[joenot443]

I think when westerners like myself notice the disparity in response amongst western progressives between the Palestinian and Iranian situations, they're talking more from a social lens than the geopolitical one.

A lot of my peers have been incredibly active on social media the last couple years supporting Palestinians. They've been mostly completely silent on Iran, the imbalance is notable.

[noah_buddy]

Again, what am I supposed to do about it? If one lives in one of most western countries, one’s government has sanctioned Iran to the gills.

Even the government can do little more, except engage in war.

Compare this to Palestine, where direct action and protest is much more tangibly impactful.

[ch4s3]

European governments could expel Iranian ambassadors as a start.

[riedel]

I guess there is still remaining trade volume that could be further reduced by sanctions. While it is a tenth of what is typically traded with other countries in the region, I would say it is still 1000 times higher than the trade with North Korea. Having said that, the example shows that cruel dictators can still survive in isolation (particularly if the rest of the world still continues to be split on basic human rights)

[MichaelRo]

"More than 36,500 Iranians were killed by security forces during the January 8-9 crackdown on nationwide protests, making it the deadliest two-day protest massacre in history,"

Too bad that this is also a first time in history, following massacre of protesters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae...

[Ntrails]

> Again, what am I supposed to do about it?

Encourage your government to invade/incite regime change I guess...?

I have never been able to work out where the line lies between intervention and colonialism tbh.

[severino]

Encourage my government to invade Iran?

But only Iran?

Shouldn't we attempt regime change in, for example, the US?

It would be great if you could hand us the list of the evil countries that we should invade.

[Ntrails]

> hand us the list of the evil countries that we should invade.

All the ones not currently complying with the will of the greatest nation on earth. Obviously

It's for their own good!

In all seriousness. Perhaps you missed the tone of my previous comment? There is nothing you can do past a certain point other than either embrace the colonial attitude or let the country do its thing. There are no more levers to pull.

[pstuart]

Well, they already did that and fucked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

[cooloo]

I don't know maybe European government can stop doing billions worth $ business with Iranian regime over last 3 decades.

[direwolf20]

I think western leftists complain about Palestine a lot because the west is attacking Palestine and they want their government to stop that. While the situation in Iran is very sad, it also has nothing to do with my government and there would be nothing to be achieved by protesting, unless I think they need even stricter sanctions.

[charlescearl]

Further, the american government across several administrations imposed sanctions which led to premature death of Iranians, worsening conditions. It instigated the Iran/Iraq war carnage. It also bombed Iran contributing to civilian casualties. Even if it were to stage “regime change” in Iran, give the american government’s track record in Afghanistan and Iraq, the resulting government would likely inflict even more hardship upon the people of Iran. This is why some on “the left” view the united states as the primary contradiction.

[innagadadavida]

It’s not just the US based liberals. Al Jazeera doesn’t have a single mention on the number or people in Iran that were killed but they do have an article about all the Palestinians killed since over a year.

[pydry]

Al Jazeera is probably a little skeptical of numbers sourced from anonymous tip offs that are clearly being used as a pretext for military action.

WMD evidence published in western newspapers arrived in our newspapers in exactly the same way.

By contrast, the numbers provided by the "Hamas run Gaza health ministry" turned out to be accurate despite the extreme skepticism professed by the western media.

[cooloo]

Really turned to be accurate?

It's amazed that western progressive movment embress Al Jazeera which in controlled by violent regime of Qatar.

[vablings]

I think the biggest difference is simple the fact that Israel has much closer ties with the US. The foreign policy of the USA has been the carrot and stick model for a long time and it seems Israel always gets the carrot on the back of national security. Iran, we have little to no relations with so there isn't anything the USA can to do excise power without serious military action

[pydry]

The Soviet Union used to routinely criticize dissident Nobel Peace Prize winner Andrei Sakharov for having nothing to say about American atrocities.

"I don't know anything about them, I don't care about them, what I talk about are Soviet atrocities." he replied.

I wonder how many of the people arguing that "more leftists should be out protesting Iran" agree with the Soviet Union's criticism of its dissident?

My guess would be zero.

[phucyucuz0]

Sakharov actually owned it. He straight up was like "I don't care about them" He never claimed to be the champion of the Americans.

On the other hand, the Left seems to claim to be the main representative of women and gay rights for example, everywhere. You can't build your entire brand on "solidarity with the oppressed" and then ghost the moment you don't have the same specific advantage you want for your agenda.

Sakharov wasn't a hypocrite. That's the difference.

[pydry]

Expressing solidarity with the victims of genocide whom your government helped kill isnt a branding exercise.

Not unless you're a cynical, murderous psychopath.

It's an expression of basic human decency.

[phucyucuz0]

That's using a jurisdictional defense to protect a universal claim.

If the Left's platform was explicitly "We are an anti-imperialist check on Western power" then your argument would hold. But the actual platform is usually "Women's Rights and Gay Rights are Universal Human Rights"

You cannot claim such universal moral authority when it's convenient ("Justice everywhere!") and then retreat to the safety of a particularist stance ("I only care about what my tax dollars fund!") when it's difficult.

If your "basic human decency" only activates when the aggressor is your own government, then you aren't actually standing in solidarity with the oppressed. You are implicitly arguing that a victim's value depends entirely on the nationality of their killer.

[myroon5]

> retreat [..] when it's difficult

Focusing on more tractable causes makes sense (fwiw I think there are more tractable causes than both of those geopolitical conflicts: millions and millions die annually from preventable global health ailments)

[nickff]

The Soviet Union was famous for engaging in whataboutism; they covered-up the true toll of Stalin’s purges (along with the human cost of their policies), and constantly oppressed Eastern Europe for almost 50 years. They are/were not a good example of anything.

[pydry]

Yes, whether it's the soviets using it to attack soviet dissidents or zionists using it to attack left wing critics, whataboutism is bad.

[fc417fc802]

I think the difference here would be that it doesn't appear to be an attempt to downplay Palestine. Whataboutism involves both a claim of inconsistency and associated criticism but not all claims of inconsistency and associated criticism constitute whataboutism.

[pydry]

Oh no that's precisely all it is.

It isnt even the first time zionists have done this im the last two months they were trying to whatabout over sudan also.

The thing is, guilt tripping usually works pretty well on the left... unless you're doing it in support of genocidal, nazi-level racist monsters.

[sneak]

…and they’ve been completely silent on the 20k per day, every day, who die from lack of access to clean and fresh water.

People actually don’t really care, and almost all outrage about everything outside of lunch being served late is performative.

[1attice]

You will be surprised to learn that other people are not as hollow

[southerntofu]

> A lot of my peers have been incredibly active on social media the last couple years supporting Palestinians.

So it took from 1947 (if not longer) to 2023 to have this population become aware of the problem. Still up until a few months ago, at least here in France, it was very unwelcome (and even politically persecuted, via house searches and terrorism charges) to even mention the idea of a genocide in Palestine.

I remember over a decade ago quoting israeli settlers, newspapers and politicians arguing a genocide was ongoing. But at the time, calling it a genocide here in France placed you in the loony bin in the eyes of most people. Given some time, the iranian revolution of 2025-2026 will be well-known.

Beyond the differences outlined by other commenters (that western governments don't support Iran, but do support Israel), there's this difference that few feel compelled to get over-active on this issue because every one already feels concerned: all the TVs are talking about it, and even the right-wingers are on board. Overall, everyone (apart from some islamists) are convinced that the Iranian government is criminal. Now what can we do?

Continue spreading awareness ; your peers may get on board! But better, get informed and involved. There may be, for example, a kurdish-iranian diaspora near you organizing solidarity protests and proposing courses to understand the politics of Iran, get versed in jineology, or understand the basic tenants of democratic confederalism. There's also other diaspora. I would just encourage you to be careful with the "Reza Pahlavi" crowd, who support a fascist regime change in Iran and would encourage just as much horrible crimes as those we witness today, if they weren't done in the name of islam.

[jalapenos]

That's because leftism needs an antagonism against the cultural self. I.e. it needs to somehow have an element of fighting against others in your own society.

That exists with say Palestine - it's allows picking a side that's against a western right-wing state, Israel.

It also exists with say Russia, here's a right wing white male traditionalist attacking a state that was aligning towards the leftist EU.

In the case of Iran, there's not really an angle there.

So if you understand leftism not as standing for its claimed virtues and instead being politically akin to a group of teenagers rebelling for the sake of it against their own authority figures, it makes perfect sense that deaths of the downtrodden in general are not of concern - the victimhood cause must resonate with a particular format that gives them a clear and familiar path to self-congratulation - which is the primary goal.

[cdelsolar]

it's about preaching to the choir. I think it's an atrocity what happened to those Iranian supporters. But what's the point in posting about it? Everyone else thinks it's an atrocity. We have no power to change things in Iran.

[program_whiz]

One other point -- I think the left has effectively shifted the conversation on Israel very quickly. I think immediately following Oct 7 atrocities, public support was overwhelmingly with Israel. By raising awareness of the situation, it has now become more slanted towards "peace in Palestine." I see no reason a similar type of shift couldn't occur on any issue if a coordinated effort to discuss it and raise awareness existed.

And by doing so, it would likely cause change and or discussion by those in power.

[noah_buddy]

> it would likely cause change and or discussion by those in power.

The reason this is an absurd comparison is because on the Palestine issues, it’s a desire to stop using / selling weapons into a conflict and on the Iran issue “causing change” would be starting another war in the Middle East.

[cooloo]

This is lame excuse. For one you are calling for demolishion on nation on other hand you are not even embress the Iranian people who suffers under violent regime. That's the progression movment hyporcey

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> By raising awareness of the situation, it has now become more slanted towards "peace in Palestine."

"the situation" changed from "more than a thousand Israelis murdered by Hamas" to the total destruction of Gaza, the death of tens of thousands and worse.

It's not exactly surprising that there was a shift in where public support is directed.

[program_whiz]

Sorry I think the GP's point is correct. I feel the same about how we hear very little about modern-day slavery, but lots about much more minor workplace issues in the west. I'm not saying don't discuss modern workplace issues, and don't battle for even better working conditions -- but the silence is deafening. If American children were working 12-16 hour days in sweatshops, it would be nonstop in the news.

By not speaking out, it lessens the moral standing of those making a huge ruckus over certain issues, but remaining silent on arguably far more serious ones.

The power to cause change in democracy rests mostly in influence over decision makers who hold the power and money. The ability to get the news and media and celebrities talking about an issue is what gives protestors and those shouting on the left power to change things. Ultimately politicians and the elites want to be "in the right" to hold onto their power and money.

As an example, suppose 80% of the population was suddenly in an uprising about atrocities in Iran, and the next major election hinged on this subject. If some political party takes the right actions, they win the presidency house and senate. Do you think nothing would happen? Trump has literally said he wants to annex Greenland -- anything is possible if leaders feel they have political mandate.

Sitting in comfortable silence or talking about relatively easier issues just allows the more complex issues to go unsolved.

Again, nothing against pushing for peace for people in Palestine, but claiming that we should just ignore things in Iran reduces the legitimacy of the cause.

The pro-peace activist in WWII, who knew of concentration camps, but never mentioned it, and even told others not to discuss it. They claimed there was no point, nothing could be done. But the legacy wasn't the pro-peace activism, it was denial of the glaring situation they ignored.

[YZF]

This has never been about (western) morals which is why the masked violent crowds don't care about Russia, or China, or Saudia Arabia or Iran. This is about taking down the west because the west is evil. They also don't care about crimes against humanity perpetrated by Palestinians: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/0282/2025/en/

This crowd is also not calling for "peace in Palestine". That would be something everyone would obviously get behind and could lead to a constructive discussion about how we get there. They are supporting violence against Israeli civilians and calling for the destruction of Israel and the murder of its populace.

It also has nothing to do with "US aid to Israel" since we see the exact same behavior in other western countries that do not aid Israel at all. For Americans to question how their aid money is used (e.g. why is it going to Egypt) or who the US does business with (e.g. why with Saudi Arabia or Qatar) is perfectly legit but it's obviously not what's going on here.

[thisislife2]

What "imbalance"? It is disingenuous to equate the two political situations as the same:

1. Palestine is a settler-colony of Israel, where the Israeli-right currently in power is conducting a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza ( https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide ) while continuing to steal their land and deny them basic rights. ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/6/who-are-israeli-set... ). The oppressors and the victims are clear in the Israel - Palestine conflict, and thus it is easy to take a firm moral stand supporting one over the other.

2. What is happening in Iran is either (at best) a power struggle and violent conflict between two groups - the supporters of the Ayatollah and the supporters of the Shah (backed by the west), or (at worst) the start of a civil war. In this case, apart from sympathy for the victims of violence on both sides, it is hard to take a firm political stand for one side because both have a tainted record. (How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days - https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthr... ). Note that these so-called "revolutionaries" in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal too went on a rampage when law and order collapsed there, looting killing and doing senseless destruction ultimately destabilising their whole country. (Now Bangladesh is conducting a farce "democratic" election that deliberately excludes a major political party, the Awami League, because the so called "revolutionaries" fear that they will not be able to defeat them electorally. Something similar happened in Ukraine too). When both sides choose violence to capture power, and are hell bent on excluding the "other" from any future "democratic" setup, who really is the one with the "democratic" values and the real victim?

There is no doubt in my mind that the stand of the west (US / UK) here is totally hypocritical (and morally repugnant) if you praise the opponents of Ayatollah as "freedom fighters", while with the same breath you denounce the Palestinians as "terrorists" for daring to fight their Israeli colonial masters for freedom!

[tptacek]

1. Palestine is not a settler-colony of Israel.

2. The opposition in Iran is not orchestrated by the west.

[thisislife2]

1. Israel-Palestine:

- History of Settler Colonialism in Palestine - https://www.globalresearch.ca/history-settler-colonialism-pa...

- Israeli Settler Colonialism Is The Obstacle To Peace - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israeli-settler-colonialism-i...

- From Balfour to the Nakba: The settler-colonial experience of Palestine - https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/balfour-nakba-settler-...

2. Iran-US/UK:

- How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days - https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthr...

- They don’t care if you die: How Iran’s protests became a bargaining chip for oil and power - https://www.rt.com/news/631163-irans-protests-oil-and-power/

[tptacek]

You wrote "Palestine is a settler-colony of Israel". Nobody on either side of the conflict believes that. Your response here is a non sequitur.

[thisislife2]

Are you talking about grammar? Would you prefer that I write Israel is a settler-colonial state?

[tptacek]

At least that claim would parse? The issue isn't grammar!

[midlander]

> The oppressors and the victim are clear in the Israel - Palestine conflict

Only if you zoom in and focus on one tiny sliver. If you look at the bigger picture, Israel is surrounded by dozens of countries 100s of times its size, that have all been ethnically cleansed of Jews, many of them in different stages of open or proxy war with Israel, militarily or politically.

[direwolf20]

If you look at the even bigger picture, it was Israel that decided to pick fights with all those countries.

[nickff]

Those countries literally attacked Israel on the day it became a state, and many times thereafter. Israel is definitely not perfect, but their neighbors have been trying to wipe them out for no good reason for a long time.

[direwolf20]

What was the process that made Israel a state? What was there before Israeli state was? Who were the allies of that country?

[nickff]

I'd suggest the Wikipedia article as a very good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Ancient_Isra...

[thisislife2]

Unlike the west, the Arabs or Persians have never nurtured any hatred of Jews till the British (and later the Americans) forcefully backed the creation of a Jewish state in the middle-east. Even today, muslims around the world don't give a damn about Jews or antisemitism unless it is in the context of Palestinians. This is in stark contrast to the christian west, which still harbours a lot of antisemitism and is the factory that still generates most of the modern Jewish conspiracy political tropes (some of which do find their way to religious fundamentalists in the east too). The Israeli-right, ofcourse, has a vested interest in painting Arabs and muslims as antisemites, because otherwise "Israel" can't showcase itself as a "victim". I do believe the Israelis are victims too though not in the way the Israeli-right depicts it - early Zionists never realised that the bigger plan of the western superpowers in forcing them to the middle-east (instead of giving them their own country in Europe) was part of their "divide and rule" policy for the middle-east. Frankly, Israel and Palestine will never be at peace because it is not in the interest of western superpowers. (The Israeli-right have latched on to this too, and are trying to exploit it to increase their own power and influence in the region. Unfortunately for them, that is undesirable for the west and worse, they did it in a way that brings unwanted attention to the west - the Trump and Blair lead Board of Peace is the western response to cut Israel down to size, in the coming future).

[nickff]

There was plenty of oppression against Jewish people in the Middle East before Israel became a country. Blame whomever you want, but the Jewish populations there were targeted for discriminatory taxation and various other forms of oppression.

[thisislife2]

The Jizya tax on non-muslims in many Islamic empires was never a "discriminatory" tax. This is a common anti-muslim trope and an example of distorting history by considering it through modern political lens. In most muslim empires, this tax was only imposed on non-muslims who wanted to be exempt from serving in the military but still be a citizen of the Islamic empire they were part of. Those who chose to join military service were exempted from payment. Only free adult, non-muslim males were required to pay it and women, children, elders, the disabled, the insane, religious workers, hermits, slaves etc. were exempt. Some muslim rulers also exempted the poor amongst the non-muslims from paying it.

Muslims weren't required to pay a similar tax to the government because they were already obligated by their religion to pay a certain percentage of their wealth every year towards charity (Zakat).

This trope was popularised as part of the "divide and rule" policy of the British to generate animosity between muslims and non-muslims in many a British colony and today is commonly spouted in the anti-muslim tirades of many a right-wing religious fundamentalists.

[nickff]

There were a variety of other discriminatory measures in most of the Middle-East; many applied to religions other than Judaism as well. Another notable one was the limited access to the legal systems, along with the inferior legal status non-Muslims were relegated to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world

I also think it’s absurd to pretend that taxing people who do not tithe to one’s favored faith or cause is non-discriminatory. Imagine Utah taxing non-Mormons because they don’t tithe to The Church or The United Way.

[doofkoof]

This is not true, Jews, like many other groups, have been oppressed and humiliated by the Islamic Arab world for well over a thousand years. I truly can not believe you can say this with a straight face if you have spent any amout of time in Arabic speaking circles. The disgust towards Jewish people is open and constant, and I am not talking about attitudes towards zionism.

[thisislife2]

I have indeed spent some time in Arab countries, and also know a few Arabs. They didn't spout any kind of antisemitism. (Some of them did warn me to be careful of Egyptians though :). They do have disgust towards Israel as a country because of the actions of the Israeli-right in power. But that's not antisemitism however much Netanyahu and his cohorts would like it to be. I however do know some religious fundamentalist Muslims in my own country, who are definitely antisemitic and hate Jews for, well, being Jews. I also know some religious fundamentalists Hindus who hate Muslims, again, just because they are Muslims. But that's just how religious fundamentalists are - they aren't rational human beings and you can't use them as an example to tarnish a whole community. Netanyahu and his ilks are right-wing religious fundamentalists too, and that is why it is easy for them to slaughter Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Does that mean all Israeli jews are horrible human beings too, like them? Ofcourse not.

[midlander]

Today, Jews are denied entry to many Muslim countries - not just Israelis, anyone who looks Jewish.

The excuse that “some other people of this religion did something bad” does not justify hating and ethnically cleansing everyone who shares that religion.

[thisislife2]

As for the ban on Jews by some Arab / muslim countries - remember that the west was actively encouraging Jews, with Zionist movements all over the world, to migrate to the middle-east and occupy muslim-Arab territory. Sure, it began with a narrow focus with only Palestine. But who knew where it would stop if it was successful? Most of these countries are former western colonies who immediately understood what the west was trying to do by sending foreign Jews to occupy their land - the "divide and rule" policy was how they were subjugated too in the first place, to become colonies, and the newly independent Arab states understood that by driving Jews to the middle-east, their former masters wanted to use the Jews to foment a conflict between Jews and Muslims which they could then use to break the newfound unity amongst the Arab states and use as an excuse for interventionist politics. It had (and still has) nothing to do with antisemitism and everything to do with making sure that former imperialists doesn't exploit any political vulnerability in their country and endanger their (then) newfound independence. (It also doesn't help matters that Israel acts like a western puppet, further reinforcing the view that Israel is just a pawn of the west in the middle-east).

[doofkoof]

It is not as those Arab nations are some phenomenon of nature. The process of Arabization was, and perhaps is, itself one of settler colonialism and oppression. The fact that the colors of the caliphates are explicitly flown in areas outside of Arabia is proof enough of that.

[hearsathought]

> the Palestinian and Iranian situations

It's simple. One is a genocide. The other is not.

The more "israelis" ( or is it "iranian expat" ) like you try to pretend to be "westerners" and skew the conversation, the more obvious it becomes.

[joenot443]

> The more "israelis"

I'm a Canadian with an Irish/Ukrainian background who's never been to the Middle East. I've been using this username for 20y now, nobody's pretending to be anyone here.

Do you really think I'm some kind of Mossad-bot? This topic sends otherwise normal communities into an absolute epistemic frenzy, I swear.

[jraby3]

Arguably what's happening in Iran is so much worse.

The majority of people killed in Gaza were terrorists while in Iran they are mostly peaceful protestors.

I think the main reason is that propaganda really works! Qatar has spent $20B on US education alone, and Qatar Russia and China have launched a massive propaganda campaign to divide the US. The left was silent on Sudan, Syria, and Nigeria as well.

No Jews no news.

[alexwebb2]

> The majority of people killed in Gaza were terrorists

Not true at all. Terrorist supporters != terrorists