I think her explanation is awful. She amounts objections to her signing the resolution to “squabble over 3rd degree acknowledgment IHRA exists.” This is a complete lie.
A subclause references a separate state dept guideline which noncommittally references IHRA (many degrees). It says EXPLICITLY that it is nonbinding.
It directly references the IHRA definition of antisemitism (I have no idea what she’s getting at with the degree of removal of referencing a separate state dept guideline which itself references the IHRA definition, since if she’s referring to the “Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism,” which the resolution “welcomes” and “calls upon states and international bodies to endors[e] and embrac[e],” this is just another reference and not at all just “acknowledgment IHRA exists,” instead citing their definition of antisemitism as the most authoritative and providing no other examples) and calls it “an important internationally recognized tool to increase understanding of antisemitism.” This is obviously the definition of antisemitism that is used within the resolution. How is this just an “acknowledgement IHRA exists,” much less separated by 3 degrees because a 2/3 degree separated reference happens later in the resolution? Are we supposed to ignore the direct reference? How has nobody pointed this out? Am I misunderstanding something?
Yes, it explicitly says the definition is nonbinding. The resolution is nothing but rhetoric. I don’t see how this is a defense. So you signed your “Hamas terrorist attack against Israel” resolution for no material reason. She justifies her signing of the resolution by saying:
Because many in my district are genuinely & in good faith concerned about antisemitism they experience and need reassurance from their rep[…] There will never be a perfect vehicle so we choose which imperfect one
This isn’t simply an “imperfect vehicle”–the entire basis of the guidelines and of the resolution is the IHRA definition. Your condemnation of “antisemitism” is slop that dilutes the term and will help nobody.
Voting for Democrats is also voting for those that give power to the rich. But this must be looked at in the larger context of the U.S. political system, which shows that it’s not a problem of voters but of the essence of the state itself.
All of the issues in your analysis were explained over a century ago: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/