The Next DNC Chair: TOM PEREZ WINS, makes Ellison deputy chair

[JA]

Heard that Schumer is throwing his support behind Ellison too.

Schumer's just trying to follow the direction of the wind. He knows his time is coming soon too if he doesn't reform himself as well. Better to join the future earlier rather than later.

Personally, I've been a supporter of Keith Ellison for a while now. He's one of the best Democrats we have and, while I think something like a Presidential run would (unfortunately) be too controversial, he could do enormously good work as head of the DNC.

[JA]

So now being critical of political Zionism is equivalent to anti-Semitism? Don't the pro-Israel lapdogs have enough control over the Republican Party? Why must they also control our party as well? I believe Israel is practically an Apartheid state as well, which has unfairly taken and occupied land rightfully belonging to the Palestinians (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) and has engaged in acts of terror and militarized oppression to maintain and expand their state at the expense of the natives. I suppose that makes me anti-Semitic as well...

[JA]

So now being critical of political Zionism is equivalent to anti-Semitism? Don't the pro-Israel lapdogs have enough control over the Republican Party? Why must they also control our party as well? I believe Israel is practically an Apartheid state as well, which has unfairly taken and occupied land rightfully belonging to the Palestinians (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) and has engaged in acts of terror and militarized oppression to maintain and expand their state at the expense of the natives. I suppose that makes me anti-Semitic as well...

There are no Jewish Palestinians. Those are called Israelis.

And yes, your post is grossly inaccurate and has shades of anti-semitism in it. Criticizing Israel isn't anti-semitism. Lying about it is.

Before the advent of the state of Israel, yes, there were Jews who lived in those lands alongside Muslims and Christians. No, they were not "Israelis." And no, my post is not grossly inaccurate, nor does it have any anti-Semitism. That you conflate generally accurate criticism of political Zionism with hatred of Jews shows that you're either ignorant or simply pushing an agenda.

[JA]

So now being critical of political Zionism is equivalent to anti-Semitism? Don't the pro-Israel lapdogs have enough control over the Republican Party? Why must they also control our party as well? I believe Israel is practically an Apartheid state as well, which has unfairly taken and occupied land rightfully belonging to the Palestinians (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) and has engaged in acts of terror and militarized oppression to maintain and expand their state at the expense of the natives. I suppose that makes me anti-Semitic as well...

There are no Jewish Palestinians. Those are called Israelis.

And yes, your post is grossly inaccurate and has shades of anti-semitism in it. Criticizing Israel isn't anti-semitism. Lying about it is.

Before the advent of the state of Israel, yes, there were Jews who lived in those lands alongside Muslims and Christians. No, they were not "Israelis." And no, my post is not grossly inaccurate, nor does it have any anti-Semitism. That you conflate generally accurate criticism of political Zionism with hatred of Jews shows that you're either ignorant or simply pushing an agenda.

Yes, the Jewish residents of the British holding of Mandatory Palestine became Israelis when Israel was created by UN decision. No "Jewish Palestinian" ever had land "occupied and taken from them", except by the Ottoman Empire, that prohibited Jews from owning land.

But I'm sure some guy who named himself after a group of brutal historical murderers knows more about my family's history on the land than I do.

I won't argue that point, yet it only shows that the native Jews were subsequently given privilege over the Christians and Muslims who also lived in that land. Why should they be given that privilege (and no, I don't care that it was by Western-controlled UN mandate)? That land no more belonged or belongs to Jews than to the Christians or Muslims who also lived there. And that's my point. Not only that, but during the founding years of the Israeli state, yes, there were acts of terrorism targeted at those not privileged enough to be Jewish. Israel also unlawfully expanded their territory at the expense of the Palestinians. Today, they continue bulldozing their homes and practically imprisoning them in their own lands. You'd think the people who were so brutally persecuted and killed during WWII would've known better than to mistreat other groups of people that way.

[JA]

As others have said, most of the issue isn't with Perez himself. It's that many Democrats in power want him simply because they don't want Ellison. I don't think he'd be a disaster at all, but I think it would signify that the "corporate" wing of the Democratic Party is still the one that gets to call the shots and get their choice of candidate.

This. I have no problem with Perez and political positions are mostly irrelevant for DNC Chair. It's the fact that Perez is very clearly the candidate favored by the people holding the Democrats back.

Exactly. Everyone knows Ellison and Perez are ideologically very similar and both political progressives. The problem with choosing Perez is what it signals to the Sanders wing of the party, which is that the establishment that helped support Clinton during the primary and is friendly with corporate donors still retains their position of power. Ellison would shift the party towards grassroots mobilization and tap into the populist fury, whereas Perez would likely take a less populist and more donor oriented approach to party politics. Before I could be happy with Perez as DNC chairperson I'd need to know what his position will be regarding the influence of donors and corporate money on the party.