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.
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!
Western Conservatives: They are commiting genocide 👍👍💯❤️😁
Except they’re not admitting it. That’s the whole point.
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.
Removed by mod
I see people agreeing it’s complex, because it is. But the majority of liberals I see, across multiple mediums, are against this. Not all of course, %100 of a group rarely does something, but anyone in these comments both siding this while also just oddly admitting to being liberal are not the majority.
That’s too hard to understand. Just say they support Genocide, it makes it all so easy! Surely, they can’t be deeply dissatisfied while remaining rational about the devastating implications of wavering when christo-fascism is looming on the horizon.
Now that I kinda think about it… no no, they love genocide. Ez pz.
Removed by mod
Average citizens didn’t get put on trial. If you knew anything about WW2 you’d know the citizens suffered from the Nazi uprising as well.
Removed by mod
So now america is preforming the genocide in palestine? Or you talking another genocide in america?
Edit:
Please I’m just looking for a single coherent thought.
Removed by mod
So this is analogous to Germeny in WWII? An exact 1:1
Removed by mod
And how do you know they’re liberals?
Removed by mod
Do you believe everything you see on the internet? It explains a lot about you.
Removed by mod
You haven’t been to Lemmy.world then, lol.
Reddits r/worldnews sub is probably the worst.
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.
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
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!
Removed by mod
See it’s this kind of reply that tells me you don’t know fucking anything about Hamas. If you haven’t read any of the Hamas covenant, please do so before displaying any more ignorance.
Israel as a state should be dissolved and land returned to Palestinians, but Hamas is not sunshine and rainbows
I’ve included the highlight reel below.
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” (Preamble)
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7)
“The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.” (Article 15)
“Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: ‘Hail to Jihad!’. This cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah’s victory comes about.” (Article 33)
Removed by mod
Do you think when the kkk revises their language to be all dog whistles instead of outright saying what they mean that this changes their goals?
Israel are the baddies right now, but if Hamas had the power Israel has they would be commiting genocide. The key is Israel has the power and they are killing people. It’s okay to focus on the current wrong without lying about a subset of the current victims…
Removed by mod
If I was part of the kkk but realized I believed nothing the kkk believed in, would I stick around? Pretending that just because they improved their public relations means that their organization radically changed their beliefs is magical thinking. I don’t believe in magic.
Hamas still openly believes that all of the Middle East is for Muslims only, that all of it should be under control of Sunni Muslim fundamentalist control, and that no non Muslims should even live in the Middle East. How do you think they believe they will get to that point?
Again, Israel is entirely responsible for their actions, but pretending that Hamas are just regular old freedom fighters is entirely a lie. The victims here are the civilians, there are far too many victims. But I don’t look at the religious fundamentalist bigots and see victims, they are part of the problem. All be it without the power to enact their hate fully.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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
Removed by mod
you’re right about this, i was wrong
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,
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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
