“We understand this is a hard one to swallow, but the Mossad handlers AIPAC 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.”
Progressives are against it as can quite clearly be seen by the responses from Bernie Sanders, AOC, and other progressive (liberal) politicians.
Centrists and Conservatives seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on the it’s a complex issues and if you question Israel than you must be racist against Israelis.
The whole thing is frustrating, and we need to do better than blanket labeling “liberals bad” here because it reads really wrong…
Schumer also called for Netanyahu’s resignation two months ago.
When all but three House Republicans introduced a bill to sidestep Biden’s pause on arms, 16 out of 213 House Democrats offered support. That’s hardly support of liberals.
Reps. Matt Cartwright (Pa.), Angie Craig (Minn.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (N.C.), Lois Frankel (Fla.), Jared Golden (Maine), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), Greg Landsman (Ohio), Jared Moskowitz (Fla.), Frank Pallone (N.J.), Mary Peltola (Alaska), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), David Scott (Ga.), Darren Soto (Fla.), Tom Suozzi (N.Y.) and Ritchie Torres (N.Y.
Make note of their names and vote them out regardless, but stop with this party division nonsense and recognize that there’s an entire party that wants to see Gaza and Rafah nuked and paved.
Liberals are not inherently progressive or leftist in the least. They are rightist-enablers who value their means over the inevitable ends. At “best” they are “enlightened centrists” who are willfully ignorant about the consequences of their actions, and at worst zealously dogmatic about their sacred middle-of-the-road fallacy.
These are not merely politicians… they are regular people who have been trained to turn a blind eye to hoarding, power consolidation, and overt abuse of others. That is liberalism.
Liberal is opposite conservative in defining economic policy legislation in political ideology. Libertarian is opposite authoritarian in defining social legislation. The middle is considered centrist.
There are absolutely Democrats in Congress that fall into the category of centrist. Referring to them as liberals is simply inaccurate. Once seated, politicians no longer get to define their own political ideology. It’s determined by their legislation and voting record.
Your second paragraph is correct, but the first one is just regurgitated right-wing propaganda, spread as a weak attempt to shift the Overton window rightward☹️
That’s how I was taught to identify political ideology in Poli-Sci class. The right wing is on the line between conservative and authoritarian, where the left wing is on the line between liberal and libertarian. Libertarians (capital L) are on the line between libertarian and conservative.
Regardless of how you define it, it’s important to designate the difference between social and economic political ideologies. They are completely independent, which is why the further left/further right linear description of both is inaccurate and lacking definition.
Could you explain how the Nolan chart is partial to the right wing?
The whole “social/economic” axis is a gross oversimplification, though; and it muddies the relatively simple (and historical) distinction between right/left political ideology, which stretches back to the French Revolution.
Fundamentally, rightism is about consolidating authority (which is composed of wealth and power).
Leftism is about ensuring the authority (wealth & power) remains evenly distributed.
Between the two (and at the extremes) is a complex web of ideologies. Liberalism focuses on allowances… so while it seems leftist at first glance, the outcome is that consolidation is allowed, encouraged, and even celebrated. Those are rightist traits and result in society shifting rightward.
There is no separation of social and economic policy in this paradigm, because they are tangled in complex, inextricable ways. For example, repression of civil liberties is a tool employed by those seeking to amass and consolidate power. Likewise, economics can (and will) also be manipulated by power-seekers in order to amass wealth and power… this manifests as a flip-flopping of policy in which their abuses must be allowed as “rights” as long as it benefits them, but those same “rights” must not be tolerated for any competition.
This is why liberalism falls into the center of the spectrum; it tolerates - even applauds - such abuses. Abuse is a feature of liberalism. Note how economic anarchism (i.e. anarcho-capitalism) leads swiftly to huge amounts of consolidated wealth (and therefore power) and so shifts all policy rightward, snowballing the entire time as it shifts.
