Very nuanced issue

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.

Except they're not admitting it. That's the whole point.

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.

You haven't been to Lemmy.world then, lol.

It's likely that the use of "Western Liberals" here is meant to include both major US political parties.

My brother in Christ, our president is literally Joedolf "if there wasn't an Israel, we would have to invent an Israel to secure our interests in the region" Bidler.

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

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.

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 hear Americans use the term liberal all the time but the way they use it makes me think we're talkibg about different things

A liberal is someone who:

1. Upholds the modern nation state and is thus against monarchy (against whom the first liberals rebelled against)
2. Upholds capitalism and market economies, and with it property rights
3. Upholds electoral parliamentary systems of governance
4. Usually believes in some version of the social contract or similar theory from which the legitimacy of the nation state and capitalism is derived.

Anyone from the left complaining about liberals is using this definition of liberals (typically). The basic reasoning for using this definition if liberal is that it has always been the definition of liberal and has only changed recently in some parts of the world. It is also not necessary to change the definition because the "progressive liberals" also mostly fit the old definition either way. Pretty much every serious socialist political theory will start with a criticism of the philosophy of liberalism.

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 does. Literally the president of the United States as a prime example.

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

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

No, leftists are protesting the genocide. Liberals aren’t leftists.

Western Liberals are cheering on their president supporting the Genocide.

Bro those aren't liberals protesting.

you have no fucking clue who or what liberal is.

Conservative goalposts moving.

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

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."

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”

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.

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...

I find it funny.

Arguments in a politics group? How dare they

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.

Wait, you mean the conflict can't be broken down into one simple tweet from some random woman?

Hey man, you're asking the right questions. There's not really anything you can do except be willing to say what Israel is doing is wrong. Calling your representative in Congress is free, and the more they hear from us the more they'll pay attention.

On a personal note, a lot of this would be good stuff to bring to therapy, especially if you struggle with depression. Just if you don't already have one, I'd highly recommend speaking to one to work through some of these big important questions you're having.

I haven't done that because I figured I am too biased to form an option on this

Some of the most impactful voices against this genocide are Jewish.

That being said, by doing nothing, am I condoning genocide?

Yes. Genocide is genocide, irrespective of who it is aimed at or what else they did.

I could donate to an organization that is non-political like donating food to the people in Palestine who are supposedly starving through an organization … I'm also not doing well financially so whatever I do and think may not matter. … Am I the same as the people who just ignored the Holocaust in World War II?

If you can afford to, then by all means donate. If you can't, that's fine. You are not responsible for things beyond your control. What you can do is try to learn more about the history of this conflict, and be honest with yourself. Again, you have limited time and resources, so no one is asking you to research every atrocity going on in the world.

How many Palestinian people are facing genocide and is this hyperbole?

Palestine is now divided into two pieces - the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Those living on the Gaza strip are now facing genocide.

Israel … provides a safe sanctuary to Jewish people

To some Jewish people. Palestinian and African Jews face discrimination from white Jews.

The Jewish people made it hard for Palestinians to have many freedoms through oppression or harsh regulation even before the attack that happened.

The Israeli government did this. Many Israelis opposed and even protested this.

I feel like this meme is partly about people like me and perhaps it should change me.

I think it is more about hypocritical politicians and 'reporters'. It is great that you want to learn more. Be warned though - some of the things being done in Gaza are very fucked up.

Biden and Clinton would be considered liberals... Progressives are the ones calling it a genocide (and you know, anyone with a conscience)

Genocide isn't just murder. The UN defined it in the late 40s and it encompasses a lot more. "They aren't murdering enough so keep on going with your propaganda" is a real 0 iq or worse bad faith take.

Ew. 6 paragraphs of genocide apologia.

Statistics, especially statistics by those in power, are often not accurate. How can people know that this is accurate data and how would it even be possible to get accurate data in a situation like this? I also looked at the numbers again, and although the worst curves are flattening, there's also a lot of really awful facts in that PDF. Is this the least cruel way Israel could fight Hamas or is unnecessary cruelty being implemented? Another poster said they may be using phosphorous. Is that true?

This graph looks more like what I would expect from war rather than what I would expect from genocide. But many people are calling this genocide, so it seems likely this is a more complex issue. Why are people saying this is more like genocide?

Edited: I am leaving the comment here, but it appears I am actually ignorant on the definition of genocide. It doesn't relate to a set amount of deaths and other conflicts with fewer deaths have been labeled as genocide, so my point was totally wrong.

Pro-tip: you can use a search engine to confirm information.

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

I totally disagree with your point. Yasmine resulted in a lot of dialogue on this topic. Perhaps people learned things, perhaps people became more educated. Why can't Yasmine express her views in a witty interesting way? If you think she's wrong, why not address the substance of her point?

Jfc, this again. Refusing to support the dropping of bombs all over a population ≠ supporting Hamas. You should delete everything you said after the word “but” and just leave it at that.

🤡