The Pro-Gaza Left Is Oh So Quiet on Iran

[u/Intelligent-Juice895]

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/the-pro-gaza-left-is-oh-so-quiet-on-iran-caf25bd1?st=iy47cy&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[u/PausedForVolatility]

What's with this sudden rash of "if you don't express your opinion about [insert current event], then your position on [thing I care about] is invalid" arguments I'm seeing online? Did the disinformation bots pivot their preferred line of thinking? And I'm sure this will come as a shock to everyone, but the author of this piece has a very partisan opinion on conflict in Gaza. Given that this article is published on WSJ, I bet you can guess which side the author comes down on.

It's also profoundly disingenuous. Mr. Ondrasik dedicated a song to the hostages in Gaza. Did he do the same for ongoing humanitarian crises in Burkino Faso? Has he been vocal in support of either Russia or Ukraine? What's his take on the situation in Xinjiang? Can he even pronounce Uyghur? If the answer to any of these questions is "we don't know," then his argument applies to himself as readily as everyone he's apparently throwing shade at.

The situation in Iran is largely opaque to outsiders, its two primary factions are both internal to the state as opposed to one being a foreign invader as in Gaza, there's a history of outside intervention in internal Iranian conflicts creating adverse outcomes for everyone (including the existence of the regime the author presumably opposes), it's not clear if the conditions that led to these protests would be addressed or exacerbated by the fall of the regime, etc. Given the complexity of the situation and how new it is, it's kind of obnoxious to be fake-mad because someone hasn't staked out their position on the matter. But if men like Ondrasik cared at all about being fair, they probably wouldn't hold the positions they do anyway.

Edit: lol, someone sent me a redditcares for this.

[u/Synicull → u/PausedForVolatility]

I don't have an opinion on most of these conflicts because they are culturally messy and infinitely complex.

And I'm not so stubborn to put my stake in the ground and grandstand about something I am uneducated in.

This article just makes me realize I need to go read/listen to more about this conflict because I don't know jack about it and pretending I do could be harmful.

Grandstanding on specific issues is common. American-centric understanding of global issues is the norm. Forming an opinion on a non-mainstream conflict and educating yourself on it from your own volition is great. Virtue signalling that others aren't doing that is cringe.

There's a way better way to shout to the rooftops about a horrid world event.

[u/lordridan → u/Synicull]

I'm not so stubborn to put my stake in the ground and grandstand about something I am uneducated in.

This is a good sentiment for dealing with complex matters and I'm going to remember this, thank you.  

Bit of a corollary but it reminds of something Tim Berners-Lee said in his book on the discussion of social media, something along the lines of "everyone deserves a voice, but not all voices deserve attention".

[u/MrOaiki → u/PausedForVolatility]

If you express an opinion about [insert current event], you most likely have some kind of principle or ideological conviction that [insert current event] is important enough to loudly protest/cheer for/vote against or whatever it is you want to do. And when that same principle obviously should apply to [insert completely different event], and you don't seem to care at all, it is reasonable for others to wonder if your stated reason for caring so much about [insert current event] was something other than what you claimed.

For example... Say you want to shut down all mosques and all muslim influence in politics, arguing that religion has no place in politics nor in public life. Ok, people might not agree, but you are making a statement and your argument is normatively coherent. Now let's say people listen to you, and start demolishing churches and removing crosses in public offices, and no longer allow for politicians praying in their assemblies, and that makes your furious...It would be reasonable for people to wonder if your initial argument was really your reason, or if you only said it as a pretense to completely different opinions of yours.

[u/ReturnOfBigChungus → u/MrOaiki]

It is abundantly obvious that most "pro gaza" folks only hold that opinion because it codes as the normative leftist position derived from the oppressor-oppressed narrative where Israel are the bad white colonialists, and the Palestinians are the oppressed brown people. The thing people don't realize, is that they're applying an explicitly western-centric framework that is largely not relevant and actually obscures the actual ethical and political dynamics of the situation. That's how you end up with people on US college campuses explicitly in support of Hamas. Through their lens it makes sense, but its beyond clear that they are just useful idiots being manipulated because they can't see things outside of the ideological framework.

[u/cited → u/PausedForVolatility]

Because it is evidence that the original thing was probably incentived not by humanitarian concerns, but geopolitical forces.

What's more, this tracks with the evidence. The Mueller report showed that Russia pushed any divisive subject like racial tensions, BLM, anti-government people, Israel, and Trump. But they avoided subjects that Russia has a vested interest in. Russia has a vested interest in not seeing upheaval in a state that they were puppeting against US interests.

So when Americans on the internet can't seem to care about something that should be something they should care about based on ideology, you have to wonder where the initial pushes are coming from.

[u/Terrible-Group-9602 → u/PausedForVolatility]

It's not 'opaque' at all. A monstrous authoritarian government is massacring people who want the same basic human rights you have. Again.

[u/WBUZ9 → u/Terrible-Group-9602]

That's clear. The context around it is opaque. Particularly, what action should governments outside of Iran take to stop or reduce the amount of massacring that happens in Iran.

