The bare minimum expected of a leader of the American left, and a democratic socialist, should be a willingness to say “I endorse the conclusion of mainstream human rights organizations.” Why wouldn’t Sanders be willing to do that? He says that it doesn’t really matter “what you call it,” because it’s horrific. But clearly it does matter to Sanders, because he is making a choice not to use the same language as the human rights organizations. Why is he making that choice? He has not explained.
Sanders is right that the more important debate is about actions rather than language. But genocide is also the supreme crime against humanity, and it is so unanimously reviled that it makes a difference whether we use the term. For instance: there might be a debate over whether we should cut off weapons to a state that has “engaged in war crimes.” (How many? Are they aberrations or policy?) The Allied powers in World War II engaged in war crimes, and many Americans think war crimes can be justified in the service of a noble end. But there can be no debate over whether we should ever arm a state that has engaged in genocide. Genocide has no justification, no mitigation. If a state is committing it, all ties should be cut with that state.
Actually, we can see the difference in Bernie Sanders’ own policy response to Israel’s crimes. He told CNN that “your taxpayer dollars” should not go to support a “horror.” This is true. Sanders, to his credit, has repeatedly proposed a bill that would cut off a certain amount of weapons sales to Israel. Democratic opinion has so soured on Israel that Sanders’ bill attracted a record amount of Democratic support (27 senators, more than half the caucus.) But notably, Sanders’ bill only cuts off “offensive” weapons to Israel, leaving “defensive” weapons sales intact.
We might think that it’s perfectly fine to sell “defensive” weapons. Israel’s “Iron Dome” system, which U.S. taxpayers help pay for, protects the country against incoming missiles, and protection against incoming missiles is surely a good and noble thing. But notably, we have not bought Hamas its own “iron dome.” Or Iran. Or Russia. This is because we do not support the causes for which they fight. We understand in these cases that to help the “defense” is to help the “offense.” If Russia is protected from Ukrainian missiles, it will fight Ukraine more effectively. Likewise, if Israel is protected from Hamas rocket fire, but Gaza is not protected from Israeli missiles, the balance of arms is tilted toward Israel, and they can pulverize Gaza without Hamas being able to inflict similar damage in response.
You fuckers help elect Trump over this issue.
How’d that help your cause? Gaza is doing great under Trump, right? Aren’t you glad you didn’t vote for Harris, now?
Your principled stand made the whole world objectively worse and I’m sure at least some of you are happy with that.
I vote democrat and you managed to turn me against your cause, congratulations.
that would require them to admit that they are the baddies
They don’t say it because they’re paid not to.
AIPAC
Because they’re owned, and they’re pussies
AIPAC has made calling the Gaza Holocaust a genocide illegal.
Aipac told them not too
You want to really call it out? Call it a Zionist Holocaust
Just holocaust. They don’t deserve owning that term anymore.
They don’t deserve owning that term anymore.
It was first used in the modern context by a British journalist covering the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, long before the Shoah happened.
That journalist’s name was Winston Churchill.
AIPAC is the biggest donor to both parties and institutions in the US. Pretty much, Israel has become a vital point in our economy, which is also known as the military industrial complex system, which keeps America running and any sort of deviation that tries to change or move it towards the lap, just gets ratcheted back towards the right slowly hence why the most of Europe views our left as center/right instead of the alternative. Literally speaking out of any sort of societal benefit for anybody get you label of a dangerous communist and a threat to democracy here in America becausewe are vastly under educated because it’s been part of the Republican plan to define education since I think it was a Nixon who was afraid of educated because it turns us into “hippies” Who generally don’t prefer war and that’s pretty much what we run on as of now not saying it’s right, not saying things can’t change But as of right now, it is basically ice-skating uphill in America, trying to get anything done that might preserve but a little erosion of democracywe have left
Why is there a photo of Bernie? I’m sure he mentioned it a few times.
Despite being on the correct side of the issue in every other way, he has been resisting calling it a genocide outright.
Yep, also is still supportive of the state of Israel. That nazi state has no right to exist.
Bernie being Jewish I’m sure he gets a lot of local and family pressure to be measured as well. Not saying that’s right, but interpersonal shit can make it trickier.
Tbh, I think a lot of older Jewish people are in a tremendous amount of self denial about the whole scenario. The Jewish community spent generations drilling the idea that being Jewish was basically an antonym to genocide.
I recently listened to an interview of a Jewish professor who specializes in genocide study who talked about his initial internal conflict with admitting what he was witnessing was genocide. The guy did his best not to cry throughout the interview and failed from doing so a couple times. You could still see that he was struggling with a crisis of consciousness and identity, and it was admirable he could overcome it with academic integrity.
It’s still not an excuse, but I think it’s at least understandable that a people who built a cultural touchstone around their own genocide are largely in a state of disbelief that they are now participating in one.
To add to this, genocide is actually a pretty wide term with a lot of different ways if manifests in the real world. There’s everything from the Holocaust, European colonization of the Americas, to the current situation in Palestine. I think it’s an easy trap for people to fall into to say that because situations aren’t exactly equal that one is a genocide and one is not.
I mean further its not the only one currently or in recent times. There is almost always one going on by the treaty definition. I mean no one uses it with russia on ukraine but it is doing several of the acts of which any meet the definition layed out. Honestly I can’t see how any military action can avoid meeting the definition.
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
People definitely use it with regard to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially due to removal of children, but also due to their actions in the early stages where, for example, they murdered a very high proportion of the residents of Bucha and other small towns.
Those people must have pretty soft voices as I have never seen the term used. Again though there are a lot of genocides and only some get exposure. That being said it would be real nice to live in a world without all this bullshit. Can’t we progress as a species and culture rather than gravitating to the worse.
