Genocide experts? How many Genocides did they commit to get that title.
South Africa really supports protecting the Palestinians from this genocide so at least 1
I read that as historians
They are specialists, like Michael Burnham.
I haven’t heard any liberals trying to “both sides” the issue. I have heard Republicans expressing their support for the genocide though.
You didn’t hear the US state dept repeatedly claiming “Israel has a right to defend itself” for 6 straight months after the Hamas attack? They still won’t let corpo media use the term genocide, some high profile reporters have even resigned over it.
Corrupt govt actions does not equal how everyday liberals feel. Come on.
You haven’t been to Lemmy.world then, lol.
Reddits r/worldnews sub is probably the worst.
It’s likely that the use of “Western Liberals” here is meant to include both major US political parties.
You won’t see many of us both side shit regarding this. It’s an attempt to genocide, pretty easy. What you will see are people, often very angry, who immediately make assumptions, claim we are genocide lovers, and refuse to listen to literally anything, including their target agreeing with them. Tbh part of me feels as if Republicans are in the comment sections trying to split hairs and widen divisions at times.
People are going to argue with you, probably post the one video link in existence
Western Conservatives: They are commiting genocide 👍👍💯❤️😁
Except they’re not admitting it. That’s the whole point.
Look, the point is that you can’t believe the thousands of videos of Israel geocoding people. And you can’t believe the dozens (or more) videos of them saying it on their local television talkshows. It’s simply too complicated, you fucking nitwits. Now tow the party line; we have a genocide to help them complete.
FYI, it’s “toe” the line, as in you put your toe on the line when you fall in order. It’s a nautical term, since crews would line up on specific boards on the deck of a ship.
You’re a nautical term!
I mean, it is a complex issue, and there are two sides of it. One of the sides is doing a genocide. The other side makes attacks when they can, killing much smaller numbers. If suddenly the power balance switched, I’m not convinced Hamas wouldn’t go for doing a genocide.
What actually matters here is that nobody should be doing genocides, both sides have reason to say, “they started it!”, and it’s not going to end until both sides can accept that yes, shit happened, bad things were intentionally done by people, and everyone needs to move on, or there will be another round, and another, and another, and another…
Hamas would definitely flip the script and start ‘genocidin, that’s the express goal of the organization, in their own words. The complete destruction of the Israeli state, through any means necessary.
I honestly don’t even disagree with that goal, Israel should never have existed in its current capacity in the first place. But I can’t pretend that one theofascist state is better than another.
I honestly don’t even disagree with that goal
Wowzer
Why worry about all that when we can have a Theofascist state right here at home!
I get and agree with the spirit but “western liberals” doesn’t mean anything
I hear Americans use the term liberal all the time but the way they use it makes me think we’re talkibg about different things
It is very confusing. There’s socially liberal, which is what Americans are usually referring to which is generally progressive, more freedoms for people etc.
The other liberal is Liberalism which is largely about being in favour of private property, private companies etc. and a free market, which tends to (but not always) correlate with being socially conservative.
Here in the UK, one of the big parties is the Liberal Democrats, which is a pro-Liberalism centre-right wing party, but because of the name a lot of people confuse them for progressives.
The conflict in terms comes from what in Europe mostly describes the social axes. Social liberalism is very different from what in America usually refers to economically neo-liberals who are basically late stage capitalists
It’s the opposite you mean, in Europe liberal and neoliberal are basically synonyme, while in the US the libs are the people dying their hair in pink
In the US people usually use neoliberal and liberal interchangeably. I’m sure some of them are dying their hair pink, not sure what that has to do with anything though.
I’ve always read the “libs” used as synonyme for “dems” and “woke” but OK
Oh, yes, magas lump everyone who isn’t an insane right-wing nut job into the same category, and they call them all “libs” or “libtards”
It does. Literally the president of the United States as a prime example.
See, based on what you mean by liberal, I don’t know whether that means “the current potus is a dem” or “of course because everyone is a liberal there”
everyone is a liberal there
Do you mean everyone in the US is a liberal? No I don’t believe that nor did I imply it. I only mentioned the president.
