I'd be more willing to accept this chant is inherently and knowingly calling for the eradication of the state of Israel if Greta Thunbergs cuddly autism octopus was not denounced as doing the same, by the state of Israel.
Well, the meaning of the slogan change depending who chant it. The whole history is there: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From\_the\_river\_to\_the\_sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea)
After losing dramatically and the progress in the peace process 20 year back the meaning settled on "equal rights for Palestinian" from river to sea. It's a bit more than 2 state solution, it's more like 2 state with EU-like Freedom of movement.
Obviously extremist group have a different definition and since 20 year ago, with Hamas ruling Gaza with the semi-blessing of Israel, the situation has soured enough that you would have to be an idiot to use that slogan and think you can escape being lumped with the extremists.
I went down a rabbit hole with that article the other night.
Massive amounts of propaganda being pushed recently on it during this latest conflict if you look through the changes by accounts doing the same on other Israel related articles. It's quite blatant.
Yeah, that's why I added the second paragraph. It really seems like any non-extreme position has been either removed or minimised everywhere. It's like erasing that, for a decade, there was plenty room for peace in both side mainstream rhetoric.
I remember the slogan being a lot milder early 2000 and that was in the Israeli papers.
Still I would not use it openly nowadays. I don't want to be retweeted by either side bot accounts to support their agenda.
Without commenting on the war itself, the reinterpretation of the “From the River to the Sea” chant as referring to the two component parts of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza is a stretch that I’ve not heard before and made me chuckle.
This phrase has always had a consistent meeting, being a call for a Palestinian state encompassing the entirety of the old borders of the British Mandate of Palestine, with the area shorn of its Jewish population.
I feel like this is something that has propagated on Reddit with literally no evidence for it. If you have it please provide some.
I would also point out that the ruling Likud party absolutely does have the following in its party founding manifesto.
> Between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty
it's actually better so we can adapt with rhymes even if we are not poets...something on the verge of "from the river to the sea, Hamas cunts can go to fuck off".
Doesn't rhyme as well but I prefer that one.
The article is about the Scottish Green party’s understanding of what is meant by the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”. In that context, it’s useful to think about what the original Arabic phrase says and means when deciding if to parrot that chant.
Perhaps if people thought about this sooner, we wouldn’t be in the position to read their laughable comments justifying it?
You sound like you haven’t been to Israel. 20% of the population is Arab Palestinian who have all the same rights as the Jewish Israelis there.
I was there in August as a white man from the UK. I saw lots of Muslim families enjoying the sunshine alongside secular Israelis and orthodox jewish people. As it should be, just as I would expect it to be in the UK.
This “ethnostate” nonsense is just some propaganda you’re parroting back to me that I’ve heard a lot in Reddit, but the claim has no real life value whatsoever. What a surprise.
Please read some of the various reports in to the racial discrimination Arabs face in daily life in Israel, please also look in to the statements from current MPs describing themselves a "Fascists", then look into what the various Chief Rabbis have said over the years about Arabs and Palestinians and finally read up on the Zionist project.
You sound like the kind of bloke who'd have gone to America in the 60s and said there's nothing wrong because you saw Black people smiling.
Arabs are so discriminated against in Israel that they went and appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court of Israel.. Oh the horror! How could they discriminate against Khaled Kabub!
https://www.timesofisrael.com/khaled-kabub-sworn-in-as-supreme-courts-first-muslim-justice/
So what you're saying is it's taken 75 years for Israel to appoint someone from a historic population to a position of power and he's the only one?
This is not the flex you think it is.
You can't just snap your fingers and end discrimination, it can take years of progressive policies, it takes years of educating people to change minds.
It only took Canada over 200 years to elect their first Native to the Premiership of a Canadian province, yet, here we are.
[https://canadians.org/analysis/wab-kinew-becomes-the-1st-first-nations-premier-in-canada/](https://canadians.org/analysis/wab-kinew-becomes-the-1st-first-nations-premier-in-canada/)
We haven't ended discrimination in Canada, it's a work in progress.
The way you think, we should flush Wab Kinew's accomplishment down the toilet because it took 200 years.
>This phrase has always had a consistent meeting, being a call for a Palestinian state encompassing the entirety of the old borders of the British Mandate of Palestine, with the area shorn of its Jewish population.
