My impression is that what should be simple (always “genocide no”) gets much more mealy-mouthed (e.g. “I’m totally pro Israel…but maybe let’s rein in the genocide…oh no I don’t mean Israel shouldn’t have the right to defend itself!") precisely when anyone who wishes to do good by getting elected is confronted with the reality that there’s a rampaging nationalist organization sandbagging and bullying candidates, promoting others for policy favors and effectively holding big chunks of the electorate hostage in elections.

In practice, that means when I see otherwise good candidates use their talking points or be evasive and spineless on the topic of Israel, I’m quicker to think that they might simply have chosen a different battle, than to think they actually believe that there’s nothing wrong.

More simply, if standing up to the nationalist bully will almost certainly end their career/role/office before they even had a chance to begin, how many do you think will divert from the issues they entered politics for just to be the one to take out the bully? I’m guessing it’s a small number.

So while I do see it as cowardly on a personal level, and personally I’d prefer to quit politics than to get pushed around and just hold my tongue or say their lines, I also assume that it’s a decision made under duress without further evidence to the contrary.

In short, calling candidates “pro genocide” and expecting individual candidates to take the bully head-on in any particular race feels unfair to me, or at least misguided since, if we actually want to change this situation, my generation really needs to have some frank chats with their parents about their AIPAC donations.

What am I missing?

Edit: typos swype errors missing words