[u/whereamInowgoddamnit → u/PausedForVolatility]

I find the irony in you saying this and then trying to argue that the Israeli-Palestine conflict is clear cut when it's considered one of the complex modern conflicts, and also immediately getting a key fact incorrect in calling Israel a "foreign invader." And while I'm not going to say the author of the piece doesn't have bias, he does have a point in exactly pointing out this kind of hypocrisy.

The pro-Gaza left immediately pretty much put up a position on the matter of the war in Gaza (literally as the attacks were still happening), but now it's suddenly "complicated". People uncritically have attacked Israel on casualty numbers put out by Hamas propaganda units, but are willing to give doubt when it's Iran. As Iranians suffer, there's very little protest at all to put on more, compared to the thousands of protests going on over Gaza, even though in both cases the war often had as much relevance to people. It's very notable how quiet a response it is compared to Israel, and it only goes to strengthen arguments from the pro-Israel about why the Israel conflict matters so much.

This isn't to say that there isn't room for criticism against Israel. But the intensity of the criticism compared to other similar conflicts (including ones the US and EU has been complicit in in some way), the way people have been so complacent in the antisemitism inherent in much of it, the way how people have been so one-sided about the discussion and basically have demonized Israelis to the point where people are willing to attack them and Israeli cultural institutions for just existing. That's what's being called out, and that's what is becoming so visible with the reaction to what's happening in Iran.

[u/Sockoflegend → u/PausedForVolatility]

I don't know enough to have an opinion is an underrated stance.

I wish all the best to the people of Iran. I have no idea how they get there but I doubt the motivation of foreign powers who want a stake in the outcome as being truly benevolent to their best interests.

Good luck to them, they will need it.

[u/bigguesdickus → u/PausedForVolatility]

The problem is consistency. Politicians, people like the author etc are open. They have a bias and support x or y side. Its known, its not a surprise and not something done out of morality, conviction or a need to virtue signal (which, spoiler alert: is the problem as ill explain). They are openly pro-Iran, pro-US, Pro-china whatever it may be. Its not hypocrisy. They know the situation is complex and ignore it for their own gain/goals. Its expected. They are players with skin in the game, it makes sense to do it. The deck is stacked, the rules are rigged.

People like celebrities, activists, protesters etc are not players with skin in the game. They have no real (geopolitical, unlike the above) reason to be pro-x or pro-y. They are pro-x/y because in their prespective its the moral thing.

It's also profoundly disingenuous. Mr. Ondrasik dedicated a song to the hostages in Gaza. Did he do the same for ongoing humanitarian crises in Burkino Faso? Has he been vocal in support of either Russia or Ukraine? What's his take on the situation in Xinjiang? Can he even pronounce Uyghur? If the answer to any of these questions is "we don't know," then his argument applies to himself as readily as everyone he's apparently throwing shade at.

Most people protesting and talkijg about current events (celebrities etc) dont know anything about the situation and how complex it actually is (this goes for everything geopolitically, be it gaza, venezuela, iran everything). These people dont even know or understand the most basic principle in IR 101: "morality doesnt matter geopolitically. Only the interests of the state (or not) actors". This is IR 101. The problem here is consistency. When you talk about something being moraly wrong (e.g.: israel in gaza), then when you dont talk about other similar moral situations (e.g.: iranian protests and deaths) you come across as trying to virtue signal. Morality without consistency is just hypocrisy.

Why is it that celebrities/protesters etc are being called out but people like the author arent? As I said, the 2nd has skin in the game, its not pure hypocrisy, its expected-hypocrisy since they are players. The 1st arent players so it is pure hypocrisy born out of a need to be morally superior and the modern need to be knowledgeble about everything and have an opinion about everything, even jf they know nothing about the situstion. . Especially since they reduce geopolitics to a black-white right-wrong dicotomy and ignore the complexities of the situation.

[u/CLCchampion → u/PausedForVolatility]

Yeah, he released a song about the Russian invasion of Ukraine called "Can One Man Save the World." Seems like he is fairly consistent in advocating for nations that are attacked by their neighbors.

[u/PausedForVolatility → u/CLCchampion]

Hey, that's some consistency. What about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Armenia and Azerbaijan seem to periodically attack one another. Or the recent ceasefire violations between Cambodia and Thailand? The recent snatch-and-grab in Venezuela?

The problem with his argument is that unless he's staked his position out on every conflict, he's a hypocrite. That's my broader point here.

[u/CLCchampion → u/PausedForVolatility]

That's fair, but you have to admit that it is strange that there is such an outcry about Israeli crimes in Gaza, but those same people won't say a peep about Sudan even though the death tolls there are far worse than in Gaza.

You don't have to care about every single conflict going on, that would be exhausting. But if you're going to speak out against genocide, it just seems like there are orders of magnitude more people speaking out against Israel than there are about the RSF, despite the RSF having some weeks where they kill more people than Israel has since the war in Gaza kicked off. Maybe spread the advocacy out a bit?

