Skip Navigation
politics @lemmy.world
IndustryStandard @lemmy.world

Why Won’t U.S. Politicians Say “Genocide”?

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.

94 comments

  • 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

94 comments