South Africa really supports protecting the Palestinians from this genocide so at least 1

I read that as historians

You didn’t hear the US state dept repeatedly claiming “Israel has a right to defend itself” for 6 straight months after the Hamas attack? They still won’t let corpo media use the term genocide, some high profile reporters have even resigned over it.

You haven't been to Lemmy.world then, lol.

It's likely that the use of "Western Liberals" here is meant to include both major US political parties.

Schumer also called for Netanyahu’s resignation two months ago.

When all but three House Republicans introduced a bill to sidestep Biden’s pause on arms, 16 out of 213 House Democrats offered support. That’s hardly support of liberals.

Reps. Matt Cartwright (Pa.), Angie Craig (Minn.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (N.C.), Lois Frankel (Fla.), Jared Golden (Maine), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), Greg Landsman (Ohio), Jared Moskowitz (Fla.), Frank Pallone (N.J.), Mary Peltola (Alaska), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), David Scott (Ga.), Darren Soto (Fla.), Tom Suozzi (N.Y.) and Ritchie Torres (N.Y.)

https://thehill.com/homenews/4669370-these-16-house-democrats-bucked-biden-party-leadership-on-israel-bill/

Make note of their names and vote them out regardless, but stop with this party division nonsense and recognize that there’s an entire party that wants to see Gaza and Rafah nuked and paved.

I guess I’ll be “the guy” this time.

Liberal is the correct term.

Liberals are not inherently progressive or leftist in the least. They are rightist-enablers who value their means over the inevitable ends. At “best” they are “enlightened centrists” who are willfully ignorant about the consequences of their actions, and at worst zealously dogmatic about their sacred middle-of-the-road fallacy.

These are not merely politicians… they are regular people who have been trained to turn a blind eye to hoarding, power consolidation, and overt abuse of others. That is liberalism.

FYI, it's "toe" the line, as in you put your toe on the line when you fall in order. It's a nautical term, since crews would line up on specific boards on the deck of a ship.

I hear Americans use the term liberal all the time but the way they use it makes me think we're talkibg about different things

The simple issue is that this is genocide. Full stop.

And we should stop it. After that, let's look into the complex issue you're trying to raise. Conflating the two is how people justify doing nothing.

There's a difference between being a genocide and a complex issue, and using that it's a complex issue to justify/overlook a genocide

Western progressives and leftists are protesting, liberals by definition support current structures and systems to achieve populist goals, but humanitarian causes are not on their radar usually unless it's the most milquetoast issue that everyone can agree on.

As others have said here, the names of things have changed a lot, and this is made more confusing by the fact that a large portion of the population has no idea how this shift has taken place, and conservatives still refer to their hated enemy as "libs" because they're not very bright and names stick. It does throw them for a loop when you say "I'm not a liberal, I'm a leftist/progressive" and it's a good way to remind them how dumb they really are.

Can't believe I'm posting in a Palestine thread again but here we go. I think people aren't using the same words in the same way in this thread. In the last decade there has been a shift in how the word liberal is used. Two decades ago there were the neo-liberals, which said they were not big C conservative but were.

To separate themselves from the neo-liberals, liberals started calling themselves leftist. Which meant the neo-liberals as the only "liberals" remaining. So now the word liberal can mean a person on the left, or a person on the right, depending on the intent of the speaker.

So saying that the liberals are turning a blind eye to genocide is true, the speaker probably just means neo-liberals but ommitted the neo. Language is fluid, and confusing

On Experts saying it, this is one example: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-expert-says-israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-calls-arms-embargo-2024-03-26/

On Israel saying it, this has enough for you to start your research: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724

I find it funny.

It being a war doesn't negate the simple conclusion that it is a genocide. If you have reason to deny that, you should provide proper reasoning rather than the hand wavy "it's a war, surely it has to be complex!". There are complex aspects to a war that do not negate the simplicity of classifying it as a genocide. The conclusion is simple due to the mountains of undeniable evidence.

Wait, you mean the conflict can't be broken down into one simple tweet from some random woman?