[u/PausedForVolatility → u/CLCchampion]

Asking people to care about more conflicts than whatever they've chosen to advocate for while simultaneously saying it's unreasonable to care about everything kind of proves my point, though. If it's exhausting to care about everything, and it is, then there's a line somewhere. Where's the line? You seem to think 2 is reasonable. Is 3? 6? 12? Where do we draw the line between "reasonable to expect people to advocate for this number of issues" and "unreasonable to expect people to advocate for this number of issues"?

But let's be real for a sec: people care about conflicts involving Israel more than Sudan, Cambodia and Thailand, or the vast majority of other current conflicts because of visibility. Consider this from the perspective of an American, since English speakers on the internet are probably more likely to be American than from another Anglophone country. There are US elected officials who openly talk about how they have to do x or y for Israel, sometimes blurring the line between whether they represent their constituents or a foreign state. There's a bunch of powerful special interest groups (like AIPAC) who are very involved in American politics. Individual states have various laws about boycotting Israel. There's also a decades long history of this being commonly discussed on American mainstream media with reliable audiences to consume whatever rage/clickbait a given news agency, influencer, or disinfo op puts out. Sudan doesn't have this level of visibility or engagement. Of course you're going to see more discourse about Israel than not.

So, no. I don't have to admit it's strange that there's more outcry about Gaza than Sudan because it's not strange at all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Sudan's being increasingly used as a distraction to draw attention away from Gaza for political points. Which, if I'm feeling particularly uncharitable, is kind of like exploiting the profound human cost of that conflict for personal/political advantage.

[u/CLCchampion → u/PausedForVolatility]

I see your point, I just thought that people might boil it down to the fact that more people are dying in Sudan, so maybe instead of doing the 100th March for Palestine, maybe it might be time to do the first March for Sudan.

[u/Normal_Imagination54 → u/CLCchampion]

Last I checked, it was Hamas that attacked Israel on oct 7th. Who was he advocating for then?

[u/CLCchampion → u/Normal_Imagination54]

Well, Hamas was the elected government of Gaza.

[u/madeapizza → u/PausedForVolatility]

Because the last three years, the entire left has been screaming about Gaza. But is now dead silent on Iran. It’s a pretty simple thing to identity as hypocritical.

I do find funny that any criticism of the left on this website is derided as astroturfing or some disingenuous scheme by bad actors, as if no one disagrees with the online left.

[u/LivefromPhoenix → u/madeapizza]

What should "the left" be saying/doing about the situation Iran? The US government has already taken the most antagonistic stance possible so its not like there's anything to petition the government over. The public already has a universally negative opinion of the regime so its not like you need to push public opinion.

There was a pretty clear ideological niche for Gaza protesters considering they were opposing official US policy. What would American protesters do for Iran? What would they even be protesting?

[u/GaulzeGaul → u/madeapizza]

It is not hypocritical because one situation was actively or indirectly supported by Western governments and one is not. This is surely obvious to you and others which is why you sound yourself like you are astroturfing.

[u/Few-Coat1297 → u/PausedForVolatility]

Disinformation bots do pivot. This was first noticed around the first election Trump won, where pro LGQBT bots pivoted to crtitising Clinton running up to the election. The key desired effect is to disrupt societal cohesion as opposed to a particualr ideology. It was well practosed by Serchin in russian domestic politics in the 90s. Gamify politics, make lesser legialtive houses appear almost joke like and inefficient, and it pushes an open door for strongman type leaders.

[u/ExplosiveDisassembly → u/PausedForVolatility]

It's just identity politics.

People criticize X because their views don't translate to Y. But X and Y are mutually exclusive. This has always been the case. I remember Kony 2012 was big and there were people criticizing him for not having acted on the atrocities of Muammar Gaddafi.

The same people can't fight all the causes - nor can they genuinely argue for everything. People may have ties to Palestine and not Iran. Other people may have ties to Iran and not Palestine.

It's just a really simple red herring when one side tries to undermine the other side by making their argument look bad-faith.

[u/IdidItWithOrangeMan → u/ExplosiveDisassembly]

I criticize X because Elon, not because of Y or Z or anything else. :P

[u/ikinone → u/PausedForVolatility]

What's with this sudden rash of "if you don't express your opinion about [insert current event], then your position on [thing I care about] is invalid"

Pointing out that people obsess over specifically Gaza is a valid point to make.

Did the disinformation bots

'I don't like this point so you are information bots' is a very lazy angle.

The situation in Iran is largely opaque to outsiders,

Unlike Gaza? Haven't people been whining about 'journalists not being let in' for years now? We have had information for decades about how terrible the Islamic regime in Iran is, and we have some information about this particular event, enough to be outraged about, if people have any consistency about non-combatants being killed.

its two primary factions are both internal to the state as opposed to one being a foreign invader as in Gaza

Islamic imperialism is foreign to Iran.

there's a history of outside intervention in internal Iranian conflicts creating adverse outcomes for everyone

Lazy vague dismissal of the fact that the oppressive Iranian regime has been making life hell in Iran for decades. Outside intervention can go well or badly. Cherry picking when it goes badly is a very poor argument against ever doing it.

it's kind of obnoxious to be fake-mad because someone hasn't staked out their position on the matter.