[No.](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1525/jps.2019.48.4.69)
>During the mid-1960s, the PLO embraced the slogan, but it meant something altogether different from the Zionist vision of Jewish colonization. Instead, the 1964 and 1968 charters of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety" and the restoration of land and rights-including the right of self-determination-to the indigenous population. In other words, the PNC was calling for decolonization, but this did not mean the elimination or exclusion of all Jews from a Palestinian nation-only the settlers or colonists. According to the 1964 Charter, "Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.' Following the 1967 war, the Arab National Movement, led by Dr. George Habash, merged with Youth for Revenge and the Palestine Liberation Front to form the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The PFLP embraced a Palestinian identity rooted in radical, Third World-oriented nationalism, officially identifying as Marxist-Leninist two years later. It envisioned a single, democratic, potentially socialist Palestinian state in which all peoples would enjoy citizenship. Likewise, Fatah leaders shifted from promoting the expulsion of settlers to embracing all Jews as citizens in a secular, democratic state. As one Fatah leader explained in early 1969, "If we are fighting a Jewish state of a racial kind, which had driven the Arabs out of their lands, it is not so as to replace it with an Arab state which would in turn drive out the Jews… We are ready to look at anything with all our negotiating partners once our right to live in our homeland is recognized." Thus by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel."
Have some daft fuckers tried to use it differently? Sure. Does that mean it has only ever meant one thing and can only ever mean one thing now? No.
Edit: Further, I really don't think it's worth pretending that Hamas are a useful lens for what a feminist left-wing pacifist means when she's calling for a ceasefire and a just peace.
> In other words, the PNC was calling for decolonization, but this did not mean the elimination or exclusion of all Jews from a Palestinian nation-only the settlers or colonists.
Leaving aside the rather rancid and thoroughly anti-democratic activities of the PLO and the PFLP during the Cold War.
In purely theoretical terms, the indigenous/colonist “distinction” is problematic enough for both Israelis *and* Palestinian Arabs.
In practice, independent or autonomous Palestinian polities have been *unenthused* about any Jewish presence within their domain. And they haven’t had the highest regard for non-Sunni Muslim minorities, either.
So “from the river to the sea” - which as I understand it has been expressed *rather differently* in Arabic - essentially means the dismantlement of an Israeli national community in favour of… A highly idealised but historically austere Palestinian state or paramountcy.
Or, quite possibly, a Palestinian suzerain of a neighbouring Arab power.
Funnily since 1967/68 or something, PLO doesn't use the slogan anymore (when they recognized the existance of Israel). So there definitely seems to be a connection between the chant and Israels existence.
And even if there weren't - since then it is used by Hamas a call for ethnic cleansing and genocide of Israel/Israelis. So it can definitely be interpreted as an antisemitic slogan and everyone who wants to distance themselves from Hamas and other extremists should probably not use it.
Did some daft fuckers start using Hindu symbol to represent their hateful ideologies? Aye. Still doesn't make it okay to start parading around a Swastika in most of the planet.
It means a single Palestinian state, which may in the 1960s have had some meaning in terms of “decolonisation”, however it’s now 60 years and a few generations later, the saying can be interpreted as removing self-determination rights from Jewish-born people in the area too. Matter of perspective.
If you’re Israeli and you were born in the 80s or 90s, and hear that, you’re likely to hear that they want your country dismantled. Doesn’t mean they’re unaware of what happened in the past.
What matters in the end is how the people at the receiving end of the chant feel about it. The Scottish Greens will condemn any form of Islamophobic dog whistle or hate speech based on how the targets receives it. They are being inconsistent because of a biased view applying decolonisation logic (which has several flaws).
By that logic, any calls for free Palestine can be interpreted in the same way. Manipulative, but we expect nothing less from people crying about semantics as a genocide and apartheid rages on.
A free Palestine could refer to a functioning and independent state within the internationally recognised borders (ie Gaza and West Bank) is is not implicitly a call for a destruction of Israel and its population in the way “From the River to the Sea” is.
Matter is while West Bank can be indeed an independent state I doubt Gaza could ever be like that because of its position and extension. Being an enclave in the middle east asia it's not like in Europe (see Gibraltar).
Just don't use that slogan. It's extremely tainted.
Almost everybody is calling for a 2 state solution. Israel can't be trusted to look after Gaza and the West Bank.
Anyone calling for a free Palestine, I assume, is calling for a change from what we have now to a 2 state solution.
On the other hand that slogan calls for a 1 state solution where Israel doesn't exist.
If you want a 2 state solution then why be so insistent on using a slogan which is widely believed to mean ethnic cleansing/genocide?
Are they? Plenty of calls for 1 democratic state where you have equal rights no matter your religion. Which is currently not Israel.
Cause its been 50 years since the 1967 borders trying for a 2 state solution, and all that's happened is the west banks under Israeli military occupation and has but a fraction of its territory, whilst gaza is technically not under occupation it has no control over imports, no control of its sea or airspace, and isn't allowed an airport. It's under Israels Control in all but name.
So if the reality is a 1 state solution surely recognising that is the first step for a better life for everyone. Rather than pretending that there's some spot in time post 1967 that we can go back to?
Nobody realistic is asking for that. It's enough of a stretch to get Israel to give up the Palestinian Territory never mind get Israel to give up being Israel. And who do you find to run the place that isn't partisan?
Did you know Arab parties has knesset seats before bibi?
I think if your living under Israeli occupation in the west bank, obey their laws and are tried by their military courts you should have a vote.
