Comment by noah_buddy
25 days ago
It’s very strange to go “why isn’t the left doing anything about this conflict when they cared so much about Palestine?”
My government doesn’t fund Iran.
25 days ago
It’s very strange to go “why isn’t the left doing anything about this conflict when they cared so much about Palestine?”
My government doesn’t fund Iran.
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.
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.
European governments could expel Iranian ambassadors as a start.
5 replies →
> 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.
3 replies →
I don't know maybe European government can stop doing billions worth $ business with Iranian regime over last 3 decades.
[flagged]
1 reply →
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.
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.
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.
2 replies →
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
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.
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.
3 replies →
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.
3 replies →
…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.
You will be surprised to learn that other people are not as hollow
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
3 replies →
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.
1 reply →
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!
1. Palestine is not a settler-colony of Israel.
2. The opposition in Iran is not orchestrated by the west.
6 replies →
> 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.
26 replies →
[flagged]
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?
16 replies →
> 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.
> 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.
[flagged]
14 replies →
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.
> The majority of people killed in Gaza were terrorists
Not true at all. Terrorist supporters != terrorists
Most western a world governments don't fund Israel and yet people there seem to "care" a lot. I don't think your argument holds water. Many western governments trade with Iran and support the oppressive regime there in direct. The US also funds Egypt which is another oppressive regime where there's no human rights. It supports Saudi Arabia that chops up journalists.
Your logic doesn't hold because it never held. The reason people "care" about Palestine is that they've been manipulated to care.
The logical thing would be for the American population to stand with Israel when it's being attacked. That would be the normal default. Like the rest of the world supported the US when it was attacked on 9/11. What we're seeing is the collapse of logic and truth and the win of propaganda campaigns and lies.
You are talking about US.
UK doesn't fund Israel, yet they've had most demonstrations there - still do. Clearly it isn't about the violence (whether in Iran or Israel). It's about Israel.
The RAF does a lot of flights over Gaza so the UK is actually involved, and the big focus in the UK is on Elbit systems who makes parts for the planes that bomb Gaza. The UK government isn't materially supporting the Iranian regime as far as I can tell
There have been protests in countries that do not “fund” Israel too, so it’s not about funding only.
The protests have also been against the Israeli government so you’d anticipate at least protests against the Iranian government if not against one’s own government which they protest because of funding.
But we don’t see those protests against the Iranian regime. It reminds me of US protestors protesting the removal of Maduro contrasted with near total approval from expat Venezuelans in various countries.
Something doesn’t square.
Most western countries already don’t do business with Iran. These are extremely different situations. The whataboutism is just bizarre.
[dead]
> My government doesn’t fund Iran.
And iran doesn't control the US like israel does. And iran doesn't force censorship on americans like israel does. And iran isn't commiting genocide like israel does. When's the last time iran order the US government to attack peaceful college protestors on american college campuses? Israel has. And the US government obeyed.
Your government does fund Sudan and did fund Iran to the tune of billions of dollars in relief under Obama and Biden. Why didn't you care then?
You know why. So does everyone that uses this copypasta argument.
I'm sorry but I just don't believe anyone who says this. Israel has a military expenditure above Turkey's with almost a tenth of the population. They could do everything they did and then some with no Western backing.
The number of progressives shutting the fuck up in a scenario where Israel does the same thing they're doing but without Western funding is I imagine approximately 0.
[dead]
Your government doesn’t fund Israel, either.
Not only do we fund israel, our leaders have been wasting trillions fighting wars on behalf of israel. The newest target israel want the US to take out is strangely enough - Iran...
US does not fund Israel. US has a strategic interest in Israel, just as much as it has in Germany, South Korea, Japan and many other places which host a huge US military presence. Unlike those outposts, the support to Israel is given in American military equipment.
Most Western governments fund Israel. The US funds it the most.
Where’s the data to support your extraordinary claim?
10 replies →
In the simplest ways also, to "fix" the situation in Iran, potentially a war has to start.
To "fix" the situation in Palestine, a war has to stop.
That's inherently very different.
And Donald Trump and republicans in general already want to murderfuck Iran and always have, and don't need or want my support to justify such an act, and already bombed Iran once this admin.
I don't support all that 100% but it's not like I have any advice on the matter. I certainly don't have better ideas of where to bomb Iran or how to help a populace 8000 miles away rise against their oppressors.
[flagged]
Any possible response to this comment would either be full of lies or an extreme violation of site rules. Well done, nice trap.
1 reply →
Yes, OUR government does fund Iran. Read about the Iran Nuclear deal under Obama, we gave them billions, more than we have given Israel.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-united-states-iran-an...
https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-...
To add context: the funds were not “given” as one might give humanitarian funding. The funds were Iranian financial assets that were frozen after the Iranian Revolution, accrued interest over the subsequent decades, and were returned as part of a legal settlement. I stake no position on whether this should have happened, just providing more specific color to the situation.
that is true, but it was still a large sum of money given to an authoritarian murderous regime, was it not?
That's an extraordinarily loose definition of "gave"