[averysmallbird]

As someone very vocal on Iran, I find these recriminations shallow and generally intended to be punitive about those positions in those others places.

By the same precedent, it opens up Iranian human rights activists to the same endless accusations — when were you vocal on M23, Haiti, Kashmir, Kurds, Muslims in India, etc etc. I don't think it's countless silent organizations, and those organizations or activists are generally not in position to be able to influence the IRI or IRGC.

I think you have distinguish between feckless organizations like the ITU, and say, college student campus activists.

[ericmay]

I think it's a fair criticism though because of the general vitriol about Hamas and Gaza.

The same folks are very much in a position on college campuses to protest about numerous injustices going on in the world, from Iran to Somalia to Haiti to Cuba, yet they're silent.

Why is that? It's a fair question.

I don't think there's some moral failure for caring about one issue affecting one group of people more than another, but you really have to wonder why we care so much about Palestine over other issues, even more gruesome injustices.

This isn't to diminish of course the plight of Palestinians or any group for that matter, but it's a very clear outlier in the American, and dare I say entire western psyche.

[Archio]

“it's a fair criticism though because of the general vitriol about Hamas and Gaza.”

Ok, you’ve convinced me. I now firmly support reducing billions in American aid to Iran, curtailing Iranian use of American bombs, and diplomatic cover America gives to Iran in the UN. I am now also calling strongly to remove all these state laws we have that ban government business with companies that don’t support Iran!

[averysmallbird]

I appreciated your exchange in this subthread about the difference of the U.S.'s involvement versus Iran. However, I want to push back even without drawing that distinction, so I do it here.

I think private individuals and even civil society organizations, no matter how noxious or loud they can be, have a right to have specific passions without being expected to be universalist in application or having to account for why. Particularly when it comes down to the individual, people have a right to say, I find this cause very moving for whatever reason and I don't think then there's an obligation to answer for everything else going on in the world. Especially outside of governments, international organizations, and civil society groups that claim to be universalist in their cause. If anything we should be glad people have passions outside their narrow world.

I believe that as a general principle, but also because in practice that criticism tends to get waged, dare I say weaponized, against particular causes. I don't tend to see people focused on Somalia, Haiti, or Cuba being denigrated for not caring about Iran. I don't see people shouting down advocates for Christians in Nigeria over supposed silence on the Rohingya. I think its punitive for believing in a cause, generally specific causes, rather than about integrity.

I would venture to guess you can also find ample examples across the world, and that selectivity is simply a part of human nature rather than some defect of western psyche.

[ownlife]

> Why is that? It's a fair question.

I think most of those students would answer that they are protesting the US government's complicity in this particular injustice -- which doesn't apply to the other injustices you list. I have a hard time imagining that most people asking this fair question can't think of that obvious answer.

[fmbb]

I don’t think that is a fair question if one has at any time tried to look into what exactly these protestors are protesting or how protest works.

[khazhoux]

> Why is that? It's a fair question.

Seems simple to me. The Palestine/Israel protests were demanding change from an ally. It was a call for "you guys are supposed to be good but what you're doing is bad."

I suppose there could be rallies of support for the Iranian people, but it would seem silly for US protesters to demand change from the Iranian government, given that our opinion is probably not regarded highly by them.

[visageunknown]

This is classic whataboutism. You don't have to criticize every single atrocity in the world in order to criticize one. I often find that people who take your stance don't care about any issues. They're simply weaponizing other problems to avoid engaging with the one they actually oppose.

There is also a key difference between the Palestine issue vs the others you listed. The fact that our country is deeply in bed with the country that is committing these crimes against humanity and actively funding it, along with the strange level of undue influence that country has on our government.

[asdff]

The difference you see is between a sponsored protest and unsponsored. Basically, bleeding heart liberals have been successfully convinced to align with Hamas without them explicitly realizing it either. This is a good primer on Hamas in the US and their general media strategy:

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/202...

Kind of interesting to keep in mind when people protest for a ceasefire instead of say, Hamas removed from power and free open elections resumed for Palestinians.

[epolanski]

The rohingya in Myanmar just 10 years ago.

Myanmar was literally burning people in open pits, happened across 800 villages, most people don't even know that happened.

[neoromantique]

>when were you vocal on M23, Haiti, Kashmir, Kurds, Muslims in India...

That is the entire point, Gaza protests have been very vocal (and in many cases very misinformed). Human right abuses in Iran are but another example of this blindness.

[RobertoG]

Misinformed, sure. As it's not obvious what Israel is trying to do in Gaza.

You ask for equal reaction, here it goes: I want for Israel the same sanctions that are applied to Iran and Russia. Fair, right?