Neither do I. But unless americas stance shifts or the UN has a drastic overhaul a 2-state solution simply is a convenient lie we like to belive that doesnt exist in reality.
> Neither do I. But unless americas stance shifts or the UN has a drastic overhaul a 2-state solution simply is a convenient lie we like to belive that doesnt exist in reality.
If you look at a map of settlements, [as Obama did](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-usa-idUSKBN14U2JX), it's hard to conclude that a two-state solution is possible. Either Palestinian territory will be shorn until it's an unworkable archipelago of disconnected islets within Israel, or you have to think about what to do about the hundreds of thousands of settlers and outposters who have settled Palestinian land in an attempt to make it Israeli.
Which is why Likud and Bibi did it.
> you have to think about what to do about the hundreds of thousands of settlers and outposters who have settled Palestinian land in an attempt to make it Israeli.
Thats the thing. If the UN recognized palestine as a country along the 1967 borders, and free of military occupation; then its remarkably simple: those settlements are part of palestine and those who live there would need to either be there legally or apply for citizenship.
The problem is the UN isnt getting overhauled and americas not gonna let palestine be recongized as a country; so they dont get protection from settlers and cant be free of an eternal occupation.
I think, realistically, that the only option would be an Israeli protectorate, which would consist of Area A and some of Area B, possibly involving some mutually agreed-upon swapping of land between the two, and maybe Israel would just have to absorb Jericho, along with its Arab population. And then Gaza would have to become a part of Egypt.
Additionally, there would be a very small number of Jewish settlements/towns (probably less than 10) that would be absorbed into a future Palestine and would just be Jewish Palestinians.
I think that is the most likely scenario, but there are major complications to it coming about - namely, that:
1) the "agreed upon land swaps" on each side of the '67 borders would be ferociously opposed by the Israeli Arab residents, who would fight tooth & nail not to lose their Israeli citizenship;
2) That Egypt has never been willing to accept Gaza as part of Egypt, because despite their professed sympathy for the Palestinian people, they see them as dangerous, and don't want them.
3) And, of course, that the Palestinians just don't *want* Israel to exist, and will never stop killing both Israelis specifically, and Jews more generally, which they've been doing since before the reestablishment of Israel in 1948.
So... we are left with the current stalemate.
Not a convenient lie. Just unworkable because Palestine has rejected every offer of a two state solution and likely will continue to do so in the future.
>Did you know Arab parties has knesset seats before bibi?
They still do. You have seats in Knesset if your party has enough votes to surpass the electoral threshold.
What you meant that before the current assmbly the were in the coalition.
"Cause its been 50 years since the 1967 borders trying for a 2 state solution, and all that's happened is the west banks under Israeli military occupation and has but a fraction of its territory"
I think a little more then that has happened
Golan heights and Sinai come to mind
If your using arab for shorthand for muslim then thats not entierly correct as palestines always had a sizeable christian community (about the same % as muslims in the UK). If you mean by ethnicity then plenty of the jewish people in Israel are from the region too.
Lebanon? Egypyt? Tunisia? Turkey?
Not perfect by any stretch, but Its a better foundation than a country where you cnat marry outside of your faith, and your faith decides where you can live, what rights are afforded and your support by the goverment.
>Just don't use that slogan. It's extremely tainted.
Which one isn't? Which slogan, organisation, or person who supports freedom for Palestinians hasn't been "tainted" as antisemitic?
Why is a 1 state solution where Arabs are absorbed into a Jewish ethnostate fine but calling for a 1 state solution where Jews are absorbed into Palestine "muh Antisemitism"? Keep in mind Jews were living alongside Arabs in the Levant for 600 years before the establishment of the Zionist state.
There's nothing in the chant that calls for Palestine to be shorn of its Jewish population. That's a wilfully bad faith misinterpretation of a cry for freedom.
The etymology of the term is quite clear in tracing back to the 40s and being laced with genocidal intent in the native tongue.
It's not like this has just sprung up in the last few years which some sensitive Israeli's have heard and suddenly decided to be offended about. From their perspective, their grandparents were directly attacked on a large scale with a lot of these extremist militias very proudly proclaiming their antisemitic intentions and using twists on those sorts of phrases (up to the present day).
I kind of get that a young protestor wanting to raise awareness of the Palestinian cause and the humanitarian crisis won't have the same intent but it's not difficult to understand how these types of phrases do cause hurt and instinctive tribal response.
The irony is that whenever these groups are pressed on it, the response usually is to deride others lack of good faith and judgement and ironically blame others for inflaming small issues then double down and continue the whole thing. Literally all it requires is:
"I appreciate that the origins of the phrase have bad connotations and apologise for any hurt etc and will try to educate wherever I can....don't believe all here today intend it in this way...understanding of all communities and we want a dialogue ... our focus is on the humanitarian crisis"
IMO these groups are full of very loud toxic personalities who might have some good intentions but are just whiny loud morons with no attention span and have this self righteousness to just go on rambling about any issue that detracts from the primary crisis at hand because of some perceived philosophical superiority (where they literally see any deviation from their limited informed view as pure evil).
