[averysmallbird]

As someone very vocal on Iran, I find these recriminations shallow and generally intended to be punitive about those positions in those others places.

By the same precedent, it opens up Iranian human rights activists to the same endless accusations — when were you vocal on M23, Haiti, Kashmir, Kurds, Muslims in India, etc etc. I don't think it's countless silent organizations, and those organizations or activists are generally not in position to be able to influence the IRI or IRGC.

I think you have distinguish between feckless organizations like the ITU, and say, college student campus activists.

[ericmay]

I think it's a fair criticism though because of the general vitriol about Hamas and Gaza.

The same folks are very much in a position on college campuses to protest about numerous injustices going on in the world, from Iran to Somalia to Haiti to Cuba, yet they're silent.

Why is that? It's a fair question.

I don't think there's some moral failure for caring about one issue affecting one group of people more than another, but you really have to wonder why we care so much about Palestine over other issues, even more gruesome injustices.

This isn't to diminish of course the plight of Palestinians or any group for that matter, but it's a very clear outlier in the American, and dare I say entire western psyche.

[Archio]

“it's a fair criticism though because of the general vitriol about Hamas and Gaza.”

Ok, you’ve convinced me. I now firmly support reducing billions in American aid to Iran, curtailing Iranian use of American bombs, and diplomatic cover America gives to Iran in the UN. I am now also calling strongly to remove all these state laws we have that ban government business with companies that don’t support Iran!

[ericmay]

Is your argument that if the US wasn't selling weapons to Israel which are used on Gaza, Americans and Europeans wouldn't care about what's going on in Palestine as much?

Are you calling for Iran to cease supplying Hamas and other regional organizations with weapons as well?

[Archio]

I don’t know if you are American, but I am. Sure, I don’t support Iran giving Hamas weapons. The issue is that Iran isn’t my government and they certainly don’t give a fuck about my opinion.

The human tragedy in Gaza is enabled directly by MY representatives and funded with MY tax money and given diplomatic cover for atrocities again and again by MY government. Nothing my country is doing enables what is happening in Iran right now.

The situation is less pronounced with Europeans, but not dissimilar. The EU has sanctions on Iran, unless I’m missing something? And frankly yes, if American support for Israel ceased I think Europeans would complain less because Israel would have to stop a lot of their behavior.

[ericmay]

> The issue is that Iran isn’t my government and they certainly don’t give a fuck about my opinion.

This seems like a cop-out and I’ve noticed a similar “Iran isn’t my country” pattern amongst others. Let’s be very clear, Iran needs to stop funneling weapons and money to Hamas and other terrorist organizations. They’re complicit in this war and the blood of Palestinians is on their hands too, never mind the thousands killed peacefully protesting this week.

Iran doesn’t need to be your country to call for them to stop initiating and supporting violence and genocide in the Middle East, or to stop repressing their own people. Just like Ukraine doesn’t need to be your country for you to call for Russia to stop their war.

It’s one thing to say well I’ve only got time and energy to protest my country doing XYZ, but that argument doesn’t hold water when having a discussion on the Internet which requires little effort and no sacrifice of any kind.

[tehjoker]

If the US wasn't selling weapons, Israel wouldn't be able to do what it does. It wouldn't be happening like this. So that's right, the level of caring would be lower because the genocide would not be possible.

[ericmay]

> If the US wasn't selling weapons, Israel wouldn't be able to do what it does.

It's hard to really draw up the counterfactual but I'm not really sure that's the case. But there are many other players here besides just Israel that are helping to ensure that this conflict continues to fester, chiefly Iran.

[Archio]

It's a fair point to say that the counterfactual is hard to draw up.

I will point out the main reason it's hard to come up with, is the fact that American aid, weapons sales, and diplomatic support for Israel has been so constant and unchallenged over the past several decades that we don't have many good examples of what Israel would do without impunity.

[tehjoker]

Without western support, it is quite possible Israel will simply lose and the conflict will go away, leaving a possibility of building a democratic secular state in Palestine that treats people with equality.

[rozap]

Correct, Iran shouldn't fund Hamas. I don't pay taxes in Iran, I am not a member of their society.

I'm American. I pay taxes in the US. I could do some math and figure out how many deaths of innocent kids I've directly funded, how many Palestinian families I've helped displace. I get to live with that knowledge.

I'm not funding Hamas terrorist attacks, but I am funding a genocide.

[ericmay]

People around the world don't pay taxes to the United States yet protest its actions even when their country isn’t involved. There's no reason you can't do the same.

You're taking the easy way out here instead of engaging with the world head on. You don't want to criticize Iran because you don't live there, yet their actions helped Hamas kill like around 2,000 other innocent people. But you're silent because you don't live there? Are you also silent on Russia invading Ukraine since you don't live in either country? Give me a break. What you and others who have made similar claims have presented are really bad, isolationist-style arguments.

[rozap]

Iran's government is rogue and I don't support them in any sense. They are committing crimes against their own people and funding terrorism elsewhere. The world would be better off if there was a different regime. Therefore, the US should stop selling them weapons, sharing intelligence, and sending them aid. Oh wait...

[averysmallbird]

I appreciated your exchange in this subthread about the difference of the U.S.'s involvement versus Iran. However, I want to push back even without drawing that distinction, so I do it here.

I think private individuals and even civil society organizations, no matter how noxious or loud they can be, have a right to have specific passions without being expected to be universalist in application or having to account for why. Particularly when it comes down to the individual, people have a right to say, I find this cause very moving for whatever reason and I don't think then there's an obligation to answer for everything else going on in the world. Especially outside of governments, international organizations, and civil society groups that claim to be universalist in their cause. If anything we should be glad people have passions outside their narrow world.

I believe that as a general principle, but also because in practice that criticism tends to get waged, dare I say weaponized, against particular causes. I don't tend to see people focused on Somalia, Haiti, or Cuba being denigrated for not caring about Iran. I don't see people shouting down advocates for Christians in Nigeria over supposed silence on the Rohingya. I think its punitive for believing in a cause, generally specific causes, rather than about integrity.

I would venture to guess you can also find ample examples across the world, and that selectivity is simply a part of human nature rather than some defect of western psyche.

[ericmay]

> I think private individuals and even civil society organizations, no matter how noxious or loud they can be, have a right to have specific passions without being expected to be universalist in application or having to account for why.

I don't disagree at all, just to be clear for anyone reading.

> I don't tend to see people focused on Somalia, Haiti, or Cuba being denigrated for not caring about Iran. I don't see people shouting down advocates for Christians in Nigeria over supposed silence on the Rohingya. I think it's punitive for believing in a cause, generally specific causes, rather than about integrity.

Sure, and I think that's fair and I'm not denigrating those who are protesting in favor of action w.r.t Palestine/Gaza, but more so interested in why that particular issue seems so important over others. The most compelling reason I've read so far is that because the US sells weapons to Israel, though I think there's some good reasons to sell weapons too so it's not all negative.

[averysmallbird]

I appreciate your engagement!

> The most compelling reason I've read so far is that because the US sells weapons to Israel, though I think there's some good reasons to sell weapons too so it's not all negative.

Some of it is also memetic: a couple of decades ago Tibet was the cause celebre, after that it was Darfur and recall Kony 2012. Issues become important because there's active conflict and human cost, and then people discuss the issues that are getting discussed. And then sometimes those become signifiers for larger issues, e.g. anti-system politics as whole, liberal hopes, or conservative culture wars.

[ericmay]

I don’t remember all of how society has reacted to various issues but the protests and discourse around Palestine seem to be an outlier in terms of engagement. But that’s just my interpretation.

[SanjayMehta]

It makes perfect sense if you know the history of how the British created this mess.

Jeffrey Sachs has talked about it at length in various forums. He's also written about it extensively.

[ownlife]

> Why is that? It's a fair question.

I think most of those students would answer that they are protesting the US government's complicity in this particular injustice -- which doesn't apply to the other injustices you list. I have a hard time imagining that most people asking this fair question can't think of that obvious answer.

[ericmay]

I hadn't really thought about it from that angle. But it's certainly reasonable.

Do you think if the US wasn't selling weapons to Israel that there wouldn't be protests and a lot of social media posts similar to how other humanitarian disasters are treated today? I guess would it be on the same level?

I wonder if there's a correlation across western countries with respect to protests and a given country's participation in selling weapons to Israel. I recall there were/are a lot of protests going on in Ireland with respect to the conflict but I know Ireland doesn't sell weapons to Israel. But there have been of course other cases in Europe where the country does sell weapons and there are protests. Maybe there's a rhyme and reason here, I'm not sure.

[Archio]

I appreciate your understanding here.

Another way to put it: the point of protesting generally isn't solely to express being upset with an injustice. It's to get some actor/stakeholder - usually one's government - to DO something about the injustice.

Because of this, it's entirely rational to NOT protest with equal opportunity for every injustice that occurs around the world. Those American campus students aren't just protesting to make noise, they are hoping that their government leaders - that DEPEND on their votes - will cease enabling atrocities.

The American government hates Iran with bipartisan support and has it sanctioned to hell and back, I have no idea what I'd protest American leaders to do here?

[ericmay]

> The American government hates Iran with bipartisan support and has it sanctioned to hell and back, I have no idea what I'd protest American leaders to do here?

Well you could rally in support of more action, or protest outside an Iranian embassy for example to put pressure on them. I was reading that something on a small scale happened in the UK and they took down the Iranian flag from the embassy.

> Another way to put it: the point of protesting generally isn't solely to express being upset with an injustice. It's to get some actor/stakeholder - usually one's government - to DO something about the injustice.

Sure, I don't disagree. But let me ask, do you believe that if the US wasn't selling weapons to Israel that the public would react to this particular conflict in a way that's similar to how it reacts to other conflicts around the world? It's obviously hard to speculate about because it's just the world we live in and counterfactuals around these things are incredibly difficult and inaccurate, but something tells me there's something unique about this conflict and even in countries that don't sell weapons to Israel we do still see rather large scale protests and rallies and such.

What do you think?

[Archio]

>Well you could rally in support of more action, or protest outside an Iranian embassy for example

You're describing methods of protest, but not demands. What specific action do you believe Americans should demanding from their representatives re: Iran, that the US government isn't already doing? We bombed Iran just this past summer, are you saying we should go back for round 2?

>obviously hard to speculate about because it's just the world we live in

The world we live in is the world where the US gives huge financial, material and political support to Israel. Your statement feels akin to saying "Sure there is a gigantic elephant in this room right now, but something tells me there's some unique reason why everyone is complaining about the room being cramped. Especially compared to these other rooms that don’t have a giant elephant inside.”

[SanjayMehta]

The US government doesn't hate Iran, the US government hates that Iran doesn't have a compliant government in an oil rich state, near Russia which is another resource rich state.

Every action of the US can only be understood if there is wealth to be stolen.

[ericmay]

Yea. You know when I joined the military and went to Iraq I was pretty upset I didn’t get to bring home any gold or my own barrel or two of oil. Or even a washing machine! Disappointing.

[fmbb]

I don’t think that is a fair question if one has at any time tried to look into what exactly these protestors are protesting or how protest works.

[ericmay]

Sure, care to elaborate on what exactly these protestors are protesting, or how protesting works and why that's uniquely different for Palestine versus other equally horrible injustices?

[criddell]

Could it be as simple as the people supporting Palestine are better at social media?

[khazhoux]

> Why is that? It's a fair question.

Seems simple to me. The Palestine/Israel protests were demanding change from an ally. It was a call for "you guys are supposed to be good but what you're doing is bad."

I suppose there could be rallies of support for the Iranian people, but it would seem silly for US protesters to demand change from the Iranian government, given that our opinion is probably not regarded highly by them.

[visageunknown]

This is classic whataboutism. You don't have to criticize every single atrocity in the world in order to criticize one. I often find that people who take your stance don't care about any issues. They're simply weaponizing other problems to avoid engaging with the one they actually oppose.

There is also a key difference between the Palestine issue vs the others you listed. The fact that our country is deeply in bed with the country that is committing these crimes against humanity and actively funding it, along with the strange level of undue influence that country has on our government.

[ericmay]

I intentionally didn't do a whataboutism, but just asked why it seems that westerners care about what happens in Gaza, as bad as it is, more than they do other equally horrific injustices.

It's undeniable that our society cares more about Gaza and the future of the Palestinian people, so what makes them unique that's different? Or are you suggesting that Americans, for example, care equally about what's going on in other conflicts and humanitarian catastrophes? If so, why don't we see campus protests for example?

[visageunknown]

I answered your question, if you read my response fully.

Generally though, I find your line of inquiry fascinating. There are people out there actively protesting a particular issue because they genuinely care about it and the people affected. Meanwhile, you—presumably from the comfort of home—are criticizing them for not addressing other issues, all while doing nothing about ANY of these issues yourself. It reeks of apathy and malintent.

[js8]

Personally, I do care about Gaza more because my government is complicit in it. So it's my duty, especially in democratic country, to oppose that. I don't know how to influence Iranian government, if anything, I think my government could offer them lifting sanctions in exchange for easing domestic policies.

[SanjayMehta]

Your country is not democratic, that's the takeaway, if the two political parties - count them two - both behave exactly the same way.

[js8]

Just to clarify - my country is Czechia not U.S. but still not very democratic, and we indeed have more or less 2 parties behaving the same way.

[asdff]

The difference you see is between a sponsored protest and unsponsored. Basically, bleeding heart liberals have been successfully convinced to align with Hamas without them explicitly realizing it either. This is a good primer on Hamas in the US and their general media strategy:

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/202...

Kind of interesting to keep in mind when people protest for a ceasefire instead of say, Hamas removed from power and free open elections resumed for Palestinians.

[Archio]

Do you sincerely believe that financial sponsorship is the primary impetus causing Americans to voice dissatisfaction in US support for Israel? That is a fascinating perspective.

[asdff]

Well, why would it not be? For information to be put in front of americans requires advertisement. Very few people seek out information organically versus simply being served information for consumption through a usually visited channel. Stories aren't written for free. This is probably why no one is protesting about Sudan or Yemen, very little in comparison is written about these conflicts, streamers and internet personalities aren't picking them up as much and putting them in front of their audiences.

[epolanski]

The rohingya in Myanmar just 10 years ago.

Myanmar was literally burning people in open pits, happened across 800 villages, most people don't even know that happened.

[neoromantique]

>when were you vocal on M23, Haiti, Kashmir, Kurds, Muslims in India...

That is the entire point, Gaza protests have been very vocal (and in many cases very misinformed). Human right abuses in Iran are but another example of this blindness.

[RobertoG]

Misinformed, sure. As it's not obvious what Israel is trying to do in Gaza.

You ask for equal reaction, here it goes: I want for Israel the same sanctions that are applied to Iran and Russia. Fair, right?

[tehjoker]

It's very obvious what they are trying to accomplish: ethnic cleansing. The idea is to make life so miserable to Palestinians that they will give up their national liberation struggle and venture into the punishing Sinai desert, allowing Israel and Trump to build a riviera and a gas pipeline on the sea.

If they can't get them to leave, the partial genocide will escalate into a full blown mass murder campaign.

[mhb]

Surely the oxymoronic "partial genocide" should reveal how ridiculous it is to invoke this bit of propaganda.

[RobertoG]

Is not that Israel wants a genocide, is that it's pretty obvious that they are ready to commit one in order to get the ethnic cleansing that they want.

This is obvious. In fact, I suspect that they are going to success, and in a few years we will have to hear how that was a terrible mistake, but, of course, never again. Maybe, even you will be saying that.

[tehjoker]

RobertoG's comment is a good one, but I will add that the definition of genocide is defined in the genocide convention as:

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:

    ... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

        (a) Killing members of the group;
        (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
        (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
        (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
        (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[9]

I was sloppy in saying "partial genocide" as a colloquialism, because "partial genocide" is the crime of genocide full stop.

[mhb]

Yeah. Let's pile on enough definitional nuance in order to apply it to a situation in which it is clear that the previous, universal understanding doesn't fit in order to stoke outrage.

Besides, that's clearly not Israel's intent or it would have already been accomplished.

Maybe the reason for your "sloppiness" is that you instinctively understand the absurdity?

[neoromantique]

Nope, you flip the aggressor and the victim.

But thank you for showing your biases so openly.