I don’t know of any high-profile people outside of Ukraine who refer to it that way, but those are still not soft voices.
The definition is actually pretty narrow. All of these only count if the intention is to erase the group’s cultural identity through these actions.
A single murder can be genocide if it is done in the name of ethnic cleansing. On the other hand, Hiroshima, despite being a war crime, was not genocide since the Americans didn’t do it to exterminate the Japanese or to force them out of Japan.
Israel could kill as many kids as they want without it being genocide - again, it would “simply” be war crimes, the settlements, the wholesale demolition and displacement, the fuckery with aid is what makes it genocide.
Same in Russia, the killing and the destruction are only war crimes, the kidnapping of children and the extermination of villages while the leaders say “Ukraine does not exist” is what makes it genocide.
that being Jewish was basically an antonym to genocide.
I’ve heard a good while ago from a respected Jewish scholar that the main thing tying Jewish culture together is not language or religion, but the shared experience of the Holocaust.
This kinda means that a Jewish state committing genocide has a nonzero chance of erasing the Jewish identity.
It’s that interview available online?
I’m sure it is, I can’t recall the exact source atm. It was a couple months ago and I’m struggling to remember if it was on the radio or maybe a podcast? I’ll search around, if I find it or remember the source I’ll shoot you measage
Because of all those checks from AIPAC.
I don’t think Bernie is getting cheque’s from aipac, think he may be more motivated by aipac dumping money into a rival candidate. Although his term isn’t up until 2030, and by then he’ll be 89, so hopefully he won’t be running for re-election anyway.
All they need to do is harp on how much it is costing and has cost tax payers.
I think there’s a pretty simple reason… People are fucking terrified. They try to downplay it in their heads, they shut down, they just stop listening. They make excuses for how it couldn’t happen to them, that the victims must’ve done something wrong to invite disaster
It’s the same thing with global warming. We’re so screwed, millions, maybe billions are going to die from it in our lifetimes - and we’re still not really fixing the problem
You can tell people isolated events and facts, one at a time, and hope they realize the urgency themselves after learning so many bite sized snapshots
Is it good messaging? IDK, it didn’t really communicate the urgency of climate change at the right moment
But if you use a word like genocide, even very technically, you lose the sheep. People already on your side are what, going to be suddenly happy you’re doing enough?
Whitewashing bullshit. They supported the genocide enthusiastically and Israel has already demonstrated that they will spend millions on small town local elections to out anybody that speaks up. They aren’t scared to admit genocide is happening because of mental blocks, they are afraid of losing their AIPAC checks and positions of power.
This is Joe Biden’s genocide after all, and Kamala lost because she doubled down and called for the most lethal military, and you’re still here making excuses and selling the Democrats as too good hearted to handle the truth… No! They support every bit of it until it’s clear to them that the people are more powerful than Israel lobbying and checks. That’ll never happen when you keep giving them excuses.
I’m not white washing anyone, I’m saying there’s no benefit for a progressive to use the term genocide. They need to describe a genocide viscerally, or use some new messaging strategy with or without the word
And I sure as hell wouldn’t call Democrats progressives, I’m not defending them. They’re not on our side… Obviously
I’m talking about progressives like my boy Mumdani, I’m saying he doesn’t need to use the term genocide. It’s enough to declare support for Palestinians and refuse to kiss the APAC ring.
Winning matters. To do that, your messaging needs to meet the moment correctly…I don’t give a shit what words they say, I want fighters with actual ideals in every goddamn office
And frankly, they’re ramping up to a genocide on American soil. I feel for the Palestinians, but to help them we’ve got to put on our oxygen masks first… We have to take back control for many reasons, but I’m genuinely terrified that almost no one seems to be acknowledging they’re building concentration camps where people started dying on day 3.
If I can’t scream imminent genocide for that, and it just makes people shut down, then I get why maybe genocide isn’t a useful word to throw around, no matter how true it might be
Winning matters. To do that, your messaging needs to meet the moment correctly…I don’t give a shit what words they say, I want fighters with actual ideals in every goddamn office
The data is out, we can stop pretending. Kamala lost because of her stance on Gaza, people didn’t vote for Trump, they simply rejected the Democrats.
If winning matters, they would call this what it is, and they would win in landslides. But the AIPAC checks are way more exciting, and they’re okay not winning because they count on people voting for them when they are sick of the other side.
Too bad people may not be able to vote again. And there’s certainly been an awakening where people WILL NEVER vote for either party again, not even pragmatically, and Democrats are still keeping their head in the sand and pretending like everything is still the same.
The idea of lesser evil has been shattered, their support for progressive causes being fake became obvious when Kamala responded to demand for ending the genocide by running a right wing campaign. George W. Bush had a campaign that was literally more liberal and left of Kamala’s. If you still think Democrats winning is a good thing, your eyes are not open yet.
The fuck are you talking about?
Progressives. Everyone else is the enemy.
You’re talking past me, and I don’t appreciate it
I’m not talking past you, you’re just not hearing me.
The oxygen mask you want to put on is a sleeping gas supply mask, and sure it’s better than straight up Zyklon B, but they’re gonna send you to the slaughterhouse as soon as you’re asleep.
What progressives are you talking about? What progressive are you counting on to save us? Mamdani who folded immediately when cornered about the phrase “global intifadah” even though he didn’t even use it?
Who else? AOC who refuses to oppose military funding to Israel because it’s “defensive”? Bernie who downplays the crimes of his beautiful Kibbutz state and wants you to believe it’s just Netanyahu?
These people are performers.
Oh I don’t know probably because they have been paid to not say it. Deny, defend, depose
they weren’t US politicians, they are AIPAC’s politicians