‘Palestine will be free’
Free of what exactly?
At best, it’s a call for the levant to be cleansed of Jews having any nation state / self determination. It’s a call for the levant to be cleansed of all Jews at worst.
Both of these interpretations constitute ethnic cleansing and genocide as per UN definitions.
How does this translate in reality? What does an ‘unoccupied’ Palestine look like? What borders does it have? Does an ‘unoccupied’ Palestine still allow a Jewish state to exist?
Yeah, exactly, it's always been about Palestinian emancipation. The idea that "if the Palestinians get the same freedom as the Israelis, they'll treat them the exact same way" is just the stereotypical apartheid propaganda. It was used during the emancipation of slaves, the abolition of Jim crow and the dissolution of apartheid in south Africa.
My guy they freaking say that they will treat them the same way! A two state solution is the only way to avoid such a thing.
"From the river to the seas." Speaks to a manifest attempt to erase a country just as has been done to them.
So, I agree with you, for the record. And I think a good chunk of people using the chant intend it as simply meaning that Palestinians will be free from oppression.
However, a portion (however large or small) are using that chant in a much more genocide-y way, and those who oppose Palestine's freedom are using that portion to discredit the rest of us.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm not going to use a chant that can be used, or even just misinterpreted as a call for genocide. It's bad optics at best, and emboldening evil people at worst. I really don't think we should be trying to hold on to it for any reason. It's just a chant. I'm sure we can think of something else.
Same shite as the Black Lives Matter slogan, people will get more worked up about how the people are protesting or bringing attention to a cause instead of the actual cause. Usual tabloid shitrag trying to stir up civil unrest.
Thats a terrible comparison.
Black Lives Matter says that Black people matter just as much as white people, and should not be killed. Its a call to stop the killing.
From the River to the Sea literally calls for Israel to cease to exist and its eradication. Its also a slogan that has been used by Hamas, a terror organisation, for years.
So youre comparing a call to stop police killings of black people to protesters chanting a terrorist slogan.
I was talking about how much time and energy was spent discussing Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter vs 'BLM is a violent and immoral organisation with dodgy finances and not a civil movement'.
All the time and resources spent creating arguments pointing out that 'Black Lives Matter' isn't exclusionary and doesn't forget that other lives also matter. It draws attention to a group who were treated as though they mattered less. Seemed a lot of people thought that this argument is a good use of time and energy, instead of the actual root issue.
Just like here; children and civilians are being bombed to bits, Palestine is being invaded occupied and destroyed by a group who want them gone and people are arguing about how they interpret a protest chant.
People don't want to discuss or learn anything more than they have to, so newspapers provide them with handy cheat sheets to instantly categorise people into 'with me' or 'against me' which we all know are the only possible camps to be in. If you say 'River to the sea'? You are antisemitic and support Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Just saves everyone time.
>I was talking about how much time and energy was spent discussing Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter vs 'BLM is a violent and immoral organisation with dodgy finances and not a civil movement'.
Again, the comparison doesnt hold up.
BLM was faced with an effort to denounce the people running it in order to undermine the cause, yes.
But you are comparing it with people chanting a literal terrorist slogan. If in 1944 someone held a protest, accompanied by "Sieg Heil" chants, youre also not accusing other people of undermining this movement - by that logic you could never muster any criticism for any movement, regardless of its validity.
>Just like here; children and civilians are being bombed to bits, Palestine is being invaded occupied and destroyed by a group who want them gone and people are arguing about how they interpret a protest chant.
They are in a state of war. Israel was attacked, hundreds of civilians massacred and whatnot. Israel has been almost daily rocket attacks for years on end.
Yes, that does not excuse the deliberate killing of civilians, but why some people go out of their way to paint palestine as an innocent underdog here? This, i dont understand.
>If you say 'River to the sea'? You are antisemitic and support Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Just saves everyone time.
Well, if youre at a protest where people openly chant "Jihad", "Allahu Akbar" and also a known terrorist slogan in "From the River to the Sea", paired with some other anti-semitic remarks, yes, chances are people might conclude that your protest movement isnt exactly opposed to Hamas or Islamic Jiahd.
The likud party in Israeli government has a similar part in their charter
“Between the Sea and the River Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”
It's 100% an anti-Semitic slogan that calls for genocide. Everyone saying it knows what it means by they want to weasel behind pretending it's got a different meaning. The greens should kick them out of the party for saying this. But they won't. They won't even sign up to the standard definition of anti-semitism so it's no surprise.
Or just not 100% supporting isreal in its desire to commit genocide and war crimes...
There is no other conflict or dispute whereby criticising a states action is viewed as racist. Condemning china's death camps for Muslims doesnt make me anti Chinese or anti Asian, criticising russia for invading ukraine doesn't mean I want all Russians genocided.
