you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Here's what I can find on context: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/i-made-a-mistake-abdul-el-sayed-apologizes-to-michigan-jews-for-past-comments-about-synagogue-attack/ar-AA2bcJlT

The Democratic nominee told the room that his remarks following the attempted targeting of the West Bloomfield synagogue preschool, in which he had said, in part, “Hurt people hurt people,” were intended to provide “context.”

Reflecting on them, he said on Saturday, “I made a mistake.”

“If my statement caused pain, I’m sorry. It was not what I intended to do,” El-Sayed continued. Referencing the first of two statements he had made about the attack, he added, “We issued a statement, of course, condemning it, and that just should have been it, full stop.”

El-Sayed’s initial Temple Israel comments, which many Jews interpreted as justifying the attack, have alienated Jewish voters in the state. After an initial statement condemning the attack, El-Sayed then followed up with one referencing Israel’s war in Lebanon, where the attacker had lost family in an Israel airstrike.

On Saturday, El-Sayed, a former county health director, insisted that his push for “context” to the attack was broadly appropriate, but not at that moment, explaining that such “conversations” could happen “in the fullness of time.”

“Sometimes you can’t really see context in the moment of acuity or pain,” he said. “The intention for me was not to trample that pain. It was not to discount it. It was not at all to justify any sort of domestic terrorism. That’s wrong, full stop.”

So it's a bit of an oversimplification to say he's apologizing for an anti-israel stance (to be honest, it sounds like what he originally said barely qualifies as anti-israel in the first place - more just "hey, this is how consequences of actions work"). But nevertheless, it is for sure wishy washy "I was technically right to say what I did but I shouldn't have said it" stuff typical of electoralism con artistry, so I still wouldn't trust him. Not that we should be in the habit of trusting bourgeoisie electoralism candidates in the first place.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    It's a lot more than an oversimplification. I'd put it somewhere between "taking a statement out of context to put it in the worst possible light" and "blatant misrepresentation."

    There are reasonable questions about how far to trust El-Sayed, how to talk about imperial blowback to mass audience, etc. Jumping on any statement short of "death to amerikka, unlimited genocide on the first world" doesn't get us closer to any answers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    death to amerikkka, unlimited genocide on the first world. but seriously why the fuck are you an electoralist? it can literally never get anywhere in amerikkka?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    There is no reason to ever apologize to Zionists under any circumstance. Give them an inch and they take a mile. They can never be appeased and any apology will be seen as weakness and opportunity to extract further and further concessions. What will he apologize for next?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 3 days ago*

    Even when I was lib, I despised the Yankee electoral system for reasons like this. Much of it is candidates paying lip service to sectioned out demographics as a marketing campaign and opposing interests paying to find whatever dirt, real or slander, that they can to make the person look as bad as possible. It has almost nothing to do with finding people who are qualified to implement actually good policy and everything to do with filtering out anyone who will challenge capital or empire.

  • source
  • parent