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.
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
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.
The obligations of countries against a genocide is a lot bigger than simple war crimes so it is important to use the term genocide which is the ultimate crime
Calling it a genocide will only help mamdani, the idea that he would lost because of it is just bs