You either stand with Israel and the Jewish people, or you’re siding with terrorists like Hamas.
— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) May 30, 2025
There’s no middle ground. Antisemitism is vile, and defending it is indefensible. https://t.co/4qUj9wyX47
I do not consider myself to be Antisemitic but I do not see why we have to continue endless wars. The Middle East has been the focal point of wars for over 75 years. I recommend that Rep. Mace research who is running the government of Israel and the differences between Jewish sects. Israel has bought our Congress and other high level officials in Washington. AIPAC handlers influence Congress as detailed by Rep. Massie.
What constitutes the semitic people?
Semitic peoples are those historically and culturally linked to Semitic languages, encompassing ancient groups like the Hebrews and Akkadians and modern ones like Arabs, Jews, and certain Ethiopian communities. The term bridges language, culture, and history, rooted in the ancient Near East. (from Grok)
I also asked for a comparison between Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs in the Middle East for semitic heritage:
Ashkenazi Jews have a notable Middle Eastern ancestry (30-60%), tying them to ancient Semitic peoples like the Hebrews, but this is mixed with substantial European DNA from their diaspora history. Middle Eastern Arabs, particularly in the Levant and Arabian Peninsula, show a higher proportion (50-90%) of ancestry rooted in the same ancient Near Eastern populations, with less external admixture. Both share a Semitic genetic legacy, but Ashkenazi Jews’ profile is more diluted by European influence, while Arabs maintain stronger regional continuity.
So Rep. Mace has no understanding of the definition of semitic ancestry and its heritage in the region.
I also have no support for Hamas. Their attack on innocent civilians in Israel is a classic example of terrorism.
Rep. Mace’s argument that you are antisemitic if you do not support Israel is a classis case of begging the question (from Grok):
“Begging the question” is a logical fallacy in which an argument assumes the truth of its conclusion within its premises, essentially reasoning in a circle. The term is often misunderstood in casual use, so let’s break it down:
Definition
- Formal Meaning: In logic, begging the question (from the Latin petitio principii, “assuming the starting point”) occurs when the premise of an argument presupposes the very conclusion it aims to prove, offering no real evidence.
- Example: “God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it’s the word of God.” Here, the premise (the Bible is true) assumes the conclusion (God exists), creating a circular loop with no external support.
It is a sad commentary that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has made such a statement. It shows either a low intellectual standard on her part or a low assessment of Americans.
David DeGerolamo