From further up the thread
A liberal is someone who:
- Upholds the modern nation state and is thus against monarchy (against whom the first liberals rebelled against)
- Upholds capitalism and market economies, and with it property rights
- Upholds electoral parliamentary systems of governance
- Usually believes in some version of the social contract or similar theory from which the legitimacy of the nation state and capitalism is derived.
This describes the bulk of the Democrat and Republican parties. US politics doesn’t have a left-wing as it is understood in the rest of the world, our center is between two right-wing ideologies.
this is stupid, because it can be (and probably often is) both, a genocide and a complex issue. acknowledging the complexity of a situation that grew 80 years into this doesn’t mean you swipe an ongoing genocide under the rug or have to be complicit.
The simple issue is that this is genocide. Full stop.
And we should stop it. After that, let’s look into the complex issue you’re trying to raise. Conflating the two is how people justify doing nothing.
There was a graph earlier in pdf format that showed the total number of people of killed and it didn’t look like an amount of people that would equate to genocide, which does not lessen the tragedy for people affected by it. Is the graph wrong? Does it misrepresent the situation?
Edit: as people have pointed out, this comment made no sense, because the number of deaths have equaled to other events that everyone considers genocide. Sometimes people make logical errors, and the above post was just illogical.
Genocide is not a numbers competition. Fucking get lost with that narrative.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is literally four pages long, with barely 30% fill. It takes less than 10 minutes to read it fully. It takes one minute to get to the part that you directly contradict.
you’re right about this, i was wrong. i said early on in my comments i was concerned i may be viewing this with bias and am very ignorant about what is going on, and i’m trying to be open to understanding the situation more and set aside my bias. i was completely wrong earlier when i said the numbers don’t line up with genocide and fundamentally just made a large error.
And that’s one of the ways you justify a genocide when it is happening. It is also how you deny that it happened.
Genocide is more than a sudden and total purge like what the nazis did. To set the bar like that allows other forma of genocide, especially doing so at a slow pace, or other forms of ethnic cleansing like mass sterilization.
A similar amount of people died in gaza compared to the bosnian genocide
you’re right about this, now that i think about it more. the number is less than the Bosnian genocide and i was looking at it incorrectly. good point
Stopping Israel from doing anything would mean opening them to limitless attacks by the Hamas, who are the whole reason this war is happening in the first place.
Is what Israel doing necessary to stop Hamas from threatening them? Or are they going far beyond what’s necessary and they don’t actually need to impact civilians to this extent? It seems like a lot of people are not upset about Israel defending themselves as much as random civilians being hurt who really aren’t even necessarily political at all and just want to not die. This isn’t meant to imply an answer to this. I am very ignorant on this conflict in many ways,
The complex part is that, if you stop the “genocide”, innocent people will still die (Oct 7). And if somehow this side you are protecting wins the conflict or even just gets the upper hand, then there will be a real, old fashioned type of genocide where they won’t be swayed by world opinion.
if you stop the “genocide”, innocent people will still die (Oct 7).
This implies genocide started after October 7th. Please do basic research on the issue and you’ll find that’s not true. I’m happy to provide you links if you need.
And you are implying that Oct 7 was the first act of terrorism committed in this conflict by Palestine.
And you are implying that people fighting back against a genocidal aparthied state is equivalent to said genocide.
It does get complicated when Hamas claims to want the death or displacement of all the Jews in Israel. Both peoples have been failed by their leadership. You can’t fight back against one genocide with a different genocide and expect anything to improve.
You want it to be complicated given you’re citing a claim from the last century that has been withdrawn, and Hamas has undergone a massive shift since. Moreover, no matter how bad Hamas is, it does not excuse genocide. So no, it is not complicated when we identify a genocide.
Hamas is a creation of Israel’s genocide and aparthied. Eliminate the genocide and aparthied, and Hamas is forced to either change character or crumble.
This is an unequal conflict in every measure, equalizing the sides is genocide denial.
