Tax dollars are mentioned in the city's resolution they drafted, and that's what I am referring to for the sake of this conversation. Regardless, I don't think supporting Palestinian sovereignty or an embargo on the State of Israel has anything to do with antisemitism. Again see Antizionist Jews as an example of how that label doesn't work here...
Yes it does. Why else would you place an embargo on Israel? They've done nothing but fight back against terrorist that kidnapped, raped and murdered innocent Jews.
esteban said:I did. Calling for an end to the occupation is not the same as calling for the end of Israel nor is it antisemitic in any way. You're reading something extra into the statement that isn't there. You can question the underlying intent all you want, but the statement itself contains not one word of antisemitism. It's a political grievance with the actions of a foreign government.pagerman @ work said:which utterly ignores what I stated.esteban said:The West Bank has been under Israeli military occupation since '67. Israel appears to be in the process of occupying Gaza. There is nothing antisemitic whatsoever about opposing those actions by the Israeli government. It's essentially supporting a two-state solution, which was official Israeli policy until very recently.pagerman @ work said:Captain Winky said:
That is quite the leap to think that #2 is calling for the end of Israel.
Why would "including Gaza and the West Bank" need to be specifically mentioned as additions to Israel's "illegal occupation" rather than its totality?
The underlying assumption is that the State of Israel itself is illegally occupying "Palestinian lands", and thus the ending of this "illegal occupation" would necessarily mean the end of Israel.
It's not a leap, it's in the text.
Care to address what I actually wrote?
Quote:
an end to the State of Israel's apartheid, occupation, and blockade of Palestine, including Gaza and the West Bank, to guarantee the self-determination and preservation of life for all Palestinian people.
Captain Pablo said:
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1NknoEMd7G7qx06HhmoeZG77J9ZOd9EbTzQy3GAUgKQY/mobilebasic?pli=1
The resolution draft
Good lord
You are most definitely reading something into it that isn't there. The word "including" does not imply something additional. "Including, but not limited to" would imply something additional. The purpose of including both territories is to specify that it's not limited to Gaza and includes the West Bank.pagerman @ work said:
They are calling calling for:Quote:
an end to the State of Israel's apartheid, occupation, and blockade of Palestine, including Gaza and the West Bank, to guarantee the self-determination and preservation of life for all Palestinian people.
What land, pray tell, is Israel "occupying" in addition to (and even this is arguable) Gaza and the West Bank? Using the term "including" is clearly meant to indicate there is more occupied land than just Gaza and the West Bank. Otherwise you would simply say "an end to the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank."
I am not "reading something extra into the statement that isn't there." I am reading it how English works.
And that is ignoring the specious claim of "apartheid". The Palestinian Authority, which controls Gaza and has not had an election since 2006, is controlled by Hamas and has declared that as a condition of existence, no Jews can live inside its borders.
But yeah, Israel is the "apartheid state" that doesn't allow the "self-determination" of "all Palestinian people".
esteban said:You are most definitely reading something into it that isn't there. The word "including" does not imply something additional. "Including, but not limited to" would imply something additional. The purpose of including both territories is to specify that it's not limited to Gaza and includes the West Bank.pagerman @ work said:
They are calling calling for:Quote:
an end to the State of Israel's apartheid, occupation, and blockade of Palestine, including Gaza and the West Bank, to guarantee the self-determination and preservation of life for all Palestinian people.
What land, pray tell, is Israel "occupying" in addition to (and even this is arguable) Gaza and the West Bank? Using the term "including" is clearly meant to indicate there is more occupied land than just Gaza and the West Bank. Otherwise you would simply say "an end to the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank."
I am not "reading something extra into the statement that isn't there." I am reading it how English works.
And that is ignoring the specious claim of "apartheid". The Palestinian Authority, which controls Gaza and has not had an election since 2006, is controlled by Hamas and has declared that as a condition of existence, no Jews can live inside its borders.
But yeah, Israel is the "apartheid state" that doesn't allow the "self-determination" of "all Palestinian people".
The fact that this is the best example of "antisemitism" you could find in that whole statement is pretty telling, is it not?
Beyond the obvious reason why (a Texas city acting too big for their shoes), Abbott has spent quite a bit of time shooting from the hip trying to ride Trump's coattails after he was elected.DrEvazanPhD said:
Why is abbot even addressing this?
pagerman @ work said:
If you read Abbott's letter, it is very clear why he is doing what he is doing, and his justification for doing so.
Also, the city council's statement is resplendent with boilerplate anti-Israel, pro-terrorist, antisemitic rhetoric.
They have done no such thing. The only "terror" they have inflicted were retaliatory from ACTUAL terror attacks.esteban said:They've been occupying and illegally settling the West Bank and terrorizing Gaza for the last 60 years. They've killed countless civilians, children, journalists, aid workers and accused them all of being terrorists. They're trying to starve what's left of the civilian population. You're free to support that with your time and money. I feel no such obligation.Science Denier said:Gig em G said:
Tax dollars are mentioned in the city's resolution they drafted, and that's what I am referring to for the sake of this conversation. Regardless, I don't think supporting Palestinian sovereignty or an embargo on the State of Israel has anything to do with antisemitism. Again see Antizionist Jews as an example of how that label doesn't work here...
Yes it does. Why else would you place an embargo on Israel? They've done nothing but fight back against terrorist that kidnapped, raped and murdered innocent Jews.
What information is necessary to overcome the ignorance "of the concept of foreign aid in general," when the only damn common sense position is that San Marcos Texas tax dollars don't need to go to any foreign nation, period?Infection_Ag11 said:
Not wanting to send aid to Israel isn't inherently anti-Semitic, but it is an inescapable reality that a large majority of people who feel very strongly about it fall into one of three camps:
Open and unabashed anti-semites
Anti-semites who hide behind thinly veiled euphemisms and stereotypical tropes
People who are extremely ignorant of the concept of foreign aid in general and have no idea to what extent the luxurious reality they live in was produced and sustained by it
Admittedly opposition on this board falls mostly into the third category, and that is also the camp generic "all foreign aid is bad" midwits tend to fall in. But lots of social media users, the left in general and now an alarming number of right wing influencers seem to be exposing themselves as belonging to the first two.
The Israel issue more than any other has really come to reveal the accuracy of the horseshoe theory of American politics. At the extreme ends of the spectrum, the right and left so often meet and shake hands
