Palestine

Because most western "leftists" are socdem coloured liberals.

They misunderstand or ignore key concepts like critical support, primary and secondary contradictions, materialism, and dialectics. Therefore it's no wonder that, even after a run of potentially good takes, they ultimately end up on the side of reaction.

For the actual MLs, some are outspoken but others are careful. I can only speak for myself in saying that I am genuinely concerned for my immigration status if I were to publicly speak out in favour of even the Palestinian cause in general, let alone Hamas and other decolonial forces.

Why do people who materially benefit from the military occupation of Palestine not support the decolonization of Palestine?

Hamas is not ML and isn't ISIS, hamas is hamas

In a lot of the free-speech-west, opposite-of-totalitarian-west, supporting Hamas is illegal. So sometimes people are lying to protect themselves. Just to be charitable to a group that does exist, don't know how large.

But the main reason is just that they don't genuinely understand the condition in Palestine. They don't understand that Gaza is a concentration camp, that the houses Israel is bombing belongs to people and isn't just capital.

Find me an Auschwitz survivor who wept for Hitler when he committed suicide, and I'll find you a Gaza resident who wept for the soldiers killed on Oct 7. But the talking heads would not dare ask that of the Auschwitz survivors, because they have understood the conditions at Auschwitz.

I can't speak for the Westerners as I am a Vietnamese living in Vietnam.

As a Vietnamese, I don't worry about the establishment punishing me for opinions regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, so my opinion is only a matter of principal.

If it is true that Hamas harmed Israeli civilians, then it reveals the lack of discipline amongst their troops. To be fair, it could be projection on my part: During the struggle against the United States, we still recognize that the American people and journalists as potential friends and allies and it is the US government and its puppet regime that are our enemy.

In any case, if Hamas wants to improve its international image (as it is necessary to gather international support both when fighting a war and rebuilding the nation after the war), they should work to strengthen discipline. We cannot expect the Western governments to change their positions, of course, but the world is bigger than the West.

How dare you not begin and end your question with "I condemn Hamas but...!"

Honestly though, that's the kind of framing that leads people to that. Very intentionally by the media there is an immense amount of pressure on anyone speaking against Israel to first preface their statements with "I condemn Hamas but...". Like somehow there is any equivalency there at all.

You definitely get certain voices that are very outspoken and refuse to fall into that trap, but it seems like a minority. What is more interesting to me is how much that media narrative is at odds with the general popular opinion we see worldwide.

As a few others have said, there's something to be said about repercussions for openly supporting an organization that is a designated terrorist entity in the country you reside in.

In some organizations I'm a member of, the question has come up as to why our official line is supporting a 2 state solution but we chant, "from the river to the sea" when we attend demonstrations.

Generally when this has been brought up, there is wide support for a 1 state solution but this goes back to legal repercussions espousing this publically.

Because 'leftist' is just a word that liberals use to try to conflate themselves with anti capitalism to appropriate popularity, actual leftists will simply call themselves socialist.

Media pressure is insane around Hamas. When you know that everyone was spoon fed narratives about them being sadistic barbarians who just want to kill all Jews it becomes very difficult to publicly support them. In some countries you could even risk have trouble with the police for "terrorism apologia" (at least that's a thing in France). So basically you only hear the people who agree with the media while the rest is shutting up because they know how much trouble they are getting into

well it's not certain how many leftists TRULY support them. what people say cannot be taken as accurate because anything remotely close to supporting "terrorism" can ruin your life or even land you in prison. so there's no telling how many leftists are just putting up that facade because of the potential for government repression.

In my country I will probably be arrested if i spoke anything , coming from working class I cant afford that 😶

Western opinion is lead by US opinion and the US was and is a settler-colonial project. So, their opinions basically align with Israel's labor party.

in britain we could be arrested for it so... i don't support hamas at all 😉

When you tell people to "consider the material conditions" you have to include their material conditions.

Openly supporting Hamas is illegal in many countries.

There are consequences to every action, and while some people lean into the "actions vs words" trope, saying something publicly is an action, and it has consequences.

Because many of them don't actually support Palestinian liberation, and are, as you suggest, still holding on to their liberalism even if they claim not to. Their support manifests only in an empty verbal declaration without any actual understanding.

Take a look at this article which illustrates and analyzes the problem well. An excerpt:

Some people understand being in favour of something as a kind of thought act: it happens in one fell swoop in the realm of intentions, and it can be verified by a simple declaration of support. It is enough for me to declare I’m in favour of, for example, abolishing the patriarchy, or capitalism, for these people to believe me. But what if I’m in favour of a general objective and at the same time opposed to every specific step needed to achieve it? Let us start by imagining how this contradiction might play out in the context of a simpler problem than patriarchy or capitalism: water is leaking through a hole in my roof. I am in favor of the overall goal of stopping the leak, but I insist on some strange rules. For instance, I decide that only supernatural beings can handle the problem. Or I forbid anyone from walking on the roof while fixing the leak. Or people may walk on my roof, but I demand that they refrain from using ladders or any other tool to get up there. Or they may use a ladder, but only after climbing onto the roof, never before. So long as I am imposing such conditions, what does it matter that I profess my desire to solve the problem? No matter how much I see myself as enemy number one of the leak, in practice I am actually in favour of keeping it around. Therefore, just saying that I’m in favour of a given objective is not enough. My declarations carry weight only when I support them with a thorough understanding of the steps needed to reach that objective and when I allow these steps to be executed in the necessary order.

Yep. Zelensky and NATO definitely are not ML, but a lot of western "leftists" adore him and NATO. They are either lying to themselves about what they believe or to us (I personally think it's the latter). Regardless they are lying.

Because in some countries this is what happens if you say you support Palestine, let alone Hamas.

https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1224275/police-arrest-22-year-old-palestinian-over-flag-raising/

Because many of these so-called "leftists" are actually liberals who simply follow the dominant opinion without bothering to do any research into why. To criticise Hamas for fighting back against their 75 year old oppressor and even refer to them as terrorists over it is fucking wild. I don't want it to sound like I'm equating the two but it genuinely reminds me of when a woman comes forward about abuse and everyone tries to claim she was just as bad for fighting back

Pro tip: In my experience, anyone who actually refers to themselves as a "leftist" is likely not on the left. Leftists typically do not refer to themselves as leftists because it does not mean anything really. I don't trust left wingers unless they actually name which specific belief they follow

A lot of businesses are tied to gov, and so there’s pressure to follow the gov line. If you are a socialist business owner, you would be risking not only your position but also your livelihood and the livelihood of your employees if you speak up.

So, class interests.

On the other hand, if you are a consumer facing company, if you outright state that you support Israel, you’d alienate your customers.

So, also class interests.

That’s why you see a lot of companies toeing the line when they’re forced to make a statement. Or a lot of public faces just shut up regarding the subject. Supporting either side will result in consequences.

Yes, there is a correct answer. But in the end, you are kept. Your pay check, your employee’s pay check , your country’s pay check, doesn't come from how much you fight against injustice.

In a way, the people have the most power. And if public opinion of the vast majority are polarized, then there’s little that can stand in its way. It’s a force that can make empires capitulate, as we have seen recently.

It's a much easier sell to side with the people than to side with the boogieman, even if both are effectively the same.

when you're flooded with propaganda even fairly vigilant people will let some ideas theough

did a control F, surprised no one has gone with one of the simple reasons: pure racism baby! scary brown muslims are obviously terrorists!!! (/s)