I have a special level of anger for Burmese people in America who voted for Trump, fully knowing what he's capable of, but choosing to turn the other cheek because they believe themselves to be the good migrants, and that they won't be affected.

I am not exactly interested in international law and human rights, but in the sociological processes behind the perception of g in one but not in another. Any thoughts welcome. I might put this into a longer format if I can find time between TA work, grad readings and exams 6/6

As someone with no connections to Washington or Brussels, my belief is unapologetically B. But I am compelled to confront and live in Western world which is A. If the bar is higher for Gaza, what if we use the same bar for Maungdaw? Or why are not standards applied equally? 5/6

Only four belief outcomes:
A) Rohingya g is true but Palestine g is false (pro-Isr*el NYT, WaPo, most American academics and politicians).
B) both g true (ICC prosecutors, HR advocates).
C) both g false (few except MAH himself).
D) Rohingya g is false but Palestine g is true (no one so far). 4/6

How can we trust the West's narratives of g in one but not g in another? Is it a form of epistemic injustice? The Burmese and Rakhine did claim this is a counter terror (just like Isr*el do) or a few say this is ethnic cleansing and not the dirty g word. 3/6

Here is my concern: most of our evidence on Rohingya genocide exclusively comes from the circle who now believes there is no g in Gaza ("only terrorists killed, duh!"). Is there a ground for skepticism towards their narratives now that the same group are turning a blind eye to Gaza? 2/6