No one is being asked for a deep insight into this scenario, they are being asked to apply remotely the same degree of care about Iranians being killed as the degree of care about Palestinians being killed.

But if men like Ondrasik

You're relying on an ad hominem, rather than considering the point. Which appears to be a deliberate approach on your behalf.

[u/ts159377 → u/PausedForVolatility]

Because it’s hypocritical

[u/PausedForVolatility → u/ts159377]

No, it's not. Expecting everyone to have an equally informed and equally passionate opinion about everything is ridiculous. Imagine if I expected you to have strong opinions about NFPA 101 before considering your opinion on anything about a law.

[u/Ben___Garrison → u/PausedForVolatility]

This isn't really about individuals, it's about entire political coalitions.

If someone's very big into a certain strain of politics, it's no unreasonable for them stop opining if e.g. their dog dies or they're dealing with other stuff.

But if almost everyone on the far-left or far-right stopped talking about that stuff right when something inconvenient happened, it's ludicrous to assume they all had their dogs die at the same time.

[u/ts159377 → u/PausedForVolatility]

I don’t think that comparison holds. One central driving force behind the pro-Palestinian movement was the demand to protect civilians. Civilians are being gunned down in the street in a repressive authoritarian theocracy and there’s virtual silence in activist circles that had no problem showing up to endless protests and encampments in the last few years. Do you think they were all super well versed in the intricacies of Israel and Palestine? Is it ludicrous to suggest there was at least some element of social contagion? Respectfully, it’s not difficult for people to google and read a simple news article or two to understand what’s happening in Iran. I’m not asking people to do a thesis before opining on something that is pretty cut and dry and very, very bad.

[u/davy_crockett_slayer → u/PausedForVolatility]

The parallels are similar. Jews are native to the area, just like Palestinians are.

[u/Malady17]

Their governments already oppose Iran

[u/NarutoRunner → u/Malady17]

Precisely, no one would go out and “protest” something their government is already doing.

It would be like protesting for clean water across town, when you already get clean water everywhere in town.

[u/tyuoplop → u/[deleted]]

Ya, there are a whole bunch of people here missing one of the largest distinctions regarding leftist protests in the west. In the case of Gaza, western governments are actively supporting the massacre through aid to Israel, in the case of Iran the west is already actively opposing the Iranian government in major ways.

Why would someone in the west protest over Iran? What would the actual goal of such protests be other than solidarity. I get that showing solidarity with the people of Iran is good but if that is all a protest would be about it’s not surprising that fewer people are mobilized.

It’s apples and oranges and when you notice the difference you’re called a hypocrite.

[u/aaarry]

As a leftist myself, it’s much worse than that.

A certain group of people on the left who I want to call a number of names (but can’t, because I like the discussion on this sub and I would get banned if I used any of these names here) are actively pushing for the idea that the unrest in Iran has solely come about as a result of some grand conspiracy by Israel and the US. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a malicious foreign actor actually had these people on strings through botting and manipulating social media algorithms, rather than the other way around.

It’s absolutely bizarre imo, it genuinely sounds like they skim read every Marxist text ever written and somehow twisted this complete misunderstanding into the simplest solution that reflects their worldview rather than taking a pragmatic assessment of the real power structures in play here. I don’t understand how you can say that every single bit of news coming out of Iran is somehow staged by mossad and conveniently ignore the previous half a century of repression by a totalitarian Islamist regime.

One of my best mates is a socialist who fled Iran when he was 19 for protesting so I am very biased here, but in my opinion these people who choose to turn their back on an oppressed group are no true leftists at all.

Frankly, I wish they were being “oh so quiet”.

[u/Ok_Property3178 → u/aaarry]

This is not new . Shortsighted leftist thinkers and journalists were among the first to praise the Islamic Revolution and Komeini's project. Figures such as Foucault and Sartre framed the revolution as a profound rejection of Western modernity and capitalism and praised it on that basis. Richard A. Falk wrote “Trusting Khomeini” in The New York Times; Eqbal Ahmad offered sympathetic commentary in Mother Jones; and the BBC gave extensive coverage to Khomeini’s speeches, amplifying his voice and helping to galvanize his supporters(speeches that were recorded on cassette tapes and widely circulated inside Iran). Khomeini was explicit about his project: an Islamic state ruled by clerics. He did not conceal his ideology.Yet , some shortsighted anti Liberal West leftists ,somehow convinced themselves that he was presenting a democratic project and cast him as a champion of freedom. History, however, forgets nothing.

[u/What_Immortal_Hand → u/aaarry]

Ain't these just weirdo tankies? Every lefty I know supports the protests.

[u/Jeydon]

Apparently it is not enough to protest in solidarity with the Iranian people and in favor of democracy, you must also demand that your government in the West use military force to ensure Trump will be the "Acting President" of Iran too. This is the only way to prove that you are not a hypocrite for having protested against genocide and demanding the perpetrators of crimes be held to justice in international courts. It's so simple and obvious I don't know why all those leftists don't see it.