Oct. 7th happened because there has been a genocide for the last century.
You are conflating a small fringe group with millions of people. You are using this conflation to justify an ongoing conflict that is a genocide.
You are denying this genocide. And now you are saying that we need this genocide to prevent a genocide.
You are either a fascist or unknowingly supporting a fascist ideology. Get help.
I’m differentiating this type of genocide with the type Palestine will undoubtedly perform if the shoe was on the other foot, hence why the issue is not simple.
Lemmy keeps trying to push this idea that if the fighting stopped today and there was a ceasefire or peace, that Oct 7 wouldn’t just repeat at a later date. How many decades have we played this same song and yet the small fringe community here wants to pretend it will be different this time?
And no matter how you want to frame that train of thought, or try to label it fascist etc, not agreeing to make peace with Hamas is not the same as condoning genocide. The fringe minority you claim is still in power and they still have hostages. They still enjoy the support of the Palestinians as they did on Oct 7. Hamas made Gaza a war zone, to not be against Israel fighting in said war zone is not supporting genocide.
There’s a difference between being a genocide and a complex issue, and using that it’s a complex issue to justify/overlook a genocide
U lOvE gEnOcIdE tHeN
-an asshole who would burn down his country to supposedly make a point
Except “western liberals” are the ones out there protesting the genocide?
What even the fuck is this post?
Western progressives and leftists are protesting, liberals by definition support current structures and systems to achieve populist goals, but humanitarian causes are not on their radar usually unless it’s the most milquetoast issue that everyone can agree on.
As others have said here, the names of things have changed a lot, and this is made more confusing by the fact that a large portion of the population has no idea how this shift has taken place, and conservatives still refer to their hated enemy as “libs” because they’re not very bright and names stick. It does throw them for a loop when you say “I’m not a liberal, I’m a leftist/progressive” and it’s a good way to remind them how dumb they really are.
Can’t believe I’m posting in a Palestine thread again but here we go. I think people aren’t using the same words in the same way in this thread. In the last decade there has been a shift in how the word liberal is used. Two decades ago there were the neo-liberals, which said they were not big C conservative but were.
To separate themselves from the neo-liberals, liberals started calling themselves leftist. Which meant the neo-liberals as the only “liberals” remaining. So now the word liberal can mean a person on the left, or a person on the right, depending on the intent of the speaker.
So saying that the liberals are turning a blind eye to genocide is true, the speaker probably just means neo-liberals but ommitted the neo. Language is fluid, and confusing
It should be said that Neo-liberalism is an economic classification.
It has little to do with social liberalism.Yes it also doesn’t make a person “on the right” as this person is claiming (at least by American standards/definition), it makes them on the right side (almost the middle of the spectrum) of the left side of the spectrum.
Language is fluid, and confusing
And sadly, it seems like a lot of people can’t get past this part and desperately need solid definitions before they can make any decisions or have any stances. Places like reddit and even this burgeoning platform have shown us all time and time again that people as individuals may have great capability and potential, but as a group, when viewed as a collection, have incredibly hard time understanding basic ideas like “nuance,” the ability to view multiple, competing ideas simultaneously, or “context,” viewing the larger picture and how it relates to the details.
I’ve seen it really flare up with the trans issues and gender debates, where people with conservative-minded views act like words were discovered in a fucking meteor crater and there are only a limited number of words which have to have solid, rigid definitions.
where people with conservative-minded views act like words were discovered in a fucking meteor crater
Hahaha, I love that part. :D
No, leftists are protesting the genocide. Liberals aren’t leftists.
Conservative goalposts moving.
Western Liberals are cheering on their president supporting the Genocide.
This. Change the last line to, "U.S. armaments companies need to suck taxpayer money that would have been better spent on the taxpayers, so ‘we don’t see no genocide.’
Or, “We need to pander to evangelicals, who need Israel to exist so they can have their Book of Revelations, end of the world, apocalyptic jerk-off fantasies.”
Bro those aren’t liberals protesting.
you have no fucking clue who or what liberal is.
