The thing about Noah Arbit is that I actually like him in the state legislature. He’s a bit more progressive than most when it comes to state reforms and overall better than what that seat would normally elect. But unfortunately he’s loves to be in the headlines so here we are

Zionism is racism shit head

Zionism is racism. Israel can’t maintain a jewish majority without violence. Israel will use whatever means necessary to maintain a jewish majority including expulsion, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Aliyah is banned for jews protecting palestinians. timesofisrael.com/israel-sai…

He equates anti-zionism to anti-semitism and voted last week to condemn socialism. He is not progressive and this is no tossup. Oakland can do much better than him. Aisha Farooqi outperformed expectations in the 11th district which contains his district. She should have his seat.

Abdul is actually America first. Abdul is actually pro-family, by supporting Medicare for All, free childcare, and universal senior care. Abdul actually wants to get money out of politics and is NOT BOUGHT by any corporation. Abdul actually wants to put money in your pocket.

I'm not criticizing Zohran for doing this because I understand he has to deal with a very toxic political reality. Politics is a different game. But to me launching a "Strategy to Combat Antisemitism" in a time of the Gaza genocide is akin to a "Strategy to Combat Anti-Whiteness" at the height of South African apartheid. That's not even a fair analogy: Israel and its apologists do infinitely more to both fabricate and encourage anti-Semitism.

Watching the Iowa michigan game back is quite the experience. If you rolled the tape silently, you would never believe Iowa won that game. Bryce played by far his best game. Big time throws and looked in control. Off Line had probably their best day. Michigan Def was totally dominant. But that’s always the challenge playing Iowa. Their style of play, discipline, clock management coaching decisions, and special teams all play major factors and did in yesterday’s game. Kirk Ferentz is an all time legend. This was a huge win for him and his team and they did it playing classic Iowa football. All the credit in the world to the Hawkeyes for never quitting and finding a way to get it done

Three compliments and counting, including “he’s got my donations.” DC is ready for Senator @AbdulElSayed

“Do you think the government of Israel is committing a genocide?”

Scott Galloway asks Abdul El-Sayed: Do you understand why Jews such as myself find your use of the term genocide as disqualifying? El-Sayed: In some respects, people don't want to use the word because of the moral implication of what ought to be done following it.

Do you ever get tired of spreading lies for Israel, or do you simply assume nobody will check?

That is fucking false. Footnote 38 directs readers to A/HRC/56/CRP.4, paragraphs 154–156. Those paragraphs document the original “maximum damage” statement, quote Israel’s later clarification concerning “maximum damage to Hamas’ military capabilities,” and explicitly analyze that explanation. The Commission did not omit the qualification from its analysis. You omitted the footnote and its analysis, then accused the Commission of concealing context it expressly addressed. You either never followed the citation or assumed nobody else would. Your first supposed example of the report’s dishonesty is your own misrepresentation of what it contains.

That still is not specific. Which civilian-protection measures? Where does the report ignore them? How does that evidence make a non-genocidal explanation reasonable when weighed against the totality of the conduct? The ICC point is irrelevant. Its prosecutor charged particular individuals with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not bringing a genocide charge is not a judicial finding that genocide did not occur. You were asked to identify an error in the Commission’s analysis. You still have not identified one.

It ignores mitigating evidence, takes evidence out of context, relies on unverified claims by those known to make false claims (Hamas). Ignores the solid legal justification for Israel pursuing combatants. They truncate quotes, intentionally ignoring esculpatory evidence.

You have simply asserted your conclusion. That’s nice and all, but that doesn’t make it true. The UN Commission of Inquiry found that Israel committed four of the five genocidal acts enumerated in Article II and concluded that genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence. The International Association of Genocide Scholars also passed a resolution finding that Israel’s conduct meets the legal definition. Saying “it is offensive” adds nothing to that analysis. Personal offense has no legal or evidentiary weight. If those findings are wrong, show me exactly which element of Article II has not been satisfied and explain why the evidence fails.

As a non-Jew...all arguments stand or fall on their merits, not the identity of the person making them. The Holocaust was a genocide. It is not the definition of genocide or the minimum threshold every subsequent genocide must replicate. Whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza is not determined by what Jews, non-Jews or anyone else finds offensive. It is determined by whether the documented conduct and intent satisfy the Genocide Convention. If the evidence does not meet that standard, explain why. “Jews such as myself find the term disqualifying” is not an argument.