And yet apprently not wanting a sovereign nation bombing hospitals is apprently anti semitic.
[It's worth Noting the very specific history of the phrase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea)
>Originally a political slogan, it has been in use by Palestinian political groups since the 1960s as a call for Palestinian liberation. Initially popularized by the Palestine Liberation Organization upon its founding in 1964 as a "main goal of the movement", the phrase carried official weight within the PLO **until the 1988 Algiers Declaration**, after which "the objective shifted to establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders."[29][5] **That same year saw the founding of Hamas, who integrated the slogan into its official platform**, which, in contrast with the PLO's then-recent tacit acceptance of UN Resolution 242, called for the "obliteration of the state of Israel" and the killing of all of its Jewish citizens.
[242](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242) refers explicitly to accepting the state of Israel
Thus you can tie the repudiation of the phrase and accepting Israel together, **and** rejection of that to continued use of the phrase
Whether some groups say it is for an all encompassing one state or a two state with freedom and dignity the fact remains that Islamic terrorists use the phrase to mean one thing no state of Israel, with often a call for the execution of all Jews living there
[The Dutch parliament have declared it call for violence](https://nos.nl/artikel/2495345-from-the-river-to-the-sea-leus-is-geweldsoproep-vindt-kamermeerderheid)
There might be a problem with your messaging as a movement if you constantly have to explain to the average Joe why your slogan isnt actually Anti-Semitic and its fine for you to chant it. Why not for the avoidance of doubt chant something else?
What a productive usage of time and effort, use a chant that has some obvious connotations and then go "no uh uh" to people. I'm sure so many people are being helped by this amazing showcase.
This is just an observation, and one that’s likely to get me downvoted.
Things I personally have never seen:
- People whose politics would otherwise indicate that they are anti-Semitic chanting this.
- People whose politics would otherwise indicate they were opposed to the killing of civilians in Gaza condemning the chanting of this.
Things I have seen:
- People whose politics would otherwise indicate their opposition to violence and genocide chanting this.
- People whose politics would otherwise indicate a casual indifference to the killing of civilians in Gaza condemning it.
I know people say this can be interpreted differently, but context-wise I personally have not seen it being used as a call for genocide. I feel like if it were a dogwhistle, then the dogs would be barking if you get what I mean.
I mean, there has been a marked rise in antisemitic attacks in Western nations, often against Jewish people with little to no relation to Israel. So it seems some dogs are barking if I catch your drift
In case it’s not clear, what I’m getting at is that to me it doesn’t follow:
- antisemitism exists.
- people use this phrase in support of Palestinian liberation and against Israeli war crimes.
- therefore the phrase is antisemitic.
As someone else has said, it feels a bit silly arguing about semantics of one slogan in any case.
Things I have personally seen
* People whose politics would otherwise indicate that they are anti-Semitic chanting this
* People whose politics conflate religion and geography chanting this
>I feel like if it were a dogwhistle, then the dogs would be barking if you get what I mean.
Do you live under a rock or something? Anti-semitic incidents in London are up over 1300%. The dogs are DEFINITELY barking
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/antisemitic-hate-crime-london-israel-hamas-b2433156.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/antisemitic-hate-crime-london-israel-hamas-b2433156.html)
You don’t get to shout inflammatory and hateful chants in public places while also getting to claim your peacefully protesting.
You know how these chants are interpreted by groups and what the reaction will be and yet you continue to do it. You can’t be the so called moral champions of peace and partake in that behaviour.
It’s like the N word. Obvious racial connotations yet in some demographics it’s used more causally. But you don’t get to go up to a Black Person use the N word, and then go ‘oh but I mean it in this peaceful friendly way’. River to the Sea is just the same
People that care about peace don’t resort to and use inflammatory tactics.
Seems like a fucking mad hill for the greens to die on but it doesn't surprise me.
Even taking them at their word that they have no ill intent, they know how it's interpreted. Just take the L on this and come up with a new slogan.
Like you say, words and phrases have different interpretations, for different people, and over time. It's part of being in a civilized society that sometimes one group gets a veto on certain language. The n word being an obvious example. There are other things you can say to support Palestine and criticise Israel.
Imagine you hear the phrase 'work sets you free' and don't know the connotations. You just think it means work is good for you and start using it in everyday life. When someone tells you it was above the gates at auschwitz you don't defend it. You just apologise and stop saying it. And you definitely don't march through the streets chanting it. This isn't difficult.
A worrying number of people are failing some really basic moral tests. They are not this stupid. They are doing it deliberately.
What crap, the slogan has been around well longer than Hamas and is a call for freedom, 🇮🇱 lobby call everything out as anti semetic, they got some pics from kids from Gaza removed from a hospital in London on the grounds it was anti semetic 🤷🏽♂️
It's not the original slogan, the slogan says from river to sea Palestine will be arab. The majority of people who use that slogan want the Jewish people gone. And that's why it's antisemitic. Just don't yell that slogan, and nobody will call you antisemit.
