this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
14 points (65.9% liked)
Progressive Politics
3167 readers
1114 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.