Social policy does not behave in the same manner. A hands-off social policy does not result in consolidation of wealth or power. In fact, it has the opposite effect, so long as someones “freedom to” does not infringe on another’s “freedom from” (or vice-versa). This is sometimes colloquially called “the golden rule of liberty”. Shifting that balance is, as I said, a tool of rightists used to consolidate power.
All of that phone-tapped rambling is to say: means and ends are very different things and these two-axis charts, even if they were not originally intended to deceive, are now used almost exclusively for that purpose. They deliberately conflate the means and ends to make the consolidating actions of rightists appear less insidious than they actually are… to provide an illusion of freedom of opportunity in a system that has already been captured.
The majority of what you wrote aligns in agreement with my previous comment. There is a difference in Liberals and liberal economic legislation just as there is a difference between Libertarians and libertarian social freedom.
The right wing is the southeast line, promoting economic conservatism along with increased social legislation.
The left wing is the northwest line, promoting liberal economic support while protecting social liberty.
A Progressive would be placed furthest out on the northeast line, a Centrist in the center, and a Liberal between those two points.
We’re in agreement about what the left and right wings support. I still fail to see how what we have both described is not accurately represented on a two-axis chart.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group… - UN definition
Consensus on the matter seems complex and I’m not an expert, but what I believe is the issue is the exact definition. The grey area lies with the intent of Israel, as they state they are aiming at Hamas military targets while actually having (bizarre levels of) collateral damage.
But by this definition, one could mass murder any number of people at all times, as long as they have not spoken out their intent to do so. It’s just word play at that point.
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”
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
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.
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.
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.
Islamists calling for a genocide for Israel are idiots. And so are the demonstrations.
It’s extremely sad, that Palestinians are dying and suffer so much. There should be more humanitarian aid and the war should stop. But calling to arms and supporting hamas is a no-go for me.
You cannot justify actions to others, just by acting like they did. It’s logical nonsense, you are basically like what you hate then.
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.
When I think of Western Liberals, I think of people like myself who call it a genocide and are against the genocide. I think a lot of western liberal Jews feel this way as well.
Then I realize that many of those who call it a genocide are echoing genocidejoe right along side the far right.
Sure, any support of genocide whatsoever is inexcusable. At the same time, I think a second Trump presidency would be very bad for the world.
Is it just that the far right anti Biden camp has seized this opportunity to turn liberals away from Biden, or are people on the left so clouded by fury that they don’t see that any vote which is not for Biden is a vote for Trump?
At the risk of committing a ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy, I don’t think it’s the liberals who are ‘both sidsing’ this issue.
This is great because it proves my point… it is the far right agitators pushing the genocide Joe narrative. Thanks for providing an example for us all.
Hillary I wouldn’t consider a liberal, just less Republican than Trump. Bill, back when he was president, he was a bit liberal for the time, but he was no Obama, that dude could run for a third term on an independent ticket and win.
Given our current options I have no doubt Obama could run again, people would vote for him and they would amend the constitution so he could serve again. Even with the Republican majority supreme Court.
I have a question. I am partly ethnically Jewish and have not educated myself on this conflict. I haven’t done that because I figured I am too biased to form an option on this, despite not feeling particularly Jewish. I am also very concerned and fearful about Islam because of their views on LGBT people and notice that when Islam spreads, even in mild or moderate form, often it results in a certain percentage becoming radicalized, thereby harming LGBT people. There are zero Muslim dominant countries that are nice to LGBT people. That being said, by doing nothing, am I condoning genocide? 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’ve done nothing and have been somewhat purposefully ignorant of the facts because I know they are all so awful, and I am often dealing with depression anyway. I’m also not doing well financially so whatever I do and think may not matter. Is there a way to become educated on this topic with unbiased facts that aren’t influenced by religious ideas? How many Palestinian people are facing genocide and is this hyperbole? Am I the same as the people who just ignored the Holocaust in World War II? I also know the Palestinian elected Hamas which wanted to destroy Israel completely, which provides a safe sanctuary to Jewish people, and that the Jewish people made it hard for Palestinians to have many freedoms through oppression or harsh regulation even before the attack that happened when Palestinian terrorists/warlords/protestors killed a lot of people including children. I don’t have an opinion on things and am worried my ignorance is evil. I feel like this meme is partly about people like me and perhaps it should change me.