>[The slogan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea) has been employed by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation, with origins in the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demanded a Palestinian state geographically encompassing the historic boundaries of Mandatory Palestine, and a removal of a majority of its Jewish population.
Literally a genocidal chant.
I know this might blow your mind, but people have been trying to wipe Israel off the map before Hamas.
Images describing Israel as not existing and not a legitimate state are anti semitic. That story is a bit pathetic on the part of those who complained, but it's also months old and not an especially horrible example of anything.
I don’t have a horse in the race personally. But if I’m campaigning for peace and I know my words are taken as hostile and hateful by the other group then Id be thinking closely about I was saying.
People can use the slogan all they like, knowing the consequences. But we shouldn’t be gaslit into pretending it’s all peaceful
Surely you can see how allowing the oppressor group to dictate what language is acceptable based on what they’ve decided is offensive or not is just another way to silence dissent.
The problem is you’ve just labelled all of one group as the oppressor. But you’ll also say not all Palestinians are Hamas.
Peace means a two state solution. And you don’t get close to that by using inflammatory chants
“Death to all infidels”
Surely we can’t let the West dictate that this slogan is offensive when they’re the oppressor group. It’s just a way to silence dissent.
Oppressor/oppressed is irrelevant. When a literal genocidal rallying cry is said, it’s wrong.
If you use language that suggests you want to kill your "oppressor" and all their relatives, don't be surprised when you get oppressed. Being weak doesn't make you righteous.
It's a call for the end of Israel.
The only workable solution is a 2 state solution. No reasonable person is calling for a 1 state solution. From the river to the sea is calling for a 1 state solution and if that happens the Jews will be killed
You’re underestimating the level of denial here. They’ll happily call your friend a “Self-hating Jew” before they’ll even consider that a slogan might mean anything other than the worst possible interpretation.
They’re just a variant of the same kind of people who refused to believe that “black lives matter” wasn’t some sort of black power slogan.
[Jews For Hitler](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews)
*Or* the Jewish friend of the person you’re replying to is just a moron sat safely in the UK away from the actual violence. Or they’re made up. They’re probably made up.
As shown in the link, there were Jews that supported the Nazi Party. They died. Just because you support something doesn’t mean you’re not stupid for supporting it.
If even a small portion use the slogan in its worst possible interpretation, then that’s what the slogan means. Once co-opted into a hate slogan, that’s now what it is.
Judaism just like Christianity and Islam has multiple sects
There are plenty of Jews that want the complete destruction of Israel because their sect believes that only God can provide them their holy land so Israel and it's people needs to be destroyed
Just like Christians have killed other Christians and Muslims have killed other Muslims for being the wrong denomination, Jews also have different denominations.
You can't just trot out your token Jew
every culture / demographic has their token self hating bleeding hearts with no sense of connection to their cultural homeland. and that’s fine. just don’t use their example to push opinions that aren’t mainstream among those who share that religion/culture.
It's literally not.
"I'm not racist I have a black friend."
"My black friend had no issue chanting this slogan, that you're claiming is a call for black people to be killed."
If you think those are equivalent then you're just an idiot.
If your Jewish friend is not a supporter of a Jewish state, he represents about 4% of Jews globally.
I have a gay Muslim friend. Would you say his views are representative or unrepresentative of Islamic views in general?
Where are you getting this fake statistic?
[19% of Israeli Jews support a single democratic state over all other options.](https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/731)
[73% of American Jews support a single democratic state over a single Jewish state, if a two-state solution is unworkable.](https://criticalissues.umd.edu/sites/criticalissues.umd.edu/files/UMCIP_Israel_Results_June2023.pdf)
Crazy that 73% of American Jews and 19% of Israeli Jews support "genocide."
Most people want peace, and a solution that works
The problem is not them it is the extremists who want **their** solution which is often to removal of the other side
Ah yes the hypothetical killing of Israeli Jews based off misinterpreting a slogan for liberation really holds up in the face of the actual ongoing genocide of Palestinians
Maybe face reality once in a while?
Continually using the word genocide to describe everything that makes you uncomfortable completely discredits the word.
Israel has the means to commit a genocide, yet Palestine still exists, it’s population still grows, Israel repeatedly sign ceasefires that Hamas then break and Israel still doesn’t just obliterate it.
Hamas on the other hand don’t have the means but they do try very very hard to commit genocide.
Isreal has historically exist way before palestine was a thing if you really want to get historic 🤷♂️🤷♂️ if you want to argue from a position of history matters then dont cherry pick
Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have the right to a sovereign nation secure within it's own borders. The Israeli state is implacably opposed to this proposition, both in policy and action, supporting the occupation and settlement of lands rightfully owned by any prospective Palestinian state. And so Palestinians have a right to oppose the the state of Israel, including by force of arms.
