7 ms·

I think when westerners like myself notice the disparity in response amongst western progressives between the Palestinian and Iranian situations, they're talkin

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.

cdelsolar 9mo ago
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 9mo ago
  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 9mo ago
    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/ 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.
- program_whiz 9mo ago
  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 9mo ago
    > 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 9mo ago
      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 9mo ago
    > 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.
noah_buddy 9mo ago
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.
- sysguest 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - noah_buddy 9mo ago
    Getting past the point that this is a discussion of something meaningless in the first place (posting as social activism), why might left leaning people talk more about an issue they might tangibly have impact on over one they can have no impact on? They are not equivalent topics!
- Ntrails 9mo ago
  > 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.
  - pstuart 9mo ago
    Well, they already did that and fucked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
  - severino 9mo ago
    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 9mo ago
epsters 9mo ago
[flagged]
- hersko 9mo ago
  This is a wild take. You think the arab spring, Syrian revolution, Libyan revolution, Iraq war, interventions in Somalia and Sudan etc.. we're all CIA operations at the behest of Israel? Seriously?
  - epsters 9mo ago
    I mentioned many conflicts and many countries so this is very broad to cover in one comment but i will try, briefly. I have heard many theories given over the years to justify these interventions - democracy, capitalism, liberalism, oil, minerals, gas-pipelines, gas-fields, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, neo-colonialism, fighting terror, WMDs, fighting rogue states, checking expansionism, checking communism, countering soviet union, countering russia, countering china, oil contractors, defense contractors, petrodollar, maintaining global reserve system, global security, stability, American national security, European security, national security of Gulf allies, shipping lanes and trade routes and finally Israeli national security. How many of those goals were achieved? What did America get out of the Iraq War? Was Libyan intervention a net win for France ? Or Europe? My question is after 20 years, how much of those theories still hold up. Don't get me wrong, many of those things mentioned were indeed motivations and played a part in many of the cases. But ultimately most of these theories crumble in the face of 20 years of evidence. Except the Israel Theory. Reading Israel's national security strategy (outlined in documents like the "Clean break" report and the "Yinon Plan") Suddenly all the seeming 'naive' and 'futile' actions of the west , all the failed intervations, human catastrophes, blowbacks and disasters; they all make sense. I am not saying all the people, protestors/fighters, parties, involved were mossad/cia agents or all of them arose out of covert action. I am saying that is what shaped them, and ultimately determined their outcome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_...
    - 9mo ago
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
pydry 9mo ago
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.
- nickff 9mo ago
  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 9mo ago
    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 9mo ago
      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 9mo ago
        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.
- phucyucuz0 9mo ago
vablings 9mo ago
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
thisislife2 9mo ago
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 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-settlers-and-why-do-they-live-on-palestinian-lands 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-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-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 9mo ago
  1. Palestine is not a settler-colony of Israel. 2. The opposition in Iran is not orchestrated by the west.
direwolf20 9mo ago
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 9mo ago
  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 9mo ago
  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 9mo ago
    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 9mo ago
      Really turned to be accurate? It's amazed that western progressive movment embress Al Jazeera which in controlled by violent regime of Qatar.
hearsathought 9mo ago
> 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.
- YZF 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - severino 9mo ago
    Russias' narrative about its special operation in Ukraine is also about a defensive war. I'm curious to know about your stance on this Russian-Ukraine conflict.
    - namlem 9mo ago
      Ukraine didn't attack Russia. Hamas attacked Israel.
      - severino 9mo ago
        Didn't know Hamas was a country now.
        YZF 9mo ago
        It had a polity. Which is a country, just not a recognized country. It for all intents and purposes ruled the polity/country of Gaza.
    - YZF 9mo ago
      The cognitive dissonance is supporting Ukraine but not supporting Israel. Both were attacked. The anti-Israel argument is like saying Ukraine can't fight back because it's not Russia that attacked Ukraine, it's Putin, and therefore Ukraine has no justification to defend itself against Russia. That's the odd logic that the anti-Israelis bring to bear when Israel defends its population. Granted the power balance is different but the moral position is not. Israel is much stronger than the attacking Palestinian entity but if Ukraine was much stronger and it could inflict a lot more damage on Russia and Russians that would be justified given Russia invaded Ukraine and does not yield.
sneak 9mo ago
…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 9mo ago
  You will be surprised to learn that other people are not as hollow
southerntofu 9mo ago
> 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.
jraby3 9mo ago
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 9mo ago
  > The majority of people killed in Gaza were terrorists Not true at all. Terrorist supporters != terrorists
jalapenos 9mo ago
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 9mo ago

