The problem is this: regarding Netanyahu she says “Well he is very clearly a war criminal.” Regarding Putin she says “With Russia it’s far more complicated” and “In so many words, yes.” She’s hedging out of calling Putin a war criminal directly so she can plausibly deny it. She will agree with general statements saying he could be a war criminal under those circumstances but she won’t say it directly so she can go “Oh no, Hasan called him a war criminal, I didn’t, I just agreed that if all of those things were true then he could be considered a war criminal!”
She’s hedging out of calling Putin a war criminal
“In so many words, yes.”
Hasan won’t take “yes” for an answer. Which is a weird thing to do, given that he keeps looping back around to attack her for her condemnation of Biden and Netanyahu.
She will agree with general statements saying he could be a war criminal under those circumstances
Under what circumstances is Hasan conceding that Netanyahu is a war criminal? All he does is deflect blame for war crimes away from Netanyahu, which is a really weird thing to do across multiple interview questions.
she won’t say it directly
She will and she did. Of course, Hasan keeps cutting her responses off to interject with new defenses of Netanyahu. Which is, again, a very weird way to establish Jill as a Putin-defender. It seems more like Hasan is hedging on Netanyahu and trying to back Jill into recanting her views on Israel.
If she’s not a defender of Putin, it should be as easy to say a flat, unequivocated, non-politicked yes as she did with Netenyahu. The fact that she won’t do it is deserving of suspicion and critique.
A simple example of similar behavior would be if someone asked Biden or Trump or any other candidate, “Will you work to build better infrastructure in the country?” And they replied, “Well…in so many words, yes.”
It’s a non answer. It lacks commitment to the affirmation. If your first language is english and you aren’t autistic this kind of hedging behavior is very apparent. They are giving you the answer you are looking for but they are also trying to hide that they are not being 100% truthful in their assertion. It is a very common tactic in English used in lieu of an outright lie in order to generate a gap of potential misunderstanding that can be later abused to twist the narrative.
In the above example at the end of their term when somone presses them about their inaction on infrastructure development and says, “You said you would.” They can warp it around with, “I never directly said i would do anything.” Or they might have done some entirely symbolic effort that had an obvious zero chance of being effective and then immediately gave up because they had no intention of a true effort, no true commitment.
It’s the type of shitty behavior that disillusions people to politics. It’s half-truths and an unmitigated lack of candor and blatantly obvious obfuscation. Every politician does it. Most people do it to some degree. It’s very easy to read through though and that’s why the interviewer was so persistent in seeking a direct answer.
Say weird some more. We aren’t going to be desensitized to it. The right will still be fucking weird
Say weird some more.
It looks like you’re being forced to notice the contradictions at last.
I think it’d be easier to take yes for an answer if she said the word yes. And frankly I question why someone can’t use the word yes if it’s such a clear yes
I think it’d be easier to take yes for an answer if she said the word yes.
She said the word yes.
I think her point is moreso that we’re actively funding and giving arms to Isreal to carry out these crimes, therefore we have more power to state things in that way from a geopolitical standpoint.
