The first one sounds worse, but I wouldn't expect any change in policy because of this. Presumably a foreign policy advisor looked at it and said "hold on we're the diplomatic peacemaker liberals, we're not supposed to just come out and say that we think Palestinians deserve to eat mud pies and napalm."
The top one came first and looks definitely worse, although, as one would expect, both are very bad takes.
I would imagine they feared even liberals might get offended at the last part about choices.
So they instead focus on the anti-semitism of BDS rather than insinuating Palestinians have much of a choice.
I don't understand, which came first, which one is worse? They both look equally worse to me lol
Well I guess the first one is slightly worse maybe. But why was it changed?
The first one sounds worse, but I wouldn't expect any change in policy because of this. Presumably a foreign policy advisor looked at it and said "hold on we're the diplomatic peacemaker liberals, we're not supposed to just come out and say that we think Palestinians deserve to eat mud pies and napalm."
The top one came first and looks definitely worse, although, as one would expect, both are very bad takes.
I would imagine they feared even liberals might get offended at the last part about choices.
So they instead focus on the anti-semitism of BDS rather than insinuating Palestinians have much of a choice.
The first one is deffinitely worse.