This is .ml, they use “liberal” the same way republican fascists use the word “liberal” - a blanket statement to encompass “anyone who either doesn’t agree with or is not extreme enough for me”
im literally in one of the protest encampments in britain right now and the vast majority of people here are anti liberal leftists, there’s literally more overt marxists here than there are liberals
Source for all those people saying that?
On Experts saying it, this is one example: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-expert-says-israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-calls-arms-embargo-2024-03-26/
On Israel saying it, this has enough for you to start your research: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724
Multiple sources in fact. Just tune into Israeli TV or social media for a few minutes…
That’s not how citing sources works.
I don’t really engage with Zionists or apartheid/genocide deniers. There’s no debating them.
You know, not everybody that asks for information has ill intentions.
🤷 a gross majority have Ill intentions. I’m not here to do the work for others especially since I’m visually impaired…
deleted by creator
Yeah I also love to claim something then tell the others to just go look for sources themselves and in the end say my opinion is undebatable. Checkmate, huh?
Long term political stability in the region might be complex. Opposing genocide shouldn’t be.
This, but kinda. (Rant incoming, i’m not disagreeing with you tho, and don’t think I’m accusing you of doing this, you aren’t)
Long term stability is complex in the sense that it is a long term plan.
But in the short term, you can make simpler decisions to put yourself on the path towards long term stability. Once you get on that path you could be solving some smaller complexities that made it so hard in the past.
This isn’t saying achieving peace is easy. There will be some hard things that must be done, and those difficult things will certainly have complexity, but saying long term peace itself is complex is actually a way to make doing things now difficult
There’s this one technique used by propagandists and talking heads to make taking action hard, and it’s got a few names, notably complexity trolling or nuance trolling. Essentially the goal is to set the bar for current action high enough that it becomes almost impossible to surpass, or to make it hard to commentate on it, or to make it painful for activists to do activism because each time they try, some cunt on fox news says “You see, you can’t solve climate change with sloganeering. It is too complicated.”
Another thing that happens is when you see a simple step towards achieving peace, you see people inject complexity/nuance into it to make the discussion suddenly super complex and convoluted. This serves to make current action hard to do, and continue the status quo. This serves to make activists look silly, and make inaction the only action an average person can take.
This isn’t to say the conflicts or the solutions as a whole are simple. But if you let complexities of a long term vision constantly be injected into the steps to take now, you end up putting the cart before the horse.
if you let complexities of a long term vision constantly be injected into the steps to take now, you end up putting the cart before the horse.
This exactly. Honestly at this moment I don’t really give a shit about long term stability as long as a genocide is happening, but we keep seeing that thrown out as a reason to ignore genocide.
(Not to mention the arguments of if it’s technically genocide or “just” ethnic cleansing. That’s a problem for the international courts, all that matters now is that whatever it is, it’s too damn close to genocide to be acceptable.)
“We understand this is a hard one to swallow, but the
Mossad handlersAIPAC lobbyists told us that the Palestinians all spontaneously killed themselves after blowing up their homes. On the one hand, that’s obviously bullshit. But on the other, they give us SO MUCH MONEY.”This is not political humor, it’s not funny, it’s reposted here to cause arguments and nothing else. Not very nuanced at all.
I find it funny.
Arguments in a politics group? How dare they
Complex, maybe?
Two sides? Sure. There are the people getting killed by genocide, and the side committing genocide.
So they might be half right?
i mean, yeah it is complex. It’s fucking war.
War isn’t simple. Let alone war with history, and multiple decades, coming up to a century worth of history soon.
This war is the kindergarten equivalent of “no i said it first”
It being a war doesn’t negate the simple conclusion that it is a genocide. If you have reason to deny that, you should provide proper reasoning rather than the hand wavy “it’s a war, surely it has to be complex!”. There are complex aspects to a war that do not negate the simplicity of classifying it as a genocide. The conclusion is simple due to the mountains of undeniable evidence.
It being a war doesn’t negate the simple conclusion that it is a genocide.
not inherently, but it being a genocide doesn’t also automatically include the whole of the war.
Ever notice how literature on the holocaust mostly talks about the fact that the germans murdered like what? 13 million people, i couldn’t tell you off the top of my head, rather than how germany uses military tactics to their advantage. And fails at them.
Also contextually, genocide should be used in past tense. You think the jews under nazi regime were bitching about the mass homicide? Nah they were busy getting the fuck out of germany so they weren’t fucking murdered.
Ironically, it’s a pretty fucking first world problem to be able to sit here and complain and cry about genocide that isn’t even happening to you. But presumably happening to another party, whom we’ve deemed the recipient of it, presumably ignoring the entire history of this conflict so far. As well as the fact that it’s hard to determine any real numbers on this, considering it’s literally a war.
Why aren’t people complaining about russia genociding their soliders? They’re doing the same fucking thing! This is arguably worse than israel palestine right now because these are the countries own fucking people.
The reason i said “its a war, it’s complex” is because i’d literally be here for 3 fucking hours, typing until i hit the world limit multiple fucking times just to iterate my point once. Forgive me if i’m being a little brief here.
Like don’t get me wrong, i get it, i’m not a huge fan of the fact that we’re sending material to an ally who is using it effectively murder without consequence. Only to be brushed off by our leadership, i would think complaining about the fact that we’re doing this shit, rather than the fact that what we’re doing is enabling another independent entity to murder thousands of people every day, or whatever the stat is.
This is like being a friend of someone who’s experiencing an abusive relationship, and instead of telling them directly, you bitch at their abusive partner directly, expecting that to make them treat your friend better? Somehow?
There are complex aspects to a war that do not negate the simplicity of classifying it as a genocide. The conclusion is simple due to the mountains of undeniable evidence.
also linguistically, you literally cannot classify a war as a genocide. That’s not fucking possible, this is like classifying a car as a boat. A war can include genocide, as demonstrated ever so lovingly by the germans during that one world war. They are two distinct parts of a collective whole here.
What gets me is people who throw a fit when you point Hamas isn’t exactly awesome, even if they are fighting for very justified reasons
as far as i can tell, from the history i’ve seen, neither side is particularly justified IMO. Including the lengthy history of documented treaty negotiations as well.
Yeah it’s just a nasty situation. Israel is western colonial disaster
yeah. There is ultimately no good outcome to this situation. Even with a one or two state party, it’s just not going to be nice.
They are literally fighting for the extermination of the Jewish state and aim to eradicate the Jewish population from the region.
The Islamic colonial powers have a long history of persecuting the Jewish population in the region which was (and should Hamas be successful, again will be) every bit as despicable as what Israel are doing to the Palestinians now.
In this conflict, the only possible justice is for both sides to lose and a two state solution be implemented.
Yeah it’s interesting to see the rhetorical dichotomy that’s developed.
Wait, you mean the conflict can’t be broken down into one simple tweet from some random woman?
The tweet does not claim to summarize the entire conflict, but only promote the undeniable fact that it is a genocide.
again, a war cannot in it of itself be genocide, a war however can perpetrate genocide.
Much like a car can perpetrate transportation, but in it of itself is not literally transportation.
Amazing, you stopped genocide with semantics. Truly inspiring feat.
i didn’t stop it. Do you actually have 3 braincells?
A war can happen independently but at the same time as a genocide, and you can have a genocide without a war, the two are not intrinsically related.
By this argument i’ve completely destroyed the transportation industry, because there is no more fucking transportation.
You do not have to say it “again”. I ignored it the first time because there’s no logical reasoning or evidence for this. Until you do, it’s not something that I can respond to.
there literally is logical reasoning for this.
Notably the fact that war and genocide are LITERALLY defined as different words.
you mean to tell me the conflict that started officially in the year 1948 has nearly 70 years of history up to now, and has many involved parties, all of whom reside in the middle east, which is notorious for calm conflict resolution?
Search the web for “maximize Palestinian casualties”