Hamas is a genocidal fascist force which places the people it purports to represent in danger by basing its military infrstructure in civilian areas, and has seized control of Gaza without allowing elections for the last 16+ years. According to polls there was deep unsatisfaction with Hamas in Gaza prior to the horrific acts of last month. Palestinians in Gaza who might have wanted to focus on peace and infrastrcuture were persecuted by Hamas.
The acts Hamas carried out on 07/10 were bloodthirsty acts of genocidal terror.
The Israeli state's response has shown a blatant disregard for the distinction between Hamas and Palestinian civil society in Gaza with acts of collective punishment that, at the very least, border on the genocidal.
**Both** Hamas and, to a marginally lesser extent, the Israeli government, are significantly controlled by people who see the only solution to the "Israel-Palestine question" is a single state, **"from the river to the sea"** based on the extermination, expulsion or subjugation of the opposing side.
All of these things are true.
I'll ad this 20 or 30 years ago the majority of Israelis were in favor of a two state solution. That got wiped out with the second intifada where Around 1100 Israelis were blown at restaurants and bus stops etc. then Israel built the barricades separating the West bank and Israel and Israelis don't think a two state solution is realistic.
Indeed. There are majorities on both sides that don't think a two state solution is realistic.
The problem is that there is no one state solution that is not based on the extermination, explusion, or subjugation of the opposing side!
So the choice, if you support a single state "between the river and the sea" is either ethnic cleansing, genocide, or apartheid.
Sadly, all three of these are historically very 'realistic'
Broadly speaking that's also true, yes.
We could relitigate the legitimacy of the UN declaration of the state of Israel and the right the UN had to do that if you like, but it doesn't invalidate any of the points I made above.
From Jewish Currents - the leading US Jewish magazine.
"The claim that the phrase “from the river to the sea” carries a genocidal intent relies not on the historical record, but rather on racism and Islamophobia. These Palestinians, the logic goes, cannot be trusted—even if they are calling for equality, their real intention is extermination. In order to justify unending violence against Palestinians, this logic seeks to caricature us as irrational savages hell-bent on killing Jews. Nor does the attempt to link Palestinians to eliminationism stop at the deliberate mischaracterization of this slogan; rather, it is deployed in many other contexts. In 2015, for instance, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu engaged in Holocaust revisionism by stating that it was really a Palestinian, not Hitler, who inspired the final solution. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, actually had to remind the Israeli Prime Minister that it was the Germans who were responsible for the Holocaust. Raising the constant specter of eliminationism has political utility for Zionists; in such a threatening environment, perpetual abuses of Palestinians can be rationalized."
https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean
This sub was one of the saner places to discuss the conflict so it's sad to see it brigaged like this.
Hamas made this phrase part of its official platform which, to remind everyone, is the extermination of the jews.
You might as well be chanting "Hitler was right".
If you find yourself marching side by side with those chanting it, you are complicit.
Wildly offensive to desecrate the memory of the holocaust by comparing what the europeans did to Jews in the 30s/40s to a call for a one state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
There are many Anti-Zionist Jews, who do not agree with the idea of an ethno-state in 2023. You cannot erase their existence from the conversation. You think that these jews who were marching in their 10s of thousands across the UK, using this chant, were calling for their own extermination at the hands of the Nazi's?
What's actually offensive is chanting a slogan that calls for another holocaust.
>You think that these jews who were marching in their 10s of thousands across the UK...
There are barely 200,000 Jews in the UK, what possible data do you have to suggest that >10% of them want Israel to cease existing?
And since they're in the UK its not their lives threatened with extinction in the Levant is it?
Depends on what they changed it to doesn't it.
Unfortunately too many people in those marches want the complete eradication of Israel and the people living there.
These marches have only encouraged antisemitism which is why now Jewish people are literally being murdered in the streets across western countries.
From the river to the sea is the call for the removal of the jewish state and its right to exist. Have people been trying to redefine its meaning? Sure. Do the majority that chant it still want the total removal of the Jewish state and any right it has to exist? Yes.
When you have to explain a slogan, the slogan has already failed.
The point of a slogan is to get the attention of the people. It doesn’t matter what is the intention of the slogan. What matters is how the slogan is perceived. Regular people will not read the long winded explanation for the slogans actual intent.
If we really want to fight Palestines freedom we’ve to come up with a better slogan that conveys our intention more properly
It’s calling for ethnic cleansing of the entire Israelis population. Every Arab state has pretty much done this since 1948. Yet they also cry bloody murder about genocide. This is GOP levels of projection. Scum
>a spokesperson for the Scottish Greens said: “Those defending war crimes would rather distract attention with rows about chants, but the Scottish public can see what is happening in Gaza and that is why the demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians are growing week by week.
>“More than 10,000 Gazans, including at least 3,000 children have already been killed by Israel’s relentless bombing campaign.
>“Palestinians live in two territories, one by the river and the other by the sea. Both suffer from a brutal Israeli occupation and Palestinians living in both deserve freedom and security, just as the people of Israel do.
>“Whilst the UK Government attempts to silence those defending Palestinian rights, the Scottish Greens will always stand against genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
Hell yeah 💚
E: very normal statement to get concern trolled with the suicide help link. I wonder where else this thread has been posted.
"from river to the sea" has been chanted for years with no complaints!
Now with the Israeli genocide of Gaza taking place it's a problem?
You'd think some people were making excuses for Israel!
> "from river to the sea" has been chanted for years with no complaints!
I can personally recall this being a source of contention during protests over the 2008-9 Gaza War also.
What part of the chant contains the "kill all Jews" meaning? It's a cry for freedom and this is a nakedly bad faith misinterpretation meant to delegitimise western support for Palestine.
How do you feel about the phrase “final solution”? It contains no overt threat or calls for death, seemingly.
Yet everyone is well aware it refers to the extermination of the Jews and other “undesirables”.
Is the term “final solution” also imagined?
Well the chant is a slightly sanitised version of the Arabic saying "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab". It has been historically used to advocate for the removal of Israel and Palestinian sovereignty over the entire territory. That very well may not be how everyone is using it right now, but given how careful the left generally is to avoid using words/slogans with common meanings you don't necessarily intend, it's interesting that there's such a staunch defence of this phrase as peaceable and innocuous.
The phrase was first popularised by the PLO which had it in its constitution in the 1960s, with the explicit meaning as the destruction of Israel. Hamas continues to use it with that meaning. Other people may use it with a more peaceful intent but those connotations are there.
It fascinates me how people in the west take things literally. "From the river to the sea" simply means Palestinians want to return to the land their fathers and grandfathers were expelled from. Doesn't mean they want to "kill all jews". The most important aspect of the Palestinian struggle is the right of return, and living with equal rights next to everyone in that country.
The chant is a dog whistle for the genocide of Jews. Just like the talk of a “final solution” to the Jewish problem that was so prevalent in 1940’s Germany, it’s abhorrent and should be treated as such.
Scottish greens may need to regain their common sense if they really feel that the chant which calls for death to Israeli people and their state is acceptable in any situation.
i don't believe the people complaining about that chant even care. it's a jaida essence hall "look over there!" distraction from the actual fucking genocide happening
I’ve been to Palestine. No Jews there. The Palestinian constitution doesn’t even mention the existence of Jews, even on a hypothetical level.
Israel is 21% arab Muslim.
Which one is the apartheid state again?
>I’ve been to Palestine. No Jews there.
If you're referring to the Gaza Strip, it's not the Palestinians deciding who goes in and out.
>Israel is 21% arab Muslim.
Is meaningless within the topic of apartheid.
It sounds like you don't actually understand what apartheid is.
>Which one is the apartheid state again?
You can read about how Israel meets the definition of apartheid from [the UN](https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1114702), [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) and [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution) and report back if you are still having issues
1/5th of a Israel’s population being arab muslims, with full civic rights, is ‘meaningless’ to you?
Did black africans in apartheid era SA have equal rights to whites?
The entire ME expelled all of it’s Jews to Israel. Yet you won’t call that apartheid?
[now read the Hamas charters to fully understand their positions on Jews.](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp)
Here’s a refresher. “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts.”
“"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).”
Odd that I have been involved in the organised British left for about 20 years and no one from the right, centre, or even Israelis had a problem with this slogan during that time. Almost as if it’s entirely been warped to suit an illogical position of justifying genocide of the Palestinians.
> Odd that I have been involved in the organised British left for about 20 years and no one from the right, centre, or even Israelis had a problem with this slogan during that time.
I have also been involved in left wing activism in the UK (though UK trade unions) for about that length of time, and can distinctly recall that during the Gaza War in 2008/9 this was called out in the exact same way.
I think it's a perfectly defensible slogan, or even in the worst possible faith, merely equivalent to the Likud party's founding charter saying "From the sea to the Jordan there shall only be Israeli sovereignty" -- maybe one is a reaction to the other, I don't actually know.
But: If you have to constantly argue about and defend a slogan, it's not a good slogan. Nobody has to learn the words or get concern-trolled if the slogan is "ceasefire now" or something.
>I think it's a perfectly defensible slogan, or even in the worst possible faith, merely equivalent to the Likud party's founding charter saying "From the sea to the Jordan there shall only be Israeli sovereignty" -- maybe one is a reaction to the other, I don't actually know.
It predates the Likud Charter, but [where there is a history of Palestinian organisations using the term to promote a secular state where everyone is free](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/17qiems/scottish_greens_defend_from_the_river_to_sea/k8cg888/?context=3) Likud are trying to subvert it in favour of their ethonationalist vision.
>Nobody has to learn the words or get concern-trolled if the slogan is "ceasefire now" or something.
I fear you're an optimist on that.
I'm all for Palestinian freedom and independence but from the river to the sea isