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.

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.

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.

Removed by mod

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.

deleted by creator

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

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.

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’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.

Conservative goalposts moving.

Bro those aren’t liberals protesting.

you have no fucking clue who or what liberal is.

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”

Removed by mod

Hamas supports genocide against Jews. I think that’s the essence of the complexity, both sides of the conflict seek the eradication of the other. If we removed all weapons and defenses from Israel it wouldn’t be enough to stop the bloodshed, it would just change which people were dying. The first step to a lasting peace is to end the genocide in Gaza, but it will take many more steps to reach the goal.

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