My point: AIPAC advocates for the government of a state with a predominantly Jewish population, so let's avoid anything that aligns with antisemitic tropes when criticizing AIPAC or AIPAC-aligned politicians. There are plenty of other ways to criticize them.
AIPAC has too much power in US politics. They can make or break an election. It's how our system is structured that is the problem. It's destroying democracy. No politicians can speak out without dooming themselves so we must. Gillibrand is one of their closest allies. forward.com/news/580248/...
I agree with all that and still stand by my original point that the original comment was too close to antisemitic tropes in a way that adds fuel for the "all criticism of Israel is antisemitic" fire.
And being careless with antisemitic tropes while calling out islamophobia really undermines the point! Look at how much breath we've wasted about AIPAC when the problem we all want fixed is Gillibrand's islamophobia!
But you said she's controlled by anyone who gives her money...and AIPAC gives her money? Or are there other people who don't want to give her money who want her to apologize? Sure, she probably came to bigoted conclusions on her own...but I still don't get it.
I was jokingly trying to point to a way around the trope when I said that she's controlled by anyone who gives her money. I don't think anyone really controls her and her opportunism actually can turn off donors (see the response to her criticism of Al Franken's history of handsiness).
If I had to explain her comments here, I'd say she was on a pitch for support from/alignment with business elites, and she went a little too hard because of her own islamophobia, as you've said.
On the other hand, it's blatantly ridiculous to call this antisemitism. Inflammatory, sure, but calling for the death of an army responsible for genocide clearly is in response the genocide. www.npr.org/2025/06/30/g...