534
Bernie Sanders becomes first US senator to say Israel committing genocide in Gaza
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
534 points (98.9% liked)
politics
25739 readers
4882 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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
He's not the first.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/08/israel-gaza-war-elizabeth-warren-00151120
And Van Hollen and Merkley called it ethnic cleansing.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/democratic-senators-gaza-ethnic-cleansing
The direct proactive statement proclaiming it a "genocide" rather than answering a question or using "ethnic cleansing" is significant step though.
Calling it a "genocide" instead of "ethnic cleansing" matter though. Why do you think everyone is always so hesitant to call things genocides? It's because it's a word that has legal implications. It's an international crime that demands action.
So basically politicians loophole things by calling them ethnic cleansing instead.
A couple politicians calling it genocide doesn't have any legal implications. Warren did it already and nothing changed in the legal implications, nor would they kick in if 3 (4 now) were doing it instead.
Your link doesn't say that Warren called it a genocide, but that "she thinks it will legally be defined as a genocide". That's not calling it a genocide, that's thinking it will be called that. There is a difference there
But you need to think of it from a political lens moreso than one politician saying it meaning it will immediately have legal consequences
If a majority of politicians say "it's ethnic cleansing", things will happen that are not meaningfully different than a majority saying "it's genocide". That's the hurdle, not whether two senators who are on the right side of the issue (albeit after far too long) are using specific terminology.
Genocide carries specific legal frameworks under international law, that ethnic cleansing doesn't.
Words mean things.
International law itself doesn't mean anything. There are no international cops and no international consequences. Whether two senators say "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" has zero actual difference in how the United States must or even will act. This legalistic critique of the extreme minority in the debate who are on the right side of the issue is sus as hell.
"Ethnic cleansing" is a weasel term to avoid saying "genocide," which is an actual legally-defined term that requires a response according to domestic and international law, which the US is a party to. If it's genocide, the US and other countries are obligated to try to prevent it and to bring the perpetrators to justice. A politician calling it an ethnic cleansing does so either because they're ignorant of the law (although most of them are lawyers) or because they want to sound like they're taking a stand without actually doing anything.
I don't think legality has anything to do with the choice. There's no obligation from a handful of senators saying something. It's not like Warren calling it a genocide obligated the Senate to adopt that position.
In reality, it just feels like a serious charge that doesn't have to explain that genocide can exist without full Nazi death camps. None of their voters are going to think "it's only ethnic cleansing, they don't have to do anything about that".
Why not call it genocide?
I do, but it you're asking why I think they didn't, I already answered that in the comment you just replied to.