kinda misleading headline, hes saying what you call it is not important but stresses that it is horrific and must be stopped.
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
10 points (62.5% liked)
Progressive Politics
3050 readers
128 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No. Bernie intentionally dodges the question multiple times.
Calling it a genocide is extremely important so people recognize the severity of what is going on. The excuse used to dodge the question is nonsense.
He said "it's not what we call it, it's what we do about it". Vertue signaling won't change much to the situation.
Calling it a genocide comes with legal implications and gives credence to the gravity of the situation. It has nothing to do with virtue signalling. Bernie is doing virtue signalling here. He can both call it a genocide and demand to enter aid. Calling it a genocide would give more credence to his demands to enter aid.
Legal implications usually come after the events. Seems like a waste of time to ask everyone this questions when they already stated support, no need to gatekeep. Action over words.
The legal implications of genocide apply directly when asserted, not after the fact. Namely doing everything to prevent it.
Actions do speak louder than words. And blocking so called offensive weapons is one thing. But it is very weird that Bernie is so reluctant to call it what it is.
He literally says "it's a legal term." Since he is not a lawyer, and he clearly is against what Israel is doing, I would more assume he is merely covering his ass on a legal basis.
I feel as if there's a concerted effort to spread internecine conflict and sectarianism within the liberal community - to divide.
However, I have to agree with you here: words matter, and it's not a good look for Bernie to skirt the issue, deflect, and thereby sugarcoat what's happening.
"Horrific" is a weaker word than "genocide." It's absolutely sugarcoating to call genocide by a weaker word.
He hasn't used the term "war crimes" yet, either, has he? Thing is, as long as he avoids using these terms, he gives a legal and moral pass to the people perpetrating the crimes.
There is a divide between Liberals and Leftists. They agree on some issues, but especially on foreign policy they have huge disagreements. Liberals care about social policies which affect themselves, so they will plead for socialist policies which affect them. But American imperialism affect foreigners so they rarely care.
Since Leftists have no party of their own, the are usually grouped in with Liberals. But lately Leftists have been getting extremely angry about Liberals refusing to do enough to stop a literal genocide and have decided that this is a point they are willing to stand their ground and fight on.
This is why this /progressivepolitics was created. The /politics community is for Liberals if that is what you are looking for.
In politics you try to get the person closest to where you are to agree with you. Putting pressure on Republicans is useless, as their other policies are so far removed from the left that even if they start calling it a genocide, leftists do not want to vote for them.
Yup, agreed.
We're making progress in the US. IRV is slowly gaining ground at the grass roots, which I believe is a wise strategy; my concern is that it'll take too long. With proportional represention and balanced voting, and eliminating the electoral college, many of the issues we have will be mitigated. IRV isn't the best, but it's a huge step towards getting out of the cycle of voting for the lesser evil, the need to appeal to the base, and the inability to elect anyone who doesn't toe the party line. We still need to address the issues introduced by Citizens United, and the outsized influence in politics of special interests like AIPAC, which I suspect is behind much of the pussyfooting around the genocide; RCV won't solve that. RCV won't solve congresspersons doing inside trading.
But even if we fix some of the processes, I'm still concerned about the fact that enough people voted for a convicted, unrepentant felon and traitor that it was possible to believably fudge the election enough for him to win (if you believe some of the questions about 2024). It's conceivable that with IRC someone more leftist than Harris could have won, but I doubt it. The scales are too unbalanced; the votes in the center of the country count more than the votes on the coasts, and there's too much opportunity for voting shenanigans that go entirely unchallenged by the left/progressives/liberals.
I agree that we have important disagreements, but I also think that as long as the left is divided, they stand no chance of winning, which means the greater evil always wins.
We still need to address the issues introduced by Citizens United, and the outsized influence in politics of special interests like AIPAC, which I suspect is behind much of the pussyfooting around the genocide; RCV won’t solve that. RCV won’t solve congresspersons doing inside trading
The problem is that both parties are heavily in favor of all of this.
The left is not divided though. The left is more united than it has ever been with figures like Mamdani winning. Liberals are simply not part of the left.
This genocide provides a unique opportunity to easily root out who is corrupt and who is not. Because it is not politically popular to support it. Even most Liberals do not support the genocide. Yet Democrats for some mythical reason refuse to change their stance. (corruption)
Yet Democrats for some mythical reason refuse to change their stance. (corruption)
This strategy worked pretty well for Republicans.
Things are fucked up. I see progress; I fear it's too slow, and we'll be in a dictatorship before we can repair our democracy.
Working with Republicans against Leftists had worked pretty good for the Democrats as well.
If you are too afraid to vote whom you support you already live in a dictatorship.
I'm afraid to vote for who I want to, like I'm afraid to not pay my taxes, or afraid to dive 60mph in a residential neighborhood. Does make it a dictatorship? I think the paramilitary abducting people off the streets and deporting them without due process is more of a bellwether for dictatorship than the fact that our system of voting - FPTP - means that you have to vote strategically if you don't want the worst outcome.
There is no strategic vote when both parties are committing genocide. Who cares about neighbour kidnapping. It has been full on Holocaust since Biden. And both parties are on board.
FPTP only works as long as Democrats believe they can win without appealing to progressives. If they rather lose to Trump than be progressive that tells you enough about the Democrats either way.
Who cares about neighbour kidnapping.
Probably all those people who voted. And now, as a consequence, we still have genocide and also deportation of anybody who isn't white, normalization of violence against minorities, and a convicted felon and molester for president.
And now Democrats are finally coming around to an arms embargo on Israel win back voters.
There is a second way to get politicians to listen in a two party system when they both refuse to provide your needs: calling their bluff and not voting for either until your minimum demands are met.
Sadly Democrats chose to lose the election first despite knowing their horrible polling numbers on it.
I mean, you're not wrong. I don't think it's as simple, and again it's because of AIPAC. Money greatly influences elections in the US, and AIPAC has a bunch of it, while the anti-genocide group coughed up relatively none. Politicians are going to be scared of AIPAC threatening to throw all their money into their opponent's war chests. It's a kind of "hate the game, not the player" situation, except that I don't really believe that slogan: politicians should have stronger ethics. But when it comes down to brass tacks, and you believe that you're going to sacrifice a seat to Republicans by digging in your heels on Gaza because a well-funded special interest group is going to side with your opponent, it's not a black and white decision.
It should be. It should be more simple, but it won't be as long as money plays such an outsized role in politics.
DNC Democrats are finding themselves left in the dust in place for progressive alternatives.
Fossil DemocRepublicans are less popular than ever before. They capitulated to Trump the second he was chosen. Only now everyone realizes this can no longer continue.
This is why I am not in a cult. Because I can have supported Sanders and say fuck him for not calling a spade a spade here. Why he holding back? Why is AOC voting to give them more weapons? What fuck is going on here.
That's disappointing. I hope this is just a politicking thing to get enough support to do something. E.g. We will give you support to fight against it so long as you don't call it a genocide.