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.
Note how the graph is flattening. If this were a genocide, as the “perpetrators” gain control of more territory and eliminate enemy combatants you’d expect the casualties to increase (since there’s no one there to protect people) not flatten out as we’re seeing. Also note the Palestinian casualties being reported includes combatants (valid targets in a war) a support personnel (also valid targets in a war).
Also the UN has indicated there it’s likely some casualties have been counted multiple times. It’s a war after all, so we can’t expect these numbers to be 100% accurate.
The numbers are consistent with similar urban combat operations elsewhere. Sadly, in these kinds of conflicts, civilians often bear the brunt, especially in conflicts where there’s combatants that don’t wear uniforms. Also, Israel was not prepared to handle humanitarian issues in a drawn out campaign like this because Israel generally doesn’t do these kinds of campaigns. Hamas did know this war was going to occur well in advance but didn’t prepare for helping their civilian population. One suspects that may be because Hamas benefits from the suffering of the Palestinian people.
Sorry for the interruption. Now back to your regularly scheduled TikTok propaganda.
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.
I wouldn’t expect one side to have complete control of the food, water, medical supplies, electricity, and aid of the other side in a war. Nor would I expect more than a million people experiencing catastrophic food insecurity (famine) or disproportionate casualties of 34:1 in a war. Nor the systematic destruction of public infrastructure or attacks on refugee camps and humanitarian aid.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2 defines it as: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
Hundreds of Genocide Scholars have described this ethnic cleansing campaign as genocide because of the deliberate targeting of children/civilians and expressed intent by Israeli officials.
So, when we look at the actions taken, the dropping of thousands and thousands of bombs in a couple of days, including phosphorus bombs, as we heard, on one of the most densely populated areas around the world, together with these proclamations of intent, this indeed constitutes genocidal killing, which is the first act, according to the convention, of genocide. And Israel, I must say, is also perpetrating act number two and three — that is, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and creating condition designed to bring about the destruction of the group by cutting off water, food, supply of energy, bombing hospitals, ordering the fast evictions of hospitals, which the World Health Organization has declared to be, quote, “a death sentence.” So, we’re seeing the combination of genocidal acts with special intent. This is indeed a textbook case of genocide.
How certain are reporters and unbiased people that phosphorous was used and what is the significance of that?
I know you are showing different articles about how this is genocide. Sometimes, like in global warming, you’ll see someone go “on the one hand, some scientists say the earth isn’t experiencing global warming, but some say it is” but there’s 10,000 scientists who say global warming is real and 2 who say it isn’t.
Do most experts in genocide or war crimes think something really awful is going on? I don’t think the ICJ is biased, so the answer is probably that if the ICJ is saying there’s a problem, there is, but upon reading about that it seems like ICJ complaint is only backed by certain countries, most of them Muslim. I have a hard time trusting the opinions of any Muslim countries because of how they treat LGBT people. Is this something on which pretty much all international human rights activists agree mostly that they are being treated in a way that amounts to genocide?
I get lots of information, but it seems like there’s a moral equivalency in the media between the two sides, and I don’t really get any perspective on what many humanitarians think. I wish there were 100 humanitarians activists chosen at random who could give opinions on this, because I’m still somewhat unsure of what to believe.
I think a lot of those people that are being hurt are probably not even political and just don’t want to die or have their kids die. It seems unfair.
Someone posted here a graph showing a flattening curve of deaths, meaning fewer and fewer people are dying over time, suggesting that claims that lots of people are about to die of starvation and dehydration may not be true possibly. (Unless of course, those people are on the verge of death and so it’s not reflected in the graph yet.)
I am probably able to be so neutral because I didn’t see all the TikTok videos that were out there. I am not a TikTok watcher, but apparently the videos were awful and there were a lot of them and it shows people the stuff the media isn’t showing.
I read the Democracy Now article. They are a good publication. I don’t understand how Israel could fight Hamas without it affecting civilians since Hamas is among civilian populations.
Perhaps it is better for me to realize I am too biased to have an opinion on this that is both educated and objective. The phosphorous thing bothered me. Is that a chemical weapon? Is there accurate information that they are using chemical weapons? I feel like that would change my view and make me see what they are doing as clearly evil and corrupt.
thank you for responding. do you know what their justification is for all of this? or do they not make a justification? again, i am probably biased because I am part Jewish ethnically and want to believe Jewish people aren’t being arbitrarily cruel and that they feel there is no other option, but I don’t know, it’s something I want to believe and it may be wrong
so it sounds like you are saying that not only are people dying, but because a lot of infrastructure is being destroyed and because no one knows how they are going to get food or water, not only is it terrifying, but also will lead to a destruction to a portion of the people.
Someone posted a PDF in this thread showing the amount of people dying over time is flattening, that it looks more like a log graph than an exponential graph. This is based on people dying, so it’s evil in a way to look at the math of this, but if the infrastructure situation is getting worse and this is systematic, why is this curve flattening, or are the numbers that were posted just wrong?
i mentioned thank you before, but i want to mention again your response is a very well-written response and i hope it gets up-voted. I don’t really understand what those people saying the actions are justified would say in response to this, but i read it again and there’s a lot of convincing stuff in here. I’m still not sure about how Israel should be handling this instead if these actions are unethical, or if Israel is dealing with Hamas who wants to destroy it and is doing the best they can while facing an existential threat. Would there be a way of fighting Hamas that is less likely to impact civilians? Is there an alternative that they are not choosing?
First I want to say I appreciate that you are inquisitive and interested in learning more about the conflict. I’m not sure I’ll have time to answer all of your questions so I wanted to provide some of the best resources I’ve come across.
Articles will always have bias and can omit details, which is why I consider the most comprehensive sources to be works by New Historians and Investigative reports by human rights organizations. Their work is done on-the-ground and independently of each other, so cross referencing their works will give you the best picture IMO.
For an end to the conflict, I believe only a Secular Binational One-State Solution is the only real way forward because of the current reality of the occupied territories. I’ve linked a couple articles that show why some New Historians think that way.
If you don’t have access to a library or want to view these for free first, they can all be found on the Library Genesis. I believe a few are on audible too
It’s because the term genocide has been weaponized. People are redefining the term to be “whatever Israel is doing” to create a false equivalency between what Hamas did on October 7 and the war those actions started. It’s a “both sides” mentality from people that confuse sympathy for Palestinians with sympathy for Hamas.
It’s very disgusting logic when you think about it. People feel that if they can prove that both sides have committed genocide, then the genocide perpetrated by Hamas is somehow justified.
There’s a lot of raw emotion at play here people that have been subjected to imagery of dead children tend not to be able to parse the logic they’re promoting.
But in the end Hamas committed genocide, Israel has not. That fact makes it difficult for people to attend protests where people cosplay as Hamas, so it’s generally rejected to preserve the convenient narrative and not feel guilty over not having the courage to call out blatant antisemitism.
I think it’s hyperbolic to say all the protestors are antisemitic. I’m sure some are, but perhaps some people just don’t want civilians starving to death. This does not imply that Hamas and Jewish people are both to blame in the same amount. I don’t know all the details of the complex history. The idea that all the people protesting are all secretly just racist and that’s the reason why they are protesting is a gross simplification.
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.
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?
That’s not actually true. I didn’t admit a lack of reliable evidence of genocide but just questioned how data collected in a war zone has such precise numbers when there are probably epistemological problems with determining numbers. I’m incredibly politically and historically ignorant on this conflict and would not, at my current level of knowledge, make a blanket conclusion about whether genocide can be concluded or not concluded based on reliable evidence.
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 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
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.
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”
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.
Add comment