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 9mo ago
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 9mo ago
  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/ 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.
program_whiz 9mo ago
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 9mo ago
  > 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 9mo ago
    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 9mo ago
  > 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.

noah_buddy 9mo ago

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.

sysguest 9mo ago
[flagged]
- noah_buddy 9mo ago
  Getting past the point that this is a discussion of something meaningless in the first place (posting as social activism), why might left leaning people talk more about an issue they might tangibly have impact on over one they can have no impact on? They are not equivalent topics!
Ntrails 9mo ago
> 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.
- pstuart 9mo ago
  Well, they already did that and fucked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
- severino 9mo ago
  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 9mo ago

epsters 9mo ago

[flagged]

hersko 9mo ago
This is a wild take. You think the arab spring, Syrian revolution, Libyan revolution, Iraq war, interventions in Somalia and Sudan etc.. we're all CIA operations at the behest of Israel? Seriously?
- epsters 9mo ago
  I mentioned many conflicts and many countries so this is very broad to cover in one comment but i will try, briefly. I have heard many theories given over the years to justify these interventions - democracy, capitalism, liberalism, oil, minerals, gas-pipelines, gas-fields, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, neo-colonialism, fighting terror, WMDs, fighting rogue states, checking expansionism, checking communism, countering soviet union, countering russia, countering china, oil contractors, defense contractors, petrodollar, maintaining global reserve system, global security, stability, American national security, European security, national security of Gulf allies, shipping lanes and trade routes and finally Israeli national security. How many of those goals were achieved? What did America get out of the Iraq War? Was Libyan intervention a net win for France ? Or Europe? My question is after 20 years, how much of those theories still hold up. Don't get me wrong, many of those things mentioned were indeed motivations and played a part in many of the cases. But ultimately most of these theories crumble in the face of 20 years of evidence. Except the Israel Theory. Reading Israel's national security strategy (outlined in documents like the "Clean break" report and the "Yinon Plan") Suddenly all the seeming 'naive' and 'futile' actions of the west , all the failed intervations, human catastrophes, blowbacks and disasters; they all make sense. I am not saying all the people, protestors/fighters, parties, involved were mossad/cia agents or all of them arose out of covert action. I am saying that is what shaped them, and ultimately determined their outcome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_...
  - 9mo ago

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

pydry 9mo ago

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.

nickff 9mo ago
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 9mo ago
  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 9mo ago
    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 9mo ago
      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.
phucyucuz0 9mo ago

vablings 9mo ago

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

thisislife2 9mo ago

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 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-settlers-and-why-do-they-live-on-palestinian-lands 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-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-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 9mo ago
1. Palestine is not a settler-colony of Israel. 2. The opposition in Iran is not orchestrated by the west.

direwolf20 9mo ago

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 9mo ago
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 9mo ago
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 9mo ago
  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 9mo ago
    Really turned to be accurate? It's amazed that western progressive movment embress Al Jazeera which in controlled by violent regime of Qatar.

hearsathought 9mo ago

> 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.

YZF 9mo ago
[flagged]
- severino 9mo ago
  Russias' narrative about its special operation in Ukraine is also about a defensive war. I'm curious to know about your stance on this Russian-Ukraine conflict.
  - namlem 9mo ago
    Ukraine didn't attack Russia. Hamas attacked Israel.
    - severino 9mo ago
      Didn't know Hamas was a country now.
      - YZF 9mo ago
        It had a polity. Which is a country, just not a recognized country. It for all intents and purposes ruled the polity/country of Gaza.
  - YZF 9mo ago
    The cognitive dissonance is supporting Ukraine but not supporting Israel. Both were attacked. The anti-Israel argument is like saying Ukraine can't fight back because it's not Russia that attacked Ukraine, it's Putin, and therefore Ukraine has no justification to defend itself against Russia. That's the odd logic that the anti-Israelis bring to bear when Israel defends its population. Granted the power balance is different but the moral position is not. Israel is much stronger than the attacking Palestinian entity but if Ukraine was much stronger and it could inflict a lot more damage on Russia and Russians that would be justified given Russia invaded Ukraine and does not yield.

sneak 9mo ago

…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 9mo ago
You will be surprised to learn that other people are not as hollow

southerntofu 9mo ago

> 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.

jraby3 9mo ago

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 9mo ago
> The majority of people killed in Gaza were terrorists Not true at all. Terrorist supporters != terrorists

jalapenos 9mo ago

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.