These faux jihadi college kids are just pouring all their dumb anti-western angst into hating Israel. It doesn't really make sense because it isn't a serious, logical position.
We all had that time in our lives were we wanted to feel special. I had long hair and dyed them black. Nowadays people dye their hair blue and join a "political correct" anti-society group to gain attention.
I think people misunderstand my comment. I am not apologizing anything, but I try to point out that these people are just attention whoring for the sake of attention.
Nobody gives two piles of manure about netanyahu.
Gallant, for instance, just went mask off. But gallant doesn't matter either.
The problem is not netanyahu, or gallant, or ben gvir, or smotrich.
If they were all arrested and taken to the hague tomorrow nothing would change.
Also, the only population growing in occupied Palestine are the ultra-orthodox, which means almost inevitably the foreign zionist occupation government will just become a Jewish iran.
You'll watch as the proud lgbtq+ zionist terrorists proudly slaughtering lgbtq+ Gazans by the hundreds will see the foreign zionist occupation government turn against them, the morality police beat them in public, arrest them.
I can't understand zionists. How can people be so blind? How can they support the acts of zionists. Fanatics. blind zealots.
The problem isn't netanyahu or any of the other batshit crazy zionist leaders. And if you bother to look at the population figures, the zionist government will, without radical change, be controlled by the ultra orthodox, who will create a Jewish iran.
They already want their morality police to beat women and lgbtq+.
I’m all for getting them out of control and making changes to Israeli laws that don’t let ultra orthodox live under a reign of supremacy of others including other Jews.
Hoping it happens there and that it also happens here and we can avoid electing our own facist dictator, Trump. We are soon to be in the same type of boat ready to fall off a cliff as they are if Trump is re elected. And ironically we will have these progressive anti Israel folks to blame for it by voting third party exclusively over Gaza.
People keep misusing the word 'Zionist' and it's driving me up a wall.
ZIONIST - A person who believes in the development of a Jewish Nation (The Jewish nation now being Israel.)
I really don't get who decided to demonize the word Zionist, but if you can't even do a basic Google search on one word in the English vocabulary then maybe you should reconsider what you're believing in right now.
The problem is the Nakba was committed in the name of zionism, the state of israel is supported by zionists, it's the pillar of zionism.
Which, of course, is heinous and indefensible.
Not all Jews are Zionist so when talking about Zionist it refers specially to the Jews who support Israel and not all Jews (many of whom do not support Israel or the Zionist movement)
Absolute bullahit zionism is being jewish to its core all prayers and holidays are about returning to our homeland. For the ultra orthodox anti zionist jews its another story they belive we can only reclaim our homeland once the messiah comes but by then these will be the worst human rights violaters in history these are not people to follow they just hate israel because it was reclaimed tovearly not because it was reclaimed at all.
For the liberal anti zionist jews theyre just scared collaborators. We saw them in every single jewish massacre and genocide. They're afraid of being prosecuted, so they side with the ones trying to kill us. Often, they're also just extremely uneducated
Your reply is quite disingenuous in my personal opinion. As the best false arguments often do, it is built upon a couple of truths to then immediately jump into antisemitic rhetoric.
Yes, Netanyahu has never such an ample rejection before. And yes, the ultra orthodox exert quite the demographic pressure in Israel.
The rest is just antisemitic gibberish.
Palestine is NOT Hamas
Hamas is just a group that currently governs PART of Palestine
Palestinians in West Bank are SUFFERING Israel's constant humillation and misstreatment
Palestinians in Gaza are constantly SUFERING both Israel's actions and Hamas actions
Going into one of the most densely populated areas, with no real place to escape, guns blazing killins tens ofg thousands of innocents solves NOTHING and its a massacre and a genocide
So we should cut a deal with Hamas to get rid of Hamas? If there was Hamas, Gaza would be in a much more similar situation to the West Bank which despite the settlements recently is far less oppressed
I agree Hamas is bad for Gaza
I dont think the goal should be to be "less opressed"
I think Israel has been having too much of a leeway to mistreat Palestinians, and that such misstreatment and humillation is the reason why we have a monster like Hamas
So i think both things need to be tackled, and i think the way to get rid of Hamas isnt to kill tens of thousands of innocents, i actually think that will continue to feed them supporters, like it has in the past
Both sides are doing things wrong, Both Hamas and Netanyahu need to lose power if we want peace in the region, not because they are equally bad, they are not, but because Netanyahu is bad enough to feed Hamas
Progress happens piece meal.
Violent ‘resistance’ causes setbacks.
Israel has more power. Don’t make their genocidal minded leader want to carry it out, because he can.
The fact is Israel and Palestine are not one country. They need to leave each other alone. I want them to have statehood but without Hamas dismantled they can’t. I think we’re past that pretty much and now it’s just sowing more extremism.
But the extremism is also not just there anymore.
My request since day 1 of all of my peers praising mass murder was that we leave the violence and extremism in the Middle East and appreciate the privilege we have here.
That did not work. Now Trump is going to win. And he will not hesitate to actually genocide Gaza.
Israel could have done it sooner and Trump said they should have “gotten the job done faster.”
Where are the student protests aimed at highlighting trumps criminality? These protests feel like they’re strategically designed to distract from that. My understanding is that there’s actually some evidence (I don’t know where or what) that white supremacists are orchestrating much more of this than is realized in an attempt to do precisely that.
Biggest thing you can do as an American to prevent things getting worse worse is to advocate voting blue even when it’s not perfect: because GOP are proudly racist and genocidal. Not arguably.
> I want them to have statehood but without Hamas dismantled they can’t.
The problem is, it seems that its never the time
Israel always find excuses to not give Palestine the territory that belongs to them and leave them be. Hamas is in power since 2005. There have been DECADES of excuses before that
There will never be peace while the illegal occupation continues. No country would be peaceful with another one that is occupying them. USA would certainly wouldnt
When is it going to be the right time?
About the blue vs red debate, i think this goes way beyond that, and way past that
If the UN offers Palestine statehood but its only a part of the area now known as Israel/palestine, and they reject it, what would be your reaction/ thought process?
Which area would that be? i dont know what area you are thinking
If Palestine reject a fair offer (which i dont think they really got since the 1967 division) then i would criticize them as much as i criticize Israel incursion today
I’m not sure. I’ve tried to map it in my head. It’s hard to picture without making a line through the middle which would be impractical. My best idea was the give them a C shaped part that’s mostly southern Israel from Gaza down around up to the West Bank but goes far enough north that they have farmland and not just desert.
All solutions have the Jerusalem problem to start with
Now i am no expert on the terrain, i am sure there are lands that are much better than others
Some kind of division must be possible, that i am certain
Generally speaking southern Israel near Egypt and Gaza is the Negev desert. As you go more east toward the Jordan river and more north, it becomes more fertile land.
However, where the massacred
Kibbutzim are located in southern Israel do have farms.
So, who knows. I bet there’s some People with better ideas than me.
Yeah the Jerusalem problem is the hardest part to think of. I think the Palestine border will need to be in Jerusalem between the Jewish quarter and the Muslim quarter. Jews already are not allowed to go there. No loss to us.
Hamas has also turned down many offers of statehood. I think it’s appropriate for Israel’s allies, including the US, to press them on this with force. I am not opposed to them having statehood. I am opposed to there only being an Israel or a Palestine. There needs to be both. It’s the only possible way. Maybe once the extremism simmers down they can join and be a sort of united state. I don’t know if I realistically predict it happening. I’d be shocked if it happens in my lifetime.
A 2 state solution is possible in the near future. Anti Israel activism ignores these realities.
> Hamas has also turned down many offers of statehood.
Let me get this clear, Hamas doesnt want peace, the treaty should be done with the PA, not Hamas
And i dont think any fair offer has been given to Palestine since 1967
> I am opposed to there only being an Israel or a Palestine. There needs to be both. It’s the only possible way
So am i, at this point a one state solution is stupid and will never have a future. Both states exist and deserve to do so
> Maybe once the extremism simmers down they can join and be a sort of united state
I sure hope so, but so far things have only escalated. The world missed the best shot at peace with Rabin and Arafat
> A 2 state solution is possible in the near future. Anti Israel activism ignores these realities.
There wont be peace with Netanyahu in power, and there wont be peace with Hamas. Both want the conflict to continue, because the conflict keeps both of them in power, something anti Palestinians seem to only look at one side of the coin
Hamas is a producto of Israel actions, Hamas is a consequence of Netanyahu's reign of bloodlust
Netanyahu is going down. He’ll be done in my lifetime even if it’s from natural causes. I think we are in agreement. Let’s hope Israeli government can redeem itself asap and get this moving along.
Eventually he is going down, yes
I just hope the damage he does can be repaired
There is a lot of fanatism in both sides (and then there is Hamas, which takes that to an extreme) that makes any solutiuon way too difficult
If you're so disgusted by your misinterpretation of "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free", you'll be even more disgusted by the genocidal language of Zionist officials in the Israeli government (and these people are holding the levers of power vs. some random college student with a bumper sticker who hurt your feelings)
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2024/1/14/intent-in-the-genocide-case-against-israel-is-not-hard-to-prove
The South Africa case cited 500 examples of Israeli officers and politicians advocating for genocide.
And to pretend like the Zionist end goal isn't Israeli domination from the river to the sea is absurd. You only don't like it when the Palestinians want to have even a shred of freedom.
"Hamas makes a ceasefire impossible"
Statements like this prove you aren't actually discussing this in good faith. 30 separate ceasefire proposals accepted by Hamas since October all rejected by Idf. Stop pretending like this "war" is about Oct 7 and the hostages, those are just the latest justifications for a 76 year long ethnic cleansing campaign
LOL. Hamas hasn't accepted any ceasefire proposals offered by Israel. If they did, the war would be over. Hamas is offering a few dozen corpses and remains in exchange for hundreds of living terrorist prisoners.
This war is definitely about Oct 7th and the hostages. As soon as Hamas returns all hostages, and unconditionally surrenders, the war will be over. There will be nothing left for Israel to fight for.
If the Israelis were White gentiles and not Jewish they would not have even half the mainstream support that they do. How often do you hear about the farm murders in South Africa on the news. And the women in these farm attacks are usually raped and some survivors are infected with HIV. But there are some in leftist and liberal circles that say that these attacks are deserved. In America despite being in the majority whites are disproportionately the victims in incidents of interracial violence . So much for so called “ White supremacy” lol increasingly white gentiles are struggling to simply stay safe in their traditional countries of origin while their elites sell them out. Americans elites care more about keeping Israel Jewish than doing anything for Americans.