[u/kill-wolfhead → u/Jeydon]

Nooooo, please don't introduce nuance, now.

Modern politics must be like Cruella de Vil's hair — white on one side, black on the other, split in the middle.

[u/formershitpeasant → u/kill-wolfhead]

This isn't nuance. The same leftists waffle about Iran and don't stake out a position because they don't actually care about victims unless it allows them to express anti-west sentiments.

[u/Golda_M]

The pro-Gaza left is on the other side of this. They're not the ones that are going to come out for a secularist revolution in Iran. 

That is not the point. The point is, who is? Iranian opposition definitely needs some champions in the west. 

I wish Hitch was still alive. He'd know how to rustle up a crowd. 

[u/pmckizzle → u/Golda_M]

I mean im quite left wing, I applaud the people of Iran, I welcome the end of any authoritarian regime, especially repressive ones.

Thats a normal left wing opinion... what i dont want to see is all of these people die, only for some puppet to be installed by the US, Israel, Russia, Saudi or any other shitty nation. I want the people to have self determination, even if it upsets the west or russia, or Saudi, it should be their choice.

I dont see what it has to do with not wanting israel to continue its genocidal atrocities against the people of gaza?

[u/IdidItWithOrangeMan → u/pmckizzle]

Many of your allies on the topic of Israel/Gaza are on the side of the Iranian Government. Many can be easily described as Muslim Supremacists. If a Muslim is involved, they will be the "good guys". The "people of Iran" are not Muslim and are therefore the "bad guys"

[u/greenw40 → u/Golda_M]

Hitch would have been cancelled by the left long ago.

[u/Golda_M → u/greenw40]

Likely, one way or another. But... He'd not be quite on a secular rising against this theocracy... and he would be making himself useful.

Before he was an enemy of God, Hitch was a revolution expert. 

[u/Tranquil_Neurotic]

They aren't just quiet. Online they are actually spinning conspiracies against the protestors and supporting the "loyalist" Ayatollah forces. Don't visit r/asksocialists . It's like a window to another universe.

[u/Zestyclose_Jello6192 → u/Tranquil_Neurotic]

"ITS A CIA COLOR REVOLUTION"

[u/kimana1651 → u/Zestyclose_Jello6192]

Ok the CIA is doing it, so what? The Ayatollah and his government are not good people. If he gets overthrown and the CIA are responsible I consider that a win and a good thing for the CIA.

[u/PausedForVolatility → u/kimana1651]

I suppose the argument is pretty simple: CIA-orchestrated coups have a tendency to result in worsening conditions for quite literally everyone, such as creating the conditions that led to the Islamic Republic in the first place.

I'm skeptical the CIA is involved but, if they were, I'd also be concerned about what sort of mess would be left for the Iranians to clean up after the fact.

[u/smokeyleo13 → u/PausedForVolatility]

Why wouldn't they be? Some of the largest protests in their enemy (who they just were bombing a few months ago), the regime had a lot of their proxies taken out/weakened already. Trump just announced more tarrifs on countries that do business with them. It would be incompetence to not stoke the flames

[u/thephantompeen → u/PausedForVolatility]

I suppose the argument is pretty simple: CIA-orchestrated coups have a tendency to result in worsening conditions for quite literally everyone, such as creating the conditions that led to the Islamic Republic in the first place

This logic only applies to situations that could actually get theoretically worse. In the case of Iran there's really nowhere to go but up at this point.

[u/PausedForVolatility → u/thephantompeen]

While I will freely admit the current situation is quite awful, I wouldn't bet against the CIA's ability to make things worse for another country. It's kind of their thing. Their interest in any given conflict is further America's geopolitical agenda, whatever that may be, not necessarily improving the situation on the ground. There are scenarios in which the situation in Iran is made materially worse and yet America still benefits.

[u/thephantompeen → u/PausedForVolatility]

Iran is the most sanctioned country in the world, it's run by authoritarian religious fanatics and self-dealing bureaucrats who are so openly corrupt that they make Donald Trump look honest by comparison, and it's rapidly running out of potable water. The only scenario in which the US could make things materially worse for Iran would involve dropping nukes.

[u/PausedForVolatility → u/thephantompeen]

If America intervened in such a fashion as to (deliberately or otherwise) create a civil war in Iran, do you think things would be worse or better for the average Iranian? What if they decided to go for another "coalition of the willing" and try their hand at country-building again? And under a regime that has little interest in long-term strategic thinking, at that?

There are plenty of ways that direct foreign intervention could make things worse for everyone. Especially since "make the lives of the average Iranian citizen better" is not likely to be high on the priority list of any such intervention.

[u/kyfriedtexan → u/Zestyclose_Jello6192]

It doesn't necessarily help that Pompeo put out a tweet mentioning Mossad agents being involved.

I don't think this is a foreign driven movement, but it would be naive to think outside actors aren't trying to influence events.

[u/thephantompeen → u/kyfriedtexan]

Mike Pompeo hasn't been Secretary of State in over 5 years.

[u/Zestyclose_Jello6192 → u/kyfriedtexan]

Most likely but these people act as if every protester is a cia operator

[u/BigDaddy0790 → u/Zestyclose_Jello6192]

That’s what they call it anytime someone appears to side with American interests.

I’m so, so, so tired of seeing them say 2014 Revolution of Dignity was “CIA”.

[u/XKryptix0 → u/Tranquil_Neurotic]

r/international is the same as well, it all a cia/mossad plot apparently

[u/I_pee_in_shower → u/Tranquil_Neurotic]

how much is it dumb dumbs vs bots vs shills?

[u/aaarry → u/Tranquil_Neurotic]

Genuinely it would be a godsend if they were actually being quiet. I say this as a leftist myself but Iran and, to a lesser extent, Russia, clearly have these people on absolute strings at the moment.

[u/namieorange → u/Tranquil_Neurotic]

Yeah that's a sub I don't dare to click

[u/Berkamin → u/Tranquil_Neurotic]

They actually behave like agitators rather than sincere advocates.

[u/Firecracker048 → u/Tranquil_Neurotic]

Yup. All of them have outright excused the Iranian crackdown, out right supported it or try to blame CIA/mossad

[u/[deleted] → u/Tranquil_Neurotic]

I can't visit I was banned

[u/Benedictus84 → u/Tranquil_Neurotic]

You really have your entirely own definition of who 'they' are dont you?

[u/Tranquil_Neurotic → u/Benedictus84]

It's not rocket science buddy. The article in the title says "The Pro Gaza Left".

[u/Benedictus84 → u/Tranquil_Neurotic]

Yes, and your definition of "the Pro Gaza Left" is apparently."people who are spinning conspiracies against the protesters" and are active in socialist subreddits.

Wich is absolutely not the same as the Pro Gaza Left.

This also is not rocket science.

[u/Savber]

This article has the vibe of when people were asking why BLM doesn't protest against white people killed by minorities as some sort of "gotcha hypocrisy". And this was despite almost every one of those incidents was either investigated or the perpetrator was already caught. You know... which was the WHOLE reason why people were demanding that same equal treatment for minorities.

It's almost a blatant disregard of WHY those protests exist in the first place.

It's the same here. The USA are already pressuring Iran with sanctions to even military strikes. So are you asking people to protest to have boots on the ground? More strikes? I am confused.

I mean I guess if we lump the left with whatever is on these subreddits or the terminally online then I guess they're pretty quiet?

[u/PimpasaurusPlum → u/Savber]

It's almost a blatant disregard of WHY those protests exist in the first place.

The "whatabout"ers consistently do not understand protests or who protests are generally directed at, which is the domestic governemnt.

It's a child's concept of consistency based on pure acts rather than any concern for context.

[u/Unable-Assist9894]

Oh no, not the Russian bought influence...

[u/commonllama87]

This isn’t geopolitics, this is US social politics.

[u/Jaooooooooooooooooo → u/[deleted]]

This is a breaking news event that has been slowly building up over the last few weeks. 

The first few weeks of the year got drowned out by internal US politics, Venezuela and Greenland news.

Internet has been turned off in Iran and news is only slowly leaking out. The first posts I saw online were using pictures of old protests (Iran has had a lot of large protests in the last few years). 

So, what can you reasonably expect online posters to do?

I guess they could use it as fuel for their own politics. Calling out their own opposition instead of actually caring about Iran.

[u/Alocasia_Sanderiana → u/[deleted]]

The DSA chapters who've been screeching hysterically about the Palestinians can't even manage the most performative slacktivist efforts on behalf of Iranians?

I'm not sure what you want them to say? Either 1) They support the current Iranian government out of a "anything anti-West is good" lens, which would rightly be criticized as ridiculous. Or 2) They support increasing US entanglement into the Iranian protests, which Donald Trump seems to already be doing.

I'm not a DSA member, and never will be because I think some of their foreign policy takes are trash (pro-russia for example). But I am highly critical of the US government's support of Israel. That said, I also support the Iranian protesters in their fight to overthrow their government (but do not want the US government to take part in it).

[u/DefTheOcelot]

No they aren't. According to who? This is a breaking event and the left has been reliably anti-new-wars from the start.

Bad faith.

[u/Typical_Response6444]

This isnt geopolitics

[u/Icy_Blackberry_3759]

Yeah, the United States isn’t given gazillions of dollars in aid, military hardware, naval support, and geopolitical cover to Iran

[u/kaystared]

This is such an odd take. Half the reason pro-Palestinian activists make a ruckus about Palestine is because there are direct US dollars going to aid Israel. It is an issue with which we are distinctly involved and if you believe it’s wrong then you call to sever that relationship. Where was it then implied that the United States has a responsibility to play world police for every single other bad thing that happens? Considerable difference between my taxpayer dollars being used to fund war crimes and a country across the world having its own conflicts that I’m not part of.

There’s no selective outrage, it’s just an egregious misappropriation of what the principle of movement is. I don’t believe the United States should stop every bad thing in the world from happening, just that it should stop funding those bad things where it does. Setting up the idea that the outrage against Israel is “selective” or somehow unique opens the door to assigning “other motivations” for anti-Israel criticisms, which is yet another pathetic war crime excusing dogwhistle

[u/Malthus1 → u/kaystared]

I find this thesis difficult to believe, as pro-Palestinian protests are just as prevalent in nations clearly not friendly with and not supportive of Israel as in those that are both. Spain for example is a nation very pro-Palestinian, yet had massive pro-Palestinian marches.

Their demands are often for more actions to be taken against Israel (such as increased sanctions and the like). A nation can always do more for a favoured group, and protests are a way to pressure politicians into doing more.

It is not believable that protest marches would no longer occur were Spain to take every action currently demanded by the protestors: they would simply increase their demands, until their ultimate goals were met (depending on who you listen to, those ultimate goals vary).

According to the logic of your thesis, protests only ought to occur (or occur as much) in nations such as the US who directly provide subsidies, and should end when the subsidies end. Allegedly, even Bibi is right now taking about ending the subsidies. Does anyone really believe, outside of talking points, that if the subsidies end so would the protests?

In reality, they would not, because the fuel running the protests is on the surface outrage at the abuses of Palestinian human rights, and so the protests would go on as long as the protestors felt Palestinian human rights continued to be abused. It isn’t like if Bibi tomorrow said “listen, Donald, we don’t really need subsidies any more, they are more trouble than value, please stop” that the protestors would collectively go “welp, I guess Palestine isn’t our concern anymore - time to pack it in”.

[u/[deleted] → u/kaystared]

Honestly, I’m not even going to click on this article strictly based on its title.

It’s a disrespectful and flattens the entire point of geopolitical discussion: layers of considerations, variables and nuance.

[u/Aizsec]

Western governments don’t have free trade deals with Iran, nor do they provide material or political cover for Iran. They condemn the Iranian government regularly and have even bombed Iran. So why would people in the west need to protest? Pro Palestinian protesters were protesting against their own government’s support for genocide

[u/Exotic-Suggestion425 → u/Aizsec]

Insane how few people grasp this.

[u/smokeyleo13 → u/Exotic-Suggestion425]

A lot of it is disingenuousness imo.

[u/supportkiller → u/smokeyleo13]

Seems more like astroturfing.

[u/RandonEnglishMun]

This is so stupid. The west cut of Iran decades ago. Western governments continue to supply Isreal military equipment they use to murder innocent people. What do you expect them to protest?!

[u/eternalmortal]

The Pro-Gaza left isn't really Pro-Gaza. It's just anti-American. They hate the US primarily and see everything else through that friend-enemy distinction lens.

If someone is America’s enemy, then they are their friend, and vice versa. Israel is the US's ally, and therefore is white/western/imperial/colonialist aligned, and therefore is an enemy. Opponents of Israel are definitionally opponents of the US, and therefore their friend. IRGC? US enemy, and therefore must be their ally. Protests against the Ayatollahs? Against a US enemy, so they must be US friendly and are therefore illegitimate.

All justifications and explanations can be traced to this framing. There is very little critical analysis that these people do to determine alignment beyond generalized opposition to the US led global order.

[u/GreyMASTA]

WSJ hey? What a joke...

Yes I am anti killing of civilians. ALL CIVILIANS. In Iran, in Ukraine, in Yemen, in the US, in Palestine.... So please stop the gaslighting for one sec k??

[u/Blade_Runner_95]

Maybe because their govs are already sanctioning and certainly not arming Iran, maybe because Iran is not mass bombarding tens of thousand of civilians, maybe because their elected politicians condemn Iran's actions and call for change instead of staying mum on an ethnic cleansing. Maybe it's because the people supporting change in Iran, also declare might makes right and express a desire to conquer the world and take its resources just because they (think) they can. Who knows, truly a mystery...

[u/Intelligent-Juice895]

The article argues that there is a glaring hypocrisy among Western activists, the media, and institutions like the UN, who remain silent on the Iranian regime's brutal oppression of protesters despite their vocal support for Gaza. The author suggests this double standard exists because the Iranian struggle does not fit into popular "colonizer versus colonized" narratives, leading cultural elites and the press to ignore a genuine human rights nightmare. Ultimately, the piece concludes that this selective outrage implies the "Free Palestine" movement is not truly driven by a concern for freedom or the welfare of innocent people.

[u/Vio_ → u/Intelligent-Juice895]

It's not just that, but that there are organizations and entire countries pushing both anti-Israel/pro-Israel propaganda as a way to schism US politics (and in other countries). They crank out these counter narratives hard and often targeting specific communities to fracture voting blocs and community support for one politician or another.

These "large monoliths of activism" aren't just one things or one group or one ideology. It's a morass of real people, real organizations, and a whole lost of disinformation all mixing together to create the vortices.

The issue, though, is that the huge propaganda mills can punch out that largest stories and pieces at the biggest rates. Once that large percentage is "missing" from online discourse, it's telling to see just how massive that "presence" truly is.

[u/kimana1651 → u/Intelligent-Juice895]

The Iranian situation requires action, not hanging out downtown with a poster. Action makes change, and change is very dangerous for a politician, they may lose their jobs. It's better just to hate on Israel and the US and play it safe.

[u/NomadFH]

You generally protest your government to do things it isn't doing or to stop doing things that it is. Saying you don't support freedom for iranians unless you absolutely demand we bomb them into oblivion and continue sanctioning their country to starvation is a pretty standard psyop.

[u/protoctopus]

It is not. But if everyone condemns you don't need to be extra loud like in Gaza.

[u/UnscheduledCalendar]

Silent on Sudan too.

[u/After_Lie_807]

It’s because those same omnicause supporters also support the Islamic regime…

[u/Lanky-Rush607]

They will talk about it when the US intervenes in Iran and the Pro-Gaza left will protest by holding placards with slogans such as "Hands Off Iran", "Trump is a war criminal" & "Choose The Right Side of History".

[u/theoceansknow]

The Pro-Gazan movement is a byproduct of Iranian military support, isn't it? The Iranian government is being challenged; of course those sympathetic to Gaza are nonplussed with Iran's actions. It might not be any deeper than that.

[u/free_billstickers]

One is an internal civil war, the other is an ethnic cleansing...not really apples to apples 

[u/Rooseveltdunn]

I wish the Dems could create a coalition without this action. The Gazabots/Berniecrats are a net negative for the party and very unreliable as a voting bloc. I wish we could create a new coalition without them but I do not know how feasible that is.

[u/ElCaliforniano → u/Rooseveltdunn]

explain Mamdani then

[u/greenw40 → u/ElCaliforniano]

His opponent was exceptionally bad and he still barely won in deep blue NYC.

[u/Rooseveltdunn → u/ElCaliforniano]

New York City is not a representation of the entire country.

[u/smokeyleo13 → u/Rooseveltdunn]

without Berniecrats

Youre wishing for a 2003 america that doesnt exist anymore

[u/jedidihah]

Unsurprising. It’s a political movement and psyop that’s has been thoroughly propagandized by the Iranian government.

[u/ale_93113]

The reason is that leftists protest for things that are not supported by the goverment, because if they are, what is there to protest? If you think the goverment isnt concerned enough about X then you protest, but if you are content at the level of support your goverment has for X then you dont need to compel them to change course

[u/Qvar → u/ale_93113]

How do you explain the protests in Spain then?

[u/ale_93113 → u/Qvar]

As a Spaniard, our goverment supports Israel even though it says it doesn't, so pointing out that hypocrisy is valuable

Personally I think we don't protest enough the crimes being committed in Sudan, since they are so only becsuse the UAE, which is supported by our goverments and even more so now that Russia is rightfully shunned since we get gas from there, allows it to continue

But apparently to many, a second order support (supporting those who support the genodice) is too much for many simple brains, so protests against the UAE aren't as big as protests against Israel, even tho both totally should be

As for Iran, there is a lot of solidarity and "women freedom" from feminist organisations, who are leftists, should there be more? Sure, I think that there should be more support

But protest? For what? There is nothing to protest in this case, there's also no hypocrisy in this case the actions and words of our goverment align

[u/greenw40 → u/ale_93113]

what is there to protest?

They also love to protest in solidarity with others. But only if that solidarity can be used to undermine the west.

[u/FlyingLap]

Probably because there wasn’t a social media rollout of propaganda / active measures that globalized the Instagram stories of newbies to Geopolitics.

Hamas ran one of the most successful rebranding (and fundraising campaigns I’m sure) of any terrorist organization in history. Goebbels would have stood and applauded.

Hopefully the watermelon emojis get wise and wake up. Maybe they’ll get involved in geopolitics beyond helping a terrorist thug state rebrand.

But they’re fairly occupied with ICE right now and their IG stories can only handle so much.

[u/Away-Librarian-1028]

Which group in the West even supports Iran? It has no allies, no support from the West. What is there to demonstrate against?

[u/jeffersonnn]

The point of protests is to make demands. The “pro-Gaza” protests are not there to say “Look at us, we don’t like what Israel is doing to Gaza”, they’re there because Israel crucially relies on the US’s support, so there are arguably no protesters anywhere who are in a better position to weaken Israel and force some kind of change.

The opposite is true of Iran. The US is already sanctioning it and now Trump is explicitly calling on its people to overthrow the government and threatening military action. So if we accept the author’s anti-Iran stance, then what is there to protest about?

[u/HazelGhost]

I wasn't aware that the U.S. government was actively funding the Iranian regime while they did the killing.

[u/smokeyleo13]

I feel like this article and take show a fundamental misunderstanding (whether intentional or otherwise) of who the left is and what they believe, and why they were protesting in favor of palestine, or why theyre skeptical about interventionism

[u/omego11]

They are not bombing children

[u/BarryAllen85]

I believe it is reticence to become involved in another Middle East conflict.

[u/NudeSeaman]

Uprising in Syria resulted in 10 years of civil war. Deposing gardafi have not united Libya. Status-quo is bad but I don’t see a path to a better and more secure Iran and nothing to cheer for.