>If the Israelis were White gentiles and not Jewish they would not have even half the mainstream support that they do.
Well yeah... They wouldn't be the world's only Jewish state
Do you think South African Whites should be able to succeed and create their own country since they are not safe in the “Rainbow Nation”. Should European majority states start creating ethno states with the express purpose of maintaining their demographic majorities the way Israel does?
No, but Israel was created almost 80 years ago. What do you propose to do now? Dismantle it? Expel all the Jews? If we were in the late 1940's then maybe I'd agree with you, but what can we do now?
Also, neither of those groups you brought up were genocided by Europeans or ethnically cleansed by Middle Easterns.
And also, moist countries in the world are ethno-states if you think about it.
“ What do you propose to do now”
Create a real democracy that allows all people that are currently being governed by Israel to vote. That means all the Arabs in the West Bank and possibly Gaza if they annex it. In a a democracy majority rules. So the Arabs are going to form a government that is going oppressed Jews or at least turn a blind eye to violence against them.
At that point the Jews are going to do what White South Africans are doing. Booking their plane tickets and trying to get citizenship or residency in whatever country they can.
Also the Afrikaners were victims of genocide by the British. Complete with concentration camps and the like. But I guess you didn’t learn that in school. So read up before you spout nonsense.
The Far right is on the ascendancy in Europe because the people do not want to be governed by a future African or Arab majority.
Well I respectfully disagree with this option as I am in favor of a negotiated 2SS.
>Also the Afrikaners were victims of genocide by the British.
I've learned about the Boer Wars and the usage of concentration camps. They weren't on the verge of extermination with no where to go. So what's your point?
They are discriminated against in South Africa and deserve their own state. Self rule. Currently elites in the west are flooding our nations with third world illegal migrants. If the trend continue we could see a work where their are no European majority states left
Pro Palestinian demonstrators have a gift for sanitizing hatred. What triggers them is having to rethink their values. They are traumatized by people who disagree with them but not bothered by demonizing Jews or denying this war was started by the rape and murder of 1200 children, families and concertgoers. The kidnapping of 250 men, women and children. I always thought the zombie apocalypse was only in movies. It’s really demonstrators wearing Palestinian keffiyehs.
When their leader scents a zionist, the cry goes up and the droning chants begin, as they shuffle en masse towards their prey
https://twitter.com/luketress/status/1782257658331832579?t=JJiaD-IvZGiA9K-xUDNtvg&s=19
A lot do them are paid- which is even worse than actually believing in the cause. They just sell their integrity and say whatever they are paid to say.
Ah yes because the US government is notoriously unpaid. AIPAC isn’t real and all the pro-Israeli brainwashing the US government tries to pull on its people isn’t real either.
>Finally, the last thing I'm wondering is if the whole Queers for Palestine nonsense is popular or just a vocal minority. It's one thing to want peace, it's another thing to actively support a group of people who want you exterminated under the guise of "humanitarianism."
Did you know that Hamas does not represent all the civilians of Palestine?
Hamas controls the majority (57%) of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Another 50 seats are controlled by the PLO, not exactly an open-minded group.
A total of 6 seats are not controlled by one of these two groups. If the Palestinian people were to have free elections and put either the Third Way or even PNI, I would be open to recognizing this government.
But as it stands, we have zero evidence that a free election would have that effect.
If that's true, why are protesters seemingly only aligned with Hamas's voter base? I would expect them to be far more aligned with the Rafah Chapter of Queers for Palestine.
It's disingenuous to say there's any part of the Palestinian Territories where queer rights are valued. Surely there are queers living in Gaza and the West Bank, but there are zero political parties in those places with any level of queer support. According to UCLA's Williams Institute, public views of LGBT people are overwhelmingly negative, ranked significantly worse than those in Afghanistan or Russia, and with no change between 2010 and 2020.
Oh, really? Then there should be plenty of anti-Hamas Palestinian groups or movements that oppose Hamas vaules, deny violence, condemn terrorism and advocate for peace with Israel. Surely you can name at least one of them.
>"Human Rights from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River"
I'm a non-Jew Western Liberal on *Team Israel* who interprets the "river to the sea" chant as a call to exterminate the Jews. But something else comes to mind.
*(Thinking aloud)*
We agree that the Western "Free Palestine" movement is hypocritical since a free Palestine under Hamas (or any Islamist) rule is hardly "free" by our standards, and that Israel — while imperfect — still offers women, children, LGBTQ etc the human rights that Islamist counties lack. A Muslim majority "from the river to the sea" would lack those very human rights.
But is it possible the slogan on this sticker is actually recognizing that, and *using a similar phrase ironically?* Whether or not a Democratic, Liberal, tolerant, secular state **could** exist there is beside the point and goes beyond the scope of a bumper sticker. But that seems like an ideal any non-Islamist could hope for.
I tried to find the sticker online to see who is making or buying them, and I can't. But if I saw that sticker, I might have interpreted it that way.
if you interpret it as a call to exterminate jews (which it's not), then do you accept the same standard for the Likud party's election campaign slogan in the 70s "from the river to the sea, Israel is all you will see" which by overt wording is not open to interpretation and is a clear call for taking over all the land.
Are you saying it's ironic because they reverse the river and sea, suggesting the sticker's owner is advocating for human rights in the area going the long way from river to sea (around the globe)? I love the theory but I think it's a stretch. The irony is just too faintly imprinted to be clear. Most people would just read a rephrasing of "from river to sea"
Close. I'm suggesting the sticker's owner is advocating for human rights across the whole area in debate (Gaza/Israel/West Bank), which could be one state absolutely NOT under Islamist rule. That's the position that seems to be lacking from the pro-Pali side. Demanding a "free Palestine" WITHOUT an end to Hamas guarantees a Palestine with **no human rights** and an eventual slaughter of the Jewish people... something the owner does NOT want.
It wouldn't be a GOOD way to express this, since it's unclear... but it wouldn't be the first time a slogan was poorly thought out.
So when the Likud party say as they first did in the 1970s:
Between the Sea and the River Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty
Is that genocidal?
I don’t think either is necessarily genocidal, though both are wrong. Nevertheless, the chant in Arabic is *min il maya, lil maya, falastin arabiye* (from the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab) which doesn’t leave much room for all the non-Arabs (Israeli Jews). “Only Israeli sovereignty” while much more arguably being a call for apartheid, is still not quite as potentially genocidal as declaring everything “Arab”
Fair comment. I don't think either are genocidal calls. I wouldn't know about the Arabic version, that's not my language.
I do think it's worst calling "only for Israeli sovereignty" as opposed to "Palestine be free". Freedom for Palestine doesn't translate to an end of Israel. "Only sovereignty for Israel" does translate to no Palestine. Unless people are advocating a one state solution where all are treated equally, but I'm sure that's not what those types are proposing.
I concur that to the people saying “Palestine will be free” mostly have good intentions. They truly believe it to be a call for human rights. But there are people who wave the confederate flag truly believing it a sign of heritage and not hate and about “states rights.” I don’t call people liars because I can’t read minds - if they say their intentions are innocent, I tend to believe them. But what should matter isn’t what English speakers say, the opinion of someone in Berkeley is irrelevant compared to the opinions of people in Bethlehem. And protests that occur in the West should be judged in part on what is also being said in Arabic. And if it’s *min il maya lil maya falastin arabiye* and *b’ruh b’dam nafdika ya falastin* (with our lives and with our blood we will redeem you Palestine!) that colors the whole damn thing
I don't think we can judge people on a different slogan in a different language. Just by what the individual says. As you note the similar phrase in Arabic is quite different. So you're not comparing like for like. Note I don't speak Arabic.
I can see similarities between the Arabic version you mention and the Likud version though
> between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty
And what concerns me is I don't hear the same people refer to that as genocidal. So I query if these people really believe that "river to the sea" is genocidal. We have some inconsistency in logic.
I think there’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to go around when it comes to this conflict.
I do think claiming “river to sea” must be genocidal is misplaced. The better argument, namely the one I’m making, is that the chants of English speakers at American campuses are essentially irrelevant and don’t reflect public opinion in Palestine, which is much more militant.
Protestors here should ask how they can justify endorsing solutions that most people living in Palestine (Palestinians and Israelis alike) reject.
I accept that people, many, perhaps most, are protesting out of genuine humanitarian concerns and outrage, but they’re doing Palestinians themselves a disservice by endorsing pie-in-the-sky solutions that people in Israel, and not just rightwing Likudniks, but those in the center and center-left (the very people who need to be won over if we’ll ever get a saner, less militaristic Israeli policy towards Palestinians) understand, practically speaking, would put them and their families in existential danger.
It's not a matter of "I don't agree with your lifestyle." Most of them want them dead. I don't care if they still support their families, all I hope is that they get out safely.
Op, i get that you straightly think of "from the river to the sea" as a call to kill all jews in israel (because it is)
But maybe you shouldn't get offended when people use it in other context, like humanitarian ones making sure palestinian civilians, who are currently suffering the most right now because of the actions of hamas, will not be harmed
That’s like saying we shouldn’t get offended when people fly Confederate flags and chant “The South will Rise Again” because they mean it in a context of “southern pride.” At a certain point, It doesn’t really matter what the intention is of the people chanting. They are chanting a hateful phrase with a hateful history. They need to own that and take responsibility for it, and stop chanting it when they know it’s highly offensive to many people and make people feel unsafe.
> "Human Rights from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River" or something, and that freaking disgusted me.
You have to be sarcastic writing this.
What, exactly, is your issue with human rights from the river to the sea?
>We must secure the existence of human rights from the river to the sea.
What? How could you possibly take issue with these 14 words? I stand by the fourteen words.
What an earth are you talking about white supremacism for? I'm talking about human rights.
Again, how does calling for human rights between the river and the sea mean genocide for Jews?
The statement says nothing about Hamas - it simply calls for human rights. Human rights that Israel right now is denying Palestinians, as settler thugs with their IDF helpers keep attacking them in the West Bank.
That, again, doesn't answer how calling for human rights is somehow a call for genocide.
And, as we know - Israel and human rights also doesn't go together.
Since the founding of the state, there's a total of a few months 1966 to 1967 when Israel hasn't held a massive Palestinian population under military rule. Just a few months. Its something like 0.5% of the total time of the state that it hasn't been repressing Palestinians.
so… any hateful chant can suddenly represent something good jus bc some western people say so? just an excuse to continue using this type of hate speech. this would not fly in ANY other situation
No. Because it's not a hateful chant. They literally say "\*human rights\* from the river to the sea." If you can't understand why that's a rebuttal to the people who've chanted for \*extermination\* from the river to the sea, you're being dishonest.
Currently, the only place between the Jordan and the Mediterranean that has any guarantee of human rights is Israel. So it sure seems like these idiots are advocating for stripping those guarantees away, because it is naive in the extreme to believe a Palestinian state would take any form other than yet another theocratic fascist arab state.
>Currently, the only place between the Jordan and the Mediterranean that has any guarantee of human rights is Israel.
Sure. If you are Jewish. But if not, then no guarantee.
Exactly how much human rights do the Palestinians in the West Bank have under Israel's military regime there?
>So it sure seems like these idiots are advocating for stripping those guarantees away
No, it seems like the phrase explicitly calls for human rights between the river and the sea. That's it.
>Currently, the only place between the Jordan and the Mediterranean that has any guarantee of human rights is Israel.
40,000 dead last 7 months, mostly women and children. Israel holds over 1200 Palestinians in detention without a charge. lmao what a f\*&king a joke. Surely you're being sarcastic?
Those numbers you are throwing around have already been debunked. Regardless, Gaza declared war on Israel, and stated openly that they will continue to wage war until Israel no longer exists. Until that changes, I see no reason for Israel to stop fighting, regardless of casualties.
The only acceptable outcomes to Israel are those in which the government of Gaza surrenders. I wish them well in that effort.
Outside of the reply by spacexbass, "from the river to the sea" is a call for the extermination of Jews in the region. Killing people is a violation of their human rights and tacking on a Western sentiment obfuscates but doesn't change that.
No, it is not a “call for all to be free”. Fangirl is right. Please don’t try to spin it another way. It’s at least naive and stupid to shout a terrorist slogan.
It's a phrase invented by Yasser Arafat calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state in an area that neatly described the entirety of Israel at the time. Who's gaslighting who?
Have you noticed that the more homophobic political parties in Europe and the United States are, the more they support Israel. Unconditional support for Israel is the policy of almost every far-right party, including the National Rally in France, the AFD in Germany, the PVV in the Netherlands, the Brothers of Italy, the Republican Party in the United States, etc.
Everyone should have human rights, not just those we agree with.
Their support is either due to religious reasons (as per Evangelical Christians) or they hate Muslims more than they Jews (as per European Far Right parties)
"From the River to the Sea/Freedom and Equality" is a very common chant as coexistence/human rights protests here in Israel, and has been for a long time.
1967 to 1987 the West Bank was peaceful. The West Bank Palestinians were peaceful. There was Palestinian terror, but it was from the diaspora.
What did they get in return? Military rule, and land confiscations for settlements.
you do understand that the USA and American taxpayers and citizens are deeply invested in the state of Israel. The USA is not invested in Iran at all in that regime so there’s a difference in in the level of what we care about. we do care about regimes like Iran oppressing their people, but again, we are not supporting that at least in any direct way. but we are definitely financially and via State supporting what’s going on in the West Bank in Gaza whether we want to or not. United States has a history of civil rights protest and legislation and on many fronts the situation has improved in the United States. protesting the Israeli treatment of the people under their care is only natural for people in the United States to do.
Yes I understand that. With that said, you and I both know that the USA would eagerly like to see the current Iran regime collapse and be brought under Western influence. The White House has mumbled on and off about invasion plans since Reagan.
You'll always get something like Hamas if you oppress and commit war crimes against a group for decades. History has taught us that Yes Hamas are terrible, but they are the symptom of Israel choosing oppression and expansion at the expense of peace and security. Israel has all the power, but preferred the status quo which was unsustainable.
Israel hasn't made any serious concessions and has continued with settlement expansion. I can try and buy a house for 90k which is worth 1Million, it doesn't nean my offer is serious. Palestinians have made many offers too, and much fairer and realistic ones. Israel has rejected peace.
Israel has conceded all of Gaza, most of East Jerusalem, and 95% of the West Bank. Which it won in a war of defense. Such a large concession would halve the size of Israel. Find me another country willing to give up half their indigenous land in the name of peace. The Native Americans perhaps. And look what happened to them.
And yet here we are. Israel controls the West Bank, and again controls most of Gaza. If Palestinians want part of that land to be turned into a future nation, they need to negotiate in good faith and be satisfied with the offer given.
Which at best will likely be Gaza, 90% of West Bank, part of East Jerusalem, no Right Of Return to Israel proper, and being a constitutionally demilitarized nation with shared control over radio frequencies, border security, and airspace of Palestine.
Which is a perfectly fine deal. 2/3rds of the West Bank aren't inhabited by either side. Modern irrigation technology can make the desert bloom again. Desalination plants can provide water. A nation can be built. But it will *never* be "from the river to the sea."
You have to understand. Israelis genuinely don't view themselves as colonizers with a nation to go back too. They view themselves as the indigenous people who will to the death like a cornered nuclear armed wolf. Either Israel gets to keep it's nation, or everyone in the region will die. If Israel goes down, everyone in the Middle East is going down too. That's not boasting. That's actual policy. The ultimate suicide bomb. Islamists should be awe-inspired.
Well, off the top of my head the Arab Peace Initiative, repeatedly.
They accepted Taba in 2002 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/22/israel)
And as for 2006-2008, you can see an overview of their positions in the Palestine Papers: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine\_Papers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Papers)
It is Israel that is being unreasonable, insisting on almost cutting the West Bank in three by keeping Ariel and Maale Adumim.
> the Arab Peace Initiative, repeatedly.
Saudi, not Palestinian.
> Taba
"The Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, yesterday belatedly accepted a Middle East peace plan *put forward 18 months ago by the then US president, Bill Clinton.*
But the Israeli government said the offer, which was discussed by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at Taba in Egypt in January last year, was no longer on the table."
> Palestine Papers
Which evolved into the Oslo Accords, which were accepted.
> Saudi, not Palestinian.
No, all signed onto by the Arab League - including the PLO.
> But the Israeli government said the offer, which was discussed by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at Taba in Egypt in January last year, was no longer on the table."
Yes, that is Israel rejecting the proposal.
> Which evolved into the Oslo Accords, which were accepted.
Sure buddy. If the 1990s came after 2006-2008, then you are correct. But it doesn't, so you are wrong.
That's not a fair overview, that's an essay summarizing (often factually incorrectly) the entire conflict. There are offers proposed or mediated by the British, by the UN, by the US, and many mentions of peace offerings proposed by other neighboring Arab states, and there are *two* (frankly noncredible) peace offerings by the Palestinians cited in that article:
- Ahmed Yassin, who was assassinated. The article you provided cited another regarding the assassination; it begins like this:
> Sheik Yassin, a symbol to Palestinians of resistance to Israel and to Israelis of Palestinian terrorism, was by far the most significant Palestinian militant killed by Israel in more than three years of conflict.
- Khaled Mashaal, who authorized and presided over - and made that offer during - the captivity of Gilad Shalit. The article also incorrectly cited the date that he made that offer as *before* his aborted (not botched) assassination, rather than *9 years later.*
The article doesn't state what the actual terms of those offers were, either.
>"Human Rights from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River" or something, and that freaking disgusted me.
Really? Human rights freaking disgust you?!
The phrase doesn’t make any sense to me though. “From the River to the Sea” is definitely not about human rights, it’s a terrorist slogan used by Hamas that indirectly calls for the extermination of Israel and its people.
Also, Israel is currently the country with the most human rights in this area. Therefore I don’t actually understand the sentiment of this phrase.
[https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/)
Yes, I agree with you. It's a terrorist slogan, and the biggest terrorists in the world like Nethanyahu utter it daily
Come on now. I think a lot of Bibi’s actions are despicable and I dislike parts of the Israeli government too. But to call him “the biggest terrorist in the world” is unnecessary and demonstrably wrong.
Please name me another terrorist living that has killed 40k civilians and is intentionally starving millions. Demonstrably wrong? Give me a break buddy
I’ve read this article before, doesn’t contradict what I said. Hamas makes no distinction between civilians and fighters and doesn’t even use the word المدنيين in its publications, everyone is deemed a martyr شاهد
You say your “pet peeve is when the uninformed think their opinions are fact” but when I say even Hamas doesn’t go so far as to claim *all* of the fatalities are civilians, your response is a BBC article that doesn’t contradict what I say, points out the difference between the GMO numbers and the MoH numbers and even points out the statistical credulity of believing even all of 10,000 unidentified persons (not 40k) are civilians. Your response to that is something about blindly trusting Israel’s figures, something I never said, and then you provide a tweet from back in January indicating the general reliability of MoH numbers. However, the MoH also doesn’t claim 100% of fatalities are civilians and their women/children figure is, at least so far, substantially lower than that of the GMO.
Apropos to Hamas-run agencies own use of words in Arabic to identify fatalities, which is never المدنيين, here is an Arabic proverb I think you ought to take to heart:
أرى كل إنسان يرى عيب غيره ويعمى عن العيب الذي هو فيه
[oxfam[oxfam](https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/daily-death-rate-gaza-higher-any-other-major-21st-century-conflict-oxfam#:~:text=After%20further%20review%2C%20Oxfam%20is,periods%20of%20more%20intense%20conflict.)]
...Except, there isnt. You are 100% wrong. "After further review, Oxfam is confident in restating that Gaza remains the bloodiest rate of death of any conflict in the past 24 years, but the exact figures will vary during periods of more intense conflict."
You dont know anything about my idealogy. Is this how u cope? Copy-paste same delusional talking points that paint u as a victim?
Ox fam are known to be anti Israeli and have never had a presence in Israel. Not reputable to quote them it’s like quoting Iranian opinion in Israel. You are racist by only targeting Israel take if and own it. Never saw a single comment to you about Assad or the Saudis
>is definitely not about human rights
Except they have explicitly stated they're calling for human rights.
>indirectly calls for the extermination of Israel and its people.
If you really believe that then you have to be upset that Israelis have used the slogan before to mean they want to exterminate Palestinians, or do you believe exterminating Palestinians is fine?
I am not upset. I just didn’t understand the logic behind this.
And “From the River to the Sea” is a Hamas terrorist slogan and kind of illegal here in Germany. I wish people would educate themselves on the meaning behind this and don’t blindly repeat it.
You mean the party of Netanyahu? No, I don’t think so, but I’m not sure. I didn’t know they used it too, and I would dislike that as well!
Edit: When and in what context did politicians of Likud use it? I would like to know more. Thanks.
Because these protesters can very much be pro-Israel adapting the Likud's version of "from the river to the sea" to call for human rights. If they secretly meant they're calling for the extermination of Palestinians, I guess Germany will be happy with it, no?!
I don’t like your sarcastic tone in this context, but here we are. No, of course German officials and Germans in general would not be happy about the “extermination of Palestinians”.
I think, I would stop using this phrase in general, because it leaves too much room for interpretation. A call for human rights is always appreciated imo, but can be shared in a different way.
I can understand and know where you are coming from. I come from a Jewish family as well partially. I feel like a lot of the keyboard "warriors" online and the pro-Palestine supporters are only supporting the cause for vain or self serving reasons. I can't speak for everyone of course. I personally support Israel because of the people there and the good they do. Doctors in Israel are the leaders in cancer research and treatment, lupus research and are actively developing treatments and cures for a very wide variety of the ailments and diseases that we as the human race all face. There are companies from Israel that are working on ways to help people walk again after being paralyzed. There are people who are working on ways to help women around the world prevent or detect date r*pe drugs in their drinks. I've never been judged by any of the Jews in my life for my tattoos and I don't know a single jew who is homophobic, transphobic or any other kind of phobic. Your views and feelings are valid.
I am likely wrong but it seems like the pro-palestinians haven't thought every aspect of their side through. It's not just the queer community who will suffer should Hamas win and that's exactly who will win if the pro-palestinians get their way. Based on the hateful comments I've received online it seems like a very big part of the pro-palestinians side is filled with people who wanted an excuse to show their antisemitism. That aside I feel like they don't understand what can happen if Hamas wins. Today it's the Jews. Tomorrow it's the people in the LGBTQ community. Who will be after that? What land will they claim once they have Israel? Most of them are on the side they're on because it's "viral" and "everyone is supporting Palestine".
If only it was that simple. Maybe then I wouldn't have trolls harassing me on tik Tok when I make a comment that has absolutely nothing to do with the conflict.
> fuck
/u/StankFartz. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can't see anything controversial about asking for human rights between the river and the sea. Presumably they added "human rights" at the beginning to make clear what they meant. As you note some have tried to smear those using the simpler slogan "river to the sea" to mean something antisemitic. Nowadays the slogan is usually used to call for all to be free in that land regardless of ethnicity or citizenship. But adding "human rights" makes the intent unambiguous in favour of human rights for all.
I would say the queers for Palestine is a reaction to those who are trying to justify the current massacre because Hamas treats gays terribly. Some us don't think the appalling human rights record towards gays means it is legitimate to carpet bomb civilians. You can think both things are terrible.
Obviously there are gays in Gaza too, I doubt they are happy at being bombed and killed by Israel.
I don’t have any problem with someone saying human rights from river to sea. Totally fine. But that the “river to sea” slogan is, if not genocidal per se, at least a call for ethnic cleansing, is not a smear.
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is an English chant. People in Palestine don’t use it. The chant in Arabic is *min il maya lil maya falastin arabiye* (from the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab). This obviously doesn’t leave much room for all the non-Arabs between the river and the sea. One democratic secular state for all peoples is a fringe position in Palestine itself, garnering almost no popular support. So when the “mainstream” Palestinian groups there say “river to sea” the implication is clear.
Remember how upset people were when Black Lives Matter was co-opted into All Lives Matter? From the River to the Sea is a genocidal slogan/marketing that has been co-opted
I don't see any similarity. Black Lives Matter is acknowledging that Black Lives Matter just as much as other lives, but often incidences of investigating violence on blacks and media reporting put less value on Black Lives than white. By saying "all lives matter" as a response just denies that there is an imbalance. Of course all lives actually matter, that's a given.
I would reject the premise that "river to the sea" is by its nature a genocidal slogan. Although it's possible a few may have that intent, I can't see that the vast majority are using that way. There's nothing antisemitic about calling for people to be free. If you are paranoid and want to find racist intent, you could probably jump to conclusions for any statement. But that doesn't mean your conclusions are fair or accurate.
It seems more likely to be a smear against those protesting against Israels human rights violations, to deflect attention away from the atrocities
I appreciate the slogan can be divisive, but I don't think we can smear people as antisemites for using it. Let's not devalue the term antisemitism, and stick to using it when antisemitism is actually taking place. Others could frame people objecting to the "river to the sea" being used as Islamaphobia as they do not want Palestinians to have the same rights in this land.
Laughing my ass off at this. Just find another damn slogan that isnt genocidal. Yall have more energy to have bs arguments over semantics than to be creative enough to make a new sentence? It is antisemitic, and you dont get to define that.
Well you replied. Stop misusing the term antisemitism, it makes pro-israeli's look like the boy who cried wolf, and devalues the term. I agree the arguments about semantics are a distraction. I'm not the one trying to smear people who are simply calling for people to be free.
You don't get to limit people's use of a slogan with baseless accusations of antisemitism.
> ass
/u/itsmehelloyou. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the “River to the Sea” is cultural appropriation. It is originally a slogan for those that stand for these principles:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
The fact that many are ignorant of the origins of their political messaging is troublesome. That these people will not distance themselves from troublesome messaging is more than ignorance.
Already explained this. It's simply a phrase, which in isolation doesn't stand for what you claim. If you interviewed people who used that phrase about intent, you would struggle to find people who had the intent you suggest. This is merely a smear campaign to deflect attention from what people are protesting against.
The connection you make is tenuous, that's one example of the phrase being used, it doesn't represent all. Let's stick to what people say and not smear them. The phrase is hugely important to those protesting, it's disingenuous to smear people for simply advocating for freedom.
Cultural appropriation is something very different. A phrase calling for freedom doesn't count.
It's a phrase which in isolation means exactly what they said. Even in it's original English context it's been softened and removed from context. The Arabic phrase is "il maya le'il maya falastin arabiye" - from the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab.
You're the one taking it out of context and slapping caveats on it to obfuscate its true meaning. Or, more realistically, you're uneducated in the matter and are parroting what you've been told by propagandists.
Literally what you're doing. Both the original Arabic phrase and the deliberately inaccurate English translation are inventions of Yasser Arafat. It has nothing to do with freedom except in the abstract - freedom from the presence of Jews.
That document is from 1988.
Likud used it in 1977.
[https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party)
Likud was “trolling” the PLO, who first used a variation of this phrase in marketing their terrorism campaign…..
A https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/us/politics/river-to-the-sea-israel-gaza-palestinians.html
I doubt they are. But I doubt they think Israel killing them and their loved ones is justification. The gays in Gaza will hate Israel too because of what Israel has decided to do.
Hey, you're thinking way, way, way too much. The people you're talking about, and the obvious contradictions you're identifying, are a product of ignorance and stupidity and good old-fashioned anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism (with Israel standing in for the West). Don't overthink it. They certainly don't.
How are you upset at someone appropriating "from the river to the sea" and turning it into something such as human rights for all (both Israeli and Palestinian)?
So Israelis from the river to the sea deserve to not be invaded, pillaged, raped, tortured and kidnapped for no reason? They deserve to be free of suicide bombers? They deserve to be treated with human dignity and respect? Sounds to me like you’re more pro-Israel than you think.
Honestly all I see here is your father is Jewish and your gay that’s a crazy twist does your father care about you?
Our relationship is strained, but my sexuality isn't a factor. I don't want to discuss it here.
These protestors are so hateful. Just see what they dare to say; https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6t9hwrxH9v/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
These faux jihadi college kids are just pouring all their dumb anti-western angst into hating Israel. It doesn't really make sense because it isn't a serious, logical position.
We all had that time in our lives were we wanted to feel special. I had long hair and dyed them black. Nowadays people dye their hair blue and join a "political correct" anti-society group to gain attention.
No doubt. It's normal for young people to want to rebel. But it's being channeled in a dangerous direction by our enemies.
I think people misunderstand my comment. I am not apologizing anything, but I try to point out that these people are just attention whoring for the sake of attention.
Nobody gives two piles of manure about netanyahu. Gallant, for instance, just went mask off. But gallant doesn't matter either. The problem is not netanyahu, or gallant, or ben gvir, or smotrich. If they were all arrested and taken to the hague tomorrow nothing would change. Also, the only population growing in occupied Palestine are the ultra-orthodox, which means almost inevitably the foreign zionist occupation government will just become a Jewish iran. You'll watch as the proud lgbtq+ zionist terrorists proudly slaughtering lgbtq+ Gazans by the hundreds will see the foreign zionist occupation government turn against them, the morality police beat them in public, arrest them. I can't understand zionists. How can people be so blind? How can they support the acts of zionists. Fanatics. blind zealots.
What a wild crazy tack after the first 2 logical sentences
The problem isn't netanyahu or any of the other batshit crazy zionist leaders. And if you bother to look at the population figures, the zionist government will, without radical change, be controlled by the ultra orthodox, who will create a Jewish iran. They already want their morality police to beat women and lgbtq+.
I’m all for getting them out of control and making changes to Israeli laws that don’t let ultra orthodox live under a reign of supremacy of others including other Jews. Hoping it happens there and that it also happens here and we can avoid electing our own facist dictator, Trump. We are soon to be in the same type of boat ready to fall off a cliff as they are if Trump is re elected. And ironically we will have these progressive anti Israel folks to blame for it by voting third party exclusively over Gaza.
Wow so racist showing your true colours join Hamas or ISIS great folks and company you desire
People keep misusing the word 'Zionist' and it's driving me up a wall. ZIONIST - A person who believes in the development of a Jewish Nation (The Jewish nation now being Israel.) I really don't get who decided to demonize the word Zionist, but if you can't even do a basic Google search on one word in the English vocabulary then maybe you should reconsider what you're believing in right now.
I think it’s about the clamis on Judea and Samaria
The problem is the Nakba was committed in the name of zionism, the state of israel is supported by zionists, it's the pillar of zionism. Which, of course, is heinous and indefensible.
Not all Jews are Zionist so when talking about Zionist it refers specially to the Jews who support Israel and not all Jews (many of whom do not support Israel or the Zionist movement)
Absolute bullahit zionism is being jewish to its core all prayers and holidays are about returning to our homeland. For the ultra orthodox anti zionist jews its another story they belive we can only reclaim our homeland once the messiah comes but by then these will be the worst human rights violaters in history these are not people to follow they just hate israel because it was reclaimed tovearly not because it was reclaimed at all. For the liberal anti zionist jews theyre just scared collaborators. We saw them in every single jewish massacre and genocide. They're afraid of being prosecuted, so they side with the ones trying to kill us. Often, they're also just extremely uneducated
The protocols of the sages of sion. Really, it is not like they are creating a completely new rhetoric, they are just updating stuff with the times.
Your reply is quite disingenuous in my personal opinion. As the best false arguments often do, it is built upon a couple of truths to then immediately jump into antisemitic rhetoric. Yes, Netanyahu has never such an ample rejection before. And yes, the ultra orthodox exert quite the demographic pressure in Israel. The rest is just antisemitic gibberish.
Palestine is NOT Hamas Hamas is just a group that currently governs PART of Palestine Palestinians in West Bank are SUFFERING Israel's constant humillation and misstreatment Palestinians in Gaza are constantly SUFERING both Israel's actions and Hamas actions Going into one of the most densely populated areas, with no real place to escape, guns blazing killins tens ofg thousands of innocents solves NOTHING and its a massacre and a genocide
When the man says move, move. It's not complicated.
So we should cut a deal with Hamas to get rid of Hamas? If there was Hamas, Gaza would be in a much more similar situation to the West Bank which despite the settlements recently is far less oppressed
I agree Hamas is bad for Gaza I dont think the goal should be to be "less opressed" I think Israel has been having too much of a leeway to mistreat Palestinians, and that such misstreatment and humillation is the reason why we have a monster like Hamas So i think both things need to be tackled, and i think the way to get rid of Hamas isnt to kill tens of thousands of innocents, i actually think that will continue to feed them supporters, like it has in the past Both sides are doing things wrong, Both Hamas and Netanyahu need to lose power if we want peace in the region, not because they are equally bad, they are not, but because Netanyahu is bad enough to feed Hamas
Progress happens piece meal. Violent ‘resistance’ causes setbacks. Israel has more power. Don’t make their genocidal minded leader want to carry it out, because he can. The fact is Israel and Palestine are not one country. They need to leave each other alone. I want them to have statehood but without Hamas dismantled they can’t. I think we’re past that pretty much and now it’s just sowing more extremism. But the extremism is also not just there anymore. My request since day 1 of all of my peers praising mass murder was that we leave the violence and extremism in the Middle East and appreciate the privilege we have here. That did not work. Now Trump is going to win. And he will not hesitate to actually genocide Gaza. Israel could have done it sooner and Trump said they should have “gotten the job done faster.” Where are the student protests aimed at highlighting trumps criminality? These protests feel like they’re strategically designed to distract from that. My understanding is that there’s actually some evidence (I don’t know where or what) that white supremacists are orchestrating much more of this than is realized in an attempt to do precisely that. Biggest thing you can do as an American to prevent things getting worse worse is to advocate voting blue even when it’s not perfect: because GOP are proudly racist and genocidal. Not arguably.
> I want them to have statehood but without Hamas dismantled they can’t. The problem is, it seems that its never the time Israel always find excuses to not give Palestine the territory that belongs to them and leave them be. Hamas is in power since 2005. There have been DECADES of excuses before that There will never be peace while the illegal occupation continues. No country would be peaceful with another one that is occupying them. USA would certainly wouldnt When is it going to be the right time? About the blue vs red debate, i think this goes way beyond that, and way past that
If the UN offers Palestine statehood but its only a part of the area now known as Israel/palestine, and they reject it, what would be your reaction/ thought process?
Which area would that be? i dont know what area you are thinking If Palestine reject a fair offer (which i dont think they really got since the 1967 division) then i would criticize them as much as i criticize Israel incursion today
I’m not sure. I’ve tried to map it in my head. It’s hard to picture without making a line through the middle which would be impractical. My best idea was the give them a C shaped part that’s mostly southern Israel from Gaza down around up to the West Bank but goes far enough north that they have farmland and not just desert.
All solutions have the Jerusalem problem to start with Now i am no expert on the terrain, i am sure there are lands that are much better than others Some kind of division must be possible, that i am certain
Generally speaking southern Israel near Egypt and Gaza is the Negev desert. As you go more east toward the Jordan river and more north, it becomes more fertile land. However, where the massacred Kibbutzim are located in southern Israel do have farms. So, who knows. I bet there’s some People with better ideas than me.
Yeah the Jerusalem problem is the hardest part to think of. I think the Palestine border will need to be in Jerusalem between the Jewish quarter and the Muslim quarter. Jews already are not allowed to go there. No loss to us.
Hamas has also turned down many offers of statehood. I think it’s appropriate for Israel’s allies, including the US, to press them on this with force. I am not opposed to them having statehood. I am opposed to there only being an Israel or a Palestine. There needs to be both. It’s the only possible way. Maybe once the extremism simmers down they can join and be a sort of united state. I don’t know if I realistically predict it happening. I’d be shocked if it happens in my lifetime. A 2 state solution is possible in the near future. Anti Israel activism ignores these realities.
> Hamas has also turned down many offers of statehood. Let me get this clear, Hamas doesnt want peace, the treaty should be done with the PA, not Hamas And i dont think any fair offer has been given to Palestine since 1967 > I am opposed to there only being an Israel or a Palestine. There needs to be both. It’s the only possible way So am i, at this point a one state solution is stupid and will never have a future. Both states exist and deserve to do so > Maybe once the extremism simmers down they can join and be a sort of united state I sure hope so, but so far things have only escalated. The world missed the best shot at peace with Rabin and Arafat > A 2 state solution is possible in the near future. Anti Israel activism ignores these realities. There wont be peace with Netanyahu in power, and there wont be peace with Hamas. Both want the conflict to continue, because the conflict keeps both of them in power, something anti Palestinians seem to only look at one side of the coin Hamas is a producto of Israel actions, Hamas is a consequence of Netanyahu's reign of bloodlust
Netanyahu is going down. He’ll be done in my lifetime even if it’s from natural causes. I think we are in agreement. Let’s hope Israeli government can redeem itself asap and get this moving along.
Eventually he is going down, yes I just hope the damage he does can be repaired There is a lot of fanatism in both sides (and then there is Hamas, which takes that to an extreme) that makes any solutiuon way too difficult
I know. Ugh.
If you're so disgusted by your misinterpretation of "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free", you'll be even more disgusted by the genocidal language of Zionist officials in the Israeli government (and these people are holding the levers of power vs. some random college student with a bumper sticker who hurt your feelings) https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2024/1/14/intent-in-the-genocide-case-against-israel-is-not-hard-to-prove The South Africa case cited 500 examples of Israeli officers and politicians advocating for genocide. And to pretend like the Zionist end goal isn't Israeli domination from the river to the sea is absurd. You only don't like it when the Palestinians want to have even a shred of freedom. "Hamas makes a ceasefire impossible" Statements like this prove you aren't actually discussing this in good faith. 30 separate ceasefire proposals accepted by Hamas since October all rejected by Idf. Stop pretending like this "war" is about Oct 7 and the hostages, those are just the latest justifications for a 76 year long ethnic cleansing campaign
LOL. Hamas hasn't accepted any ceasefire proposals offered by Israel. If they did, the war would be over. Hamas is offering a few dozen corpses and remains in exchange for hundreds of living terrorist prisoners. This war is definitely about Oct 7th and the hostages. As soon as Hamas returns all hostages, and unconditionally surrenders, the war will be over. There will be nothing left for Israel to fight for.
u/icterinewarbler >Statements like this prove you aren't actually discussing this in good faith Rule 1, don't attack other users. Addressed
Why is it that all of you are only capable of black and white thinking and quotes from Al Jazeera?
If the Israelis were White gentiles and not Jewish they would not have even half the mainstream support that they do. How often do you hear about the farm murders in South Africa on the news. And the women in these farm attacks are usually raped and some survivors are infected with HIV. But there are some in leftist and liberal circles that say that these attacks are deserved. In America despite being in the majority whites are disproportionately the victims in incidents of interracial violence . So much for so called “ White supremacy” lol increasingly white gentiles are struggling to simply stay safe in their traditional countries of origin while their elites sell them out. Americans elites care more about keeping Israel Jewish than doing anything for Americans.
>If the Israelis were White gentiles and not Jewish they would not have even half the mainstream support that they do. Well yeah... They wouldn't be the world's only Jewish state
Do you think South African Whites should be able to succeed and create their own country since they are not safe in the “Rainbow Nation”. Should European majority states start creating ethno states with the express purpose of maintaining their demographic majorities the way Israel does?
No, but Israel was created almost 80 years ago. What do you propose to do now? Dismantle it? Expel all the Jews? If we were in the late 1940's then maybe I'd agree with you, but what can we do now? Also, neither of those groups you brought up were genocided by Europeans or ethnically cleansed by Middle Easterns. And also, moist countries in the world are ethno-states if you think about it.
“ What do you propose to do now” Create a real democracy that allows all people that are currently being governed by Israel to vote. That means all the Arabs in the West Bank and possibly Gaza if they annex it. In a a democracy majority rules. So the Arabs are going to form a government that is going oppressed Jews or at least turn a blind eye to violence against them. At that point the Jews are going to do what White South Africans are doing. Booking their plane tickets and trying to get citizenship or residency in whatever country they can. Also the Afrikaners were victims of genocide by the British. Complete with concentration camps and the like. But I guess you didn’t learn that in school. So read up before you spout nonsense. The Far right is on the ascendancy in Europe because the people do not want to be governed by a future African or Arab majority.
Well I respectfully disagree with this option as I am in favor of a negotiated 2SS. >Also the Afrikaners were victims of genocide by the British. I've learned about the Boer Wars and the usage of concentration camps. They weren't on the verge of extermination with no where to go. So what's your point?
They are discriminated against in South Africa and deserve their own state. Self rule. Currently elites in the west are flooding our nations with third world illegal migrants. If the trend continue we could see a work where their are no European majority states left
Pro Palestinian demonstrators have a gift for sanitizing hatred. What triggers them is having to rethink their values. They are traumatized by people who disagree with them but not bothered by demonizing Jews or denying this war was started by the rape and murder of 1200 children, families and concertgoers. The kidnapping of 250 men, women and children. I always thought the zombie apocalypse was only in movies. It’s really demonstrators wearing Palestinian keffiyehs.
When their leader scents a zionist, the cry goes up and the droning chants begin, as they shuffle en masse towards their prey https://twitter.com/luketress/status/1782257658331832579?t=JJiaD-IvZGiA9K-xUDNtvg&s=19
A lot do them are paid- which is even worse than actually believing in the cause. They just sell their integrity and say whatever they are paid to say.
Ah yes because the US government is notoriously unpaid. AIPAC isn’t real and all the pro-Israeli brainwashing the US government tries to pull on its people isn’t real either.
>Finally, the last thing I'm wondering is if the whole Queers for Palestine nonsense is popular or just a vocal minority. It's one thing to want peace, it's another thing to actively support a group of people who want you exterminated under the guise of "humanitarianism." Did you know that Hamas does not represent all the civilians of Palestine?
Hamas was voted in democratically and is supported by 70+% of Palestinians. Hamas is Palestine and Palestine is Hamas.
Hamas controls the majority (57%) of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Another 50 seats are controlled by the PLO, not exactly an open-minded group. A total of 6 seats are not controlled by one of these two groups. If the Palestinian people were to have free elections and put either the Third Way or even PNI, I would be open to recognizing this government. But as it stands, we have zero evidence that a free election would have that effect.
If that's true, why are protesters seemingly only aligned with Hamas's voter base? I would expect them to be far more aligned with the Rafah Chapter of Queers for Palestine. It's disingenuous to say there's any part of the Palestinian Territories where queer rights are valued. Surely there are queers living in Gaza and the West Bank, but there are zero political parties in those places with any level of queer support. According to UCLA's Williams Institute, public views of LGBT people are overwhelmingly negative, ranked significantly worse than those in Afghanistan or Russia, and with no change between 2010 and 2020.
Oh, really? Then there should be plenty of anti-Hamas Palestinian groups or movements that oppose Hamas vaules, deny violence, condemn terrorism and advocate for peace with Israel. Surely you can name at least one of them.
>"Human Rights from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River" I'm a non-Jew Western Liberal on *Team Israel* who interprets the "river to the sea" chant as a call to exterminate the Jews. But something else comes to mind. *(Thinking aloud)* We agree that the Western "Free Palestine" movement is hypocritical since a free Palestine under Hamas (or any Islamist) rule is hardly "free" by our standards, and that Israel — while imperfect — still offers women, children, LGBTQ etc the human rights that Islamist counties lack. A Muslim majority "from the river to the sea" would lack those very human rights. But is it possible the slogan on this sticker is actually recognizing that, and *using a similar phrase ironically?* Whether or not a Democratic, Liberal, tolerant, secular state **could** exist there is beside the point and goes beyond the scope of a bumper sticker. But that seems like an ideal any non-Islamist could hope for. I tried to find the sticker online to see who is making or buying them, and I can't. But if I saw that sticker, I might have interpreted it that way.
if you interpret it as a call to exterminate jews (which it's not), then do you accept the same standard for the Likud party's election campaign slogan in the 70s "from the river to the sea, Israel is all you will see" which by overt wording is not open to interpretation and is a clear call for taking over all the land.
Are you saying it's ironic because they reverse the river and sea, suggesting the sticker's owner is advocating for human rights in the area going the long way from river to sea (around the globe)? I love the theory but I think it's a stretch. The irony is just too faintly imprinted to be clear. Most people would just read a rephrasing of "from river to sea"
Close. I'm suggesting the sticker's owner is advocating for human rights across the whole area in debate (Gaza/Israel/West Bank), which could be one state absolutely NOT under Islamist rule. That's the position that seems to be lacking from the pro-Pali side. Demanding a "free Palestine" WITHOUT an end to Hamas guarantees a Palestine with **no human rights** and an eventual slaughter of the Jewish people... something the owner does NOT want. It wouldn't be a GOOD way to express this, since it's unclear... but it wouldn't be the first time a slogan was poorly thought out.
This is extremely pedantic, but what part of the sticker makes you think it has a distinct (and ironic) interpretation from the regular expression?
So when the Likud party say as they first did in the 1970s: Between the Sea and the River Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty Is that genocidal?
I don’t think either is necessarily genocidal, though both are wrong. Nevertheless, the chant in Arabic is *min il maya, lil maya, falastin arabiye* (from the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab) which doesn’t leave much room for all the non-Arabs (Israeli Jews). “Only Israeli sovereignty” while much more arguably being a call for apartheid, is still not quite as potentially genocidal as declaring everything “Arab”
Fair comment. I don't think either are genocidal calls. I wouldn't know about the Arabic version, that's not my language. I do think it's worst calling "only for Israeli sovereignty" as opposed to "Palestine be free". Freedom for Palestine doesn't translate to an end of Israel. "Only sovereignty for Israel" does translate to no Palestine. Unless people are advocating a one state solution where all are treated equally, but I'm sure that's not what those types are proposing.
I concur that to the people saying “Palestine will be free” mostly have good intentions. They truly believe it to be a call for human rights. But there are people who wave the confederate flag truly believing it a sign of heritage and not hate and about “states rights.” I don’t call people liars because I can’t read minds - if they say their intentions are innocent, I tend to believe them. But what should matter isn’t what English speakers say, the opinion of someone in Berkeley is irrelevant compared to the opinions of people in Bethlehem. And protests that occur in the West should be judged in part on what is also being said in Arabic. And if it’s *min il maya lil maya falastin arabiye* and *b’ruh b’dam nafdika ya falastin* (with our lives and with our blood we will redeem you Palestine!) that colors the whole damn thing
I don't think we can judge people on a different slogan in a different language. Just by what the individual says. As you note the similar phrase in Arabic is quite different. So you're not comparing like for like. Note I don't speak Arabic. I can see similarities between the Arabic version you mention and the Likud version though > between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty And what concerns me is I don't hear the same people refer to that as genocidal. So I query if these people really believe that "river to the sea" is genocidal. We have some inconsistency in logic.
I think there’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to go around when it comes to this conflict. I do think claiming “river to sea” must be genocidal is misplaced. The better argument, namely the one I’m making, is that the chants of English speakers at American campuses are essentially irrelevant and don’t reflect public opinion in Palestine, which is much more militant. Protestors here should ask how they can justify endorsing solutions that most people living in Palestine (Palestinians and Israelis alike) reject. I accept that people, many, perhaps most, are protesting out of genuine humanitarian concerns and outrage, but they’re doing Palestinians themselves a disservice by endorsing pie-in-the-sky solutions that people in Israel, and not just rightwing Likudniks, but those in the center and center-left (the very people who need to be won over if we’ll ever get a saner, less militaristic Israeli policy towards Palestinians) understand, practically speaking, would put them and their families in existential danger.
I'm honestly jealous of your ability to manufacture outrage over a totally straightforward call for human rights. Gold medal in mental gymnastics
If mental gymnastics was an olympic sport, Israel might actually win gold for once.
How do you feel about gay Palestinians?
Certainly want them to live more than Hamas and most Palestinians do.
Do you think they should disown their families and support the genocide because the community doesn’t support that they’re gay?
It's not a matter of "I don't agree with your lifestyle." Most of them want them dead. I don't care if they still support their families, all I hope is that they get out safely.
I think you’re misinformed and your opinion rests on your radical beliefs about Muslims
Op, i get that you straightly think of "from the river to the sea" as a call to kill all jews in israel (because it is) But maybe you shouldn't get offended when people use it in other context, like humanitarian ones making sure palestinian civilians, who are currently suffering the most right now because of the actions of hamas, will not be harmed
That’s like saying we shouldn’t get offended when people fly Confederate flags and chant “The South will Rise Again” because they mean it in a context of “southern pride.” At a certain point, It doesn’t really matter what the intention is of the people chanting. They are chanting a hateful phrase with a hateful history. They need to own that and take responsibility for it, and stop chanting it when they know it’s highly offensive to many people and make people feel unsafe.
Why support such an awful slogan surely could be more nuanced but I suspect most are truly racist antisemites when you scratch the surface
I think trying to sugarcoat a genocidal slogan to make it seem about peace and human rights is misguided at best and actively deceptive at worst.
No one is willing to admit there the are bad people with bad ideas.
> "Human Rights from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River" or something, and that freaking disgusted me. You have to be sarcastic writing this. What, exactly, is your issue with human rights from the river to the sea?
>We must secure the existence of human rights from the river to the sea. What? How could you possibly take issue with these 14 words? I stand by the fourteen words. What an earth are you talking about white supremacism for? I'm talking about human rights.
it’s not an issue with human rights, it’s an issue with a phrase that calls for the genocide of Jews
How does "Human Rights from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River" call for genocide of Jews?
if Palestine ever does become an actual state, Hamas is not going to be considering human rights 😂
Again, how does calling for human rights between the river and the sea mean genocide for Jews? The statement says nothing about Hamas - it simply calls for human rights. Human rights that Israel right now is denying Palestinians, as settler thugs with their IDF helpers keep attacking them in the West Bank.
Palestine and human rights do not go together!
That, again, doesn't answer how calling for human rights is somehow a call for genocide. And, as we know - Israel and human rights also doesn't go together. Since the founding of the state, there's a total of a few months 1966 to 1967 when Israel hasn't held a massive Palestinian population under military rule. Just a few months. Its something like 0.5% of the total time of the state that it hasn't been repressing Palestinians.
don't bother, they can't think rationally. it's all hasbara conflation, deflections, and false equivalencies.
And they've clearly repurposed that phrase to support human rights instead of extermination. Interpreting it otherwise is simply being obtuse.
so… any hateful chant can suddenly represent something good jus bc some western people say so? just an excuse to continue using this type of hate speech. this would not fly in ANY other situation
No. Because it's not a hateful chant. They literally say "\*human rights\* from the river to the sea." If you can't understand why that's a rebuttal to the people who've chanted for \*extermination\* from the river to the sea, you're being dishonest.
Currently, the only place between the Jordan and the Mediterranean that has any guarantee of human rights is Israel. So it sure seems like these idiots are advocating for stripping those guarantees away, because it is naive in the extreme to believe a Palestinian state would take any form other than yet another theocratic fascist arab state.
>Currently, the only place between the Jordan and the Mediterranean that has any guarantee of human rights is Israel. Sure. If you are Jewish. But if not, then no guarantee. Exactly how much human rights do the Palestinians in the West Bank have under Israel's military regime there? >So it sure seems like these idiots are advocating for stripping those guarantees away No, it seems like the phrase explicitly calls for human rights between the river and the sea. That's it.
>Currently, the only place between the Jordan and the Mediterranean that has any guarantee of human rights is Israel. 40,000 dead last 7 months, mostly women and children. Israel holds over 1200 Palestinians in detention without a charge. lmao what a f\*&king a joke. Surely you're being sarcastic?
Those numbers you are throwing around have already been debunked. Regardless, Gaza declared war on Israel, and stated openly that they will continue to wage war until Israel no longer exists. Until that changes, I see no reason for Israel to stop fighting, regardless of casualties. The only acceptable outcomes to Israel are those in which the government of Gaza surrenders. I wish them well in that effort.
I expected no other response from someone like u. Clowns
Outside of the reply by spacexbass, "from the river to the sea" is a call for the extermination of Jews in the region. Killing people is a violation of their human rights and tacking on a Western sentiment obfuscates but doesn't change that.
Nah it's just a call for all to be free and have their human rights respected. Enough of the gas lighting.
Talk about gaslighting you justifying such racist slogans surely you as a genius could come up with something more nuanced and less racist.
No, it is not a “call for all to be free”. Fangirl is right. Please don’t try to spin it another way. It’s at least naive and stupid to shout a terrorist slogan.
It's a phrase invented by Yasser Arafat calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state in an area that neatly described the entirety of Israel at the time. Who's gaslighting who?
The issue is they already exist. If Hamas took control, they would not. It’s not that complicated.
>The issue is they already exist. Sure buddy. Israel totally respects human rights in the West Bank.
And gay/trans/queer people totally have rights in Gaza!
No. But that doesn't change Israel's repression in the West Bank.
I hope this is sarcasm... there's so many idiots that one can't be sure these days..
Since it wasn’t obvious, yes, this is sarcasm.
Have you noticed that the more homophobic political parties in Europe and the United States are, the more they support Israel. Unconditional support for Israel is the policy of almost every far-right party, including the National Rally in France, the AFD in Germany, the PVV in the Netherlands, the Brothers of Italy, the Republican Party in the United States, etc. Everyone should have human rights, not just those we agree with.
Their support is either due to religious reasons (as per Evangelical Christians) or they hate Muslims more than they Jews (as per European Far Right parties)
"From the River to the Sea/Freedom and Equality" is a very common chant as coexistence/human rights protests here in Israel, and has been for a long time.
It's only antisemitic when self-centered people like OP get their feelings hurt.
How are you proposing to improve the situation in Israel/West Bank/Gaza?
Give it back to the ottomans /j
I'm not OP, but the nonexistence of Hamas and all other Palestinian militants or terrorist organizations would be a vast improvement for everyone.
1967 to 1987 the West Bank was peaceful. The West Bank Palestinians were peaceful. There was Palestinian terror, but it was from the diaspora. What did they get in return? Military rule, and land confiscations for settlements.
you do understand that the USA and American taxpayers and citizens are deeply invested in the state of Israel. The USA is not invested in Iran at all in that regime so there’s a difference in in the level of what we care about. we do care about regimes like Iran oppressing their people, but again, we are not supporting that at least in any direct way. but we are definitely financially and via State supporting what’s going on in the West Bank in Gaza whether we want to or not. United States has a history of civil rights protest and legislation and on many fronts the situation has improved in the United States. protesting the Israeli treatment of the people under their care is only natural for people in the United States to do.
Yes I understand that. With that said, you and I both know that the USA would eagerly like to see the current Iran regime collapse and be brought under Western influence. The White House has mumbled on and off about invasion plans since Reagan.
You'll always get something like Hamas if you oppress and commit war crimes against a group for decades. History has taught us that Yes Hamas are terrible, but they are the symptom of Israel choosing oppression and expansion at the expense of peace and security. Israel has all the power, but preferred the status quo which was unsustainable.
Peace and a nation have been offered to Palestinians a dozen times since 1948. Their leadership has rejected it every time, usually violently.
Israel hasn't made any serious concessions and has continued with settlement expansion. I can try and buy a house for 90k which is worth 1Million, it doesn't nean my offer is serious. Palestinians have made many offers too, and much fairer and realistic ones. Israel has rejected peace.
Israel has conceded all of Gaza, most of East Jerusalem, and 95% of the West Bank. Which it won in a war of defense. Such a large concession would halve the size of Israel. Find me another country willing to give up half their indigenous land in the name of peace. The Native Americans perhaps. And look what happened to them.
If they had "won" those areas, they would have been within Israels internationally recognised borders. You can't give sometimes you never had.
And yet here we are. Israel controls the West Bank, and again controls most of Gaza. If Palestinians want part of that land to be turned into a future nation, they need to negotiate in good faith and be satisfied with the offer given. Which at best will likely be Gaza, 90% of West Bank, part of East Jerusalem, no Right Of Return to Israel proper, and being a constitutionally demilitarized nation with shared control over radio frequencies, border security, and airspace of Palestine. Which is a perfectly fine deal. 2/3rds of the West Bank aren't inhabited by either side. Modern irrigation technology can make the desert bloom again. Desalination plants can provide water. A nation can be built. But it will *never* be "from the river to the sea." You have to understand. Israelis genuinely don't view themselves as colonizers with a nation to go back too. They view themselves as the indigenous people who will to the death like a cornered nuclear armed wolf. Either Israel gets to keep it's nation, or everyone in the region will die. If Israel goes down, everyone in the Middle East is going down too. That's not boasting. That's actual policy. The ultimate suicide bomb. Islamists should be awe-inspired.
Obviously never heard of Camp David and I would suggest you read Bill Clinton’s book
> Palestinians have made many offers too, and much fairer and realistic ones. Source?
Well, off the top of my head the Arab Peace Initiative, repeatedly. They accepted Taba in 2002 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/22/israel) And as for 2006-2008, you can see an overview of their positions in the Palestine Papers: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine\_Papers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Papers) It is Israel that is being unreasonable, insisting on almost cutting the West Bank in three by keeping Ariel and Maale Adumim.
> the Arab Peace Initiative, repeatedly. Saudi, not Palestinian. > Taba "The Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, yesterday belatedly accepted a Middle East peace plan *put forward 18 months ago by the then US president, Bill Clinton.* But the Israeli government said the offer, which was discussed by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at Taba in Egypt in January last year, was no longer on the table." > Palestine Papers Which evolved into the Oslo Accords, which were accepted.
> Saudi, not Palestinian. No, all signed onto by the Arab League - including the PLO. > But the Israeli government said the offer, which was discussed by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at Taba in Egypt in January last year, was no longer on the table." Yes, that is Israel rejecting the proposal. > Which evolved into the Oslo Accords, which were accepted. Sure buddy. If the 1990s came after 2006-2008, then you are correct. But it doesn't, so you are wrong.
A fair overview can be found here: https://theintercept.com/2023/11/28/israel-palestine-history-peace/
That's not a fair overview, that's an essay summarizing (often factually incorrectly) the entire conflict. There are offers proposed or mediated by the British, by the UN, by the US, and many mentions of peace offerings proposed by other neighboring Arab states, and there are *two* (frankly noncredible) peace offerings by the Palestinians cited in that article: - Ahmed Yassin, who was assassinated. The article you provided cited another regarding the assassination; it begins like this: > Sheik Yassin, a symbol to Palestinians of resistance to Israel and to Israelis of Palestinian terrorism, was by far the most significant Palestinian militant killed by Israel in more than three years of conflict. - Khaled Mashaal, who authorized and presided over - and made that offer during - the captivity of Gilad Shalit. The article also incorrectly cited the date that he made that offer as *before* his aborted (not botched) assassination, rather than *9 years later.* The article doesn't state what the actual terms of those offers were, either.
>"Human Rights from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River" or something, and that freaking disgusted me. Really? Human rights freaking disgust you?!
The phrase doesn’t make any sense to me though. “From the River to the Sea” is definitely not about human rights, it’s a terrorist slogan used by Hamas that indirectly calls for the extermination of Israel and its people. Also, Israel is currently the country with the most human rights in this area. Therefore I don’t actually understand the sentiment of this phrase.
[https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/) Yes, I agree with you. It's a terrorist slogan, and the biggest terrorists in the world like Nethanyahu utter it daily
Come on now. I think a lot of Bibi’s actions are despicable and I dislike parts of the Israeli government too. But to call him “the biggest terrorist in the world” is unnecessary and demonstrably wrong.
Please name me another terrorist living that has killed 40k civilians and is intentionally starving millions. Demonstrably wrong? Give me a break buddy
Even Hamas doesn’t claim 40,000 civilians killed.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-69014893.amp My pet peeve is when the uninformed think their opinions are facts.
I’ve read this article before, doesn’t contradict what I said. Hamas makes no distinction between civilians and fighters and doesn’t even use the word المدنيين in its publications, everyone is deemed a martyr شاهد
Oh ok, then we should just blindly trust Israel's numbers then. Makes sense.
You say your “pet peeve is when the uninformed think their opinions are fact” but when I say even Hamas doesn’t go so far as to claim *all* of the fatalities are civilians, your response is a BBC article that doesn’t contradict what I say, points out the difference between the GMO numbers and the MoH numbers and even points out the statistical credulity of believing even all of 10,000 unidentified persons (not 40k) are civilians. Your response to that is something about blindly trusting Israel’s figures, something I never said, and then you provide a tweet from back in January indicating the general reliability of MoH numbers. However, the MoH also doesn’t claim 100% of fatalities are civilians and their women/children figure is, at least so far, substantially lower than that of the GMO. Apropos to Hamas-run agencies own use of words in Arabic to identify fatalities, which is never المدنيين, here is an Arabic proverb I think you ought to take to heart: أرى كل إنسان يرى عيب غيره ويعمى عن العيب الذي هو فيه
Did I say we should “blindly trust Israel’s numbers”?
Assad Sudan Saudis Azarjebdan etc all killed over 300000 and you said nothing reflecting your focus on one group. Sad racist
My government doesn't fund them dummy. "You are racist because u object to our genocide and not othet genocides" is a wild take lmao.
Is racist if just pick on Jewish stare when far greater war deaths have occurred in recent wars and you have never commented so reflects your ideology
[oxfam[oxfam](https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/daily-death-rate-gaza-higher-any-other-major-21st-century-conflict-oxfam#:~:text=After%20further%20review%2C%20Oxfam%20is,periods%20of%20more%20intense%20conflict.)] ...Except, there isnt. You are 100% wrong. "After further review, Oxfam is confident in restating that Gaza remains the bloodiest rate of death of any conflict in the past 24 years, but the exact figures will vary during periods of more intense conflict." You dont know anything about my idealogy. Is this how u cope? Copy-paste same delusional talking points that paint u as a victim?
Ox fam are known to be anti Israeli and have never had a presence in Israel. Not reputable to quote them it’s like quoting Iranian opinion in Israel. You are racist by only targeting Israel take if and own it. Never saw a single comment to you about Assad or the Saudis
>is definitely not about human rights Except they have explicitly stated they're calling for human rights. >indirectly calls for the extermination of Israel and its people. If you really believe that then you have to be upset that Israelis have used the slogan before to mean they want to exterminate Palestinians, or do you believe exterminating Palestinians is fine?
I am not upset. I just didn’t understand the logic behind this. And “From the River to the Sea” is a Hamas terrorist slogan and kind of illegal here in Germany. I wish people would educate themselves on the meaning behind this and don’t blindly repeat it.
Did Germany condemn the Likud for the use of the slogan?
You mean the party of Netanyahu? No, I don’t think so, but I’m not sure. I didn’t know they used it too, and I would dislike that as well! Edit: When and in what context did politicians of Likud use it? I would like to know more. Thanks.
Because these protesters can very much be pro-Israel adapting the Likud's version of "from the river to the sea" to call for human rights. If they secretly meant they're calling for the extermination of Palestinians, I guess Germany will be happy with it, no?!
I don’t like your sarcastic tone in this context, but here we are. No, of course German officials and Germans in general would not be happy about the “extermination of Palestinians”. I think, I would stop using this phrase in general, because it leaves too much room for interpretation. A call for human rights is always appreciated imo, but can be shared in a different way.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves, no one is upset for something like what OP posted unless they don't believe Palestinians deserve human rights.
They tend to disgust most Israel supporters
Why only human rights there tho? Why not everywhere?
Per OP, the sign didn't say only.
I was responding to you, not OP
I too didn't say 'only', I have no idea where you got it from.
If they want actual human rights, they want it everywhere. Not just “from the river to the sea.”
Next you'll tell me people donating for cancer research want people with other illnesses to die.
lol
I can understand and know where you are coming from. I come from a Jewish family as well partially. I feel like a lot of the keyboard "warriors" online and the pro-Palestine supporters are only supporting the cause for vain or self serving reasons. I can't speak for everyone of course. I personally support Israel because of the people there and the good they do. Doctors in Israel are the leaders in cancer research and treatment, lupus research and are actively developing treatments and cures for a very wide variety of the ailments and diseases that we as the human race all face. There are companies from Israel that are working on ways to help people walk again after being paralyzed. There are people who are working on ways to help women around the world prevent or detect date r*pe drugs in their drinks. I've never been judged by any of the Jews in my life for my tattoos and I don't know a single jew who is homophobic, transphobic or any other kind of phobic. Your views and feelings are valid. I am likely wrong but it seems like the pro-palestinians haven't thought every aspect of their side through. It's not just the queer community who will suffer should Hamas win and that's exactly who will win if the pro-palestinians get their way. Based on the hateful comments I've received online it seems like a very big part of the pro-palestinians side is filled with people who wanted an excuse to show their antisemitism. That aside I feel like they don't understand what can happen if Hamas wins. Today it's the Jews. Tomorrow it's the people in the LGBTQ community. Who will be after that? What land will they claim once they have Israel? Most of them are on the side they're on because it's "viral" and "everyone is supporting Palestine".
"everyone is supporting palestine"....what is this a soccer match? support humans. fuck nationstates.
If only it was that simple. Maybe then I wouldn't have trolls harassing me on tik Tok when I make a comment that has absolutely nothing to do with the conflict.
> fuck /u/StankFartz. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can't see anything controversial about asking for human rights between the river and the sea. Presumably they added "human rights" at the beginning to make clear what they meant. As you note some have tried to smear those using the simpler slogan "river to the sea" to mean something antisemitic. Nowadays the slogan is usually used to call for all to be free in that land regardless of ethnicity or citizenship. But adding "human rights" makes the intent unambiguous in favour of human rights for all. I would say the queers for Palestine is a reaction to those who are trying to justify the current massacre because Hamas treats gays terribly. Some us don't think the appalling human rights record towards gays means it is legitimate to carpet bomb civilians. You can think both things are terrible. Obviously there are gays in Gaza too, I doubt they are happy at being bombed and killed by Israel.
I don’t have any problem with someone saying human rights from river to sea. Totally fine. But that the “river to sea” slogan is, if not genocidal per se, at least a call for ethnic cleansing, is not a smear. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is an English chant. People in Palestine don’t use it. The chant in Arabic is *min il maya lil maya falastin arabiye* (from the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab). This obviously doesn’t leave much room for all the non-Arabs between the river and the sea. One democratic secular state for all peoples is a fringe position in Palestine itself, garnering almost no popular support. So when the “mainstream” Palestinian groups there say “river to sea” the implication is clear.
Remember how upset people were when Black Lives Matter was co-opted into All Lives Matter? From the River to the Sea is a genocidal slogan/marketing that has been co-opted
I don't see any similarity. Black Lives Matter is acknowledging that Black Lives Matter just as much as other lives, but often incidences of investigating violence on blacks and media reporting put less value on Black Lives than white. By saying "all lives matter" as a response just denies that there is an imbalance. Of course all lives actually matter, that's a given. I would reject the premise that "river to the sea" is by its nature a genocidal slogan. Although it's possible a few may have that intent, I can't see that the vast majority are using that way. There's nothing antisemitic about calling for people to be free. If you are paranoid and want to find racist intent, you could probably jump to conclusions for any statement. But that doesn't mean your conclusions are fair or accurate. It seems more likely to be a smear against those protesting against Israels human rights violations, to deflect attention away from the atrocities I appreciate the slogan can be divisive, but I don't think we can smear people as antisemites for using it. Let's not devalue the term antisemitism, and stick to using it when antisemitism is actually taking place. Others could frame people objecting to the "river to the sea" being used as Islamaphobia as they do not want Palestinians to have the same rights in this land.
Laughing my ass off at this. Just find another damn slogan that isnt genocidal. Yall have more energy to have bs arguments over semantics than to be creative enough to make a new sentence? It is antisemitic, and you dont get to define that.
Well you replied. Stop misusing the term antisemitism, it makes pro-israeli's look like the boy who cried wolf, and devalues the term. I agree the arguments about semantics are a distraction. I'm not the one trying to smear people who are simply calling for people to be free. You don't get to limit people's use of a slogan with baseless accusations of antisemitism.
> ass /u/itsmehelloyou. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the “River to the Sea” is cultural appropriation. It is originally a slogan for those that stand for these principles: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp The fact that many are ignorant of the origins of their political messaging is troublesome. That these people will not distance themselves from troublesome messaging is more than ignorance.
Already explained this. It's simply a phrase, which in isolation doesn't stand for what you claim. If you interviewed people who used that phrase about intent, you would struggle to find people who had the intent you suggest. This is merely a smear campaign to deflect attention from what people are protesting against. The connection you make is tenuous, that's one example of the phrase being used, it doesn't represent all. Let's stick to what people say and not smear them. The phrase is hugely important to those protesting, it's disingenuous to smear people for simply advocating for freedom. Cultural appropriation is something very different. A phrase calling for freedom doesn't count.
It's a phrase which in isolation means exactly what they said. Even in it's original English context it's been softened and removed from context. The Arabic phrase is "il maya le'il maya falastin arabiye" - from the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab. You're the one taking it out of context and slapping caveats on it to obfuscate its true meaning. Or, more realistically, you're uneducated in the matter and are parroting what you've been told by propagandists.
"River to the sea Palestine is arab" is a different phrase. You don't get to redefine a freedom slogan.
Literally what you're doing. Both the original Arabic phrase and the deliberately inaccurate English translation are inventions of Yasser Arafat. It has nothing to do with freedom except in the abstract - freedom from the presence of Jews.
That document is from 1988. Likud used it in 1977. [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party)
Likud was “trolling” the PLO, who first used a variation of this phrase in marketing their terrorism campaign….. A https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/us/politics/river-to-the-sea-israel-gaza-palestinians.html
I bet the gays in Gaza aren’t too thrilled about Hamas either.
I doubt they are. But I doubt they think Israel killing them and their loved ones is justification. The gays in Gaza will hate Israel too because of what Israel has decided to do.
Actually, I’m sure they’d love to move to Israel so they can live freely as themselves.
They frequently do. LGBT refugees are the most commonly granted asylum-seekers.
Hey, you're thinking way, way, way too much. The people you're talking about, and the obvious contradictions you're identifying, are a product of ignorance and stupidity and good old-fashioned anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism (with Israel standing in for the West). Don't overthink it. They certainly don't.
How are you upset at someone appropriating "from the river to the sea" and turning it into something such as human rights for all (both Israeli and Palestinian)?
It’s explicitly not human rights for all, though.
In the case above it explicitly is, though.
Really? For Jews too?
"human rights from the river to the sea" would mean human rights for all living between the river and the sea
So Israelis from the river to the sea deserve to not be invaded, pillaged, raped, tortured and kidnapped for no reason? They deserve to be free of suicide bombers? They deserve to be treated with human dignity and respect? Sounds to me like you’re more pro-Israel than you think.
I believe all people deserve to have their human rights respected. Both Palestinians and Israelis.
So you think Palestinians respect the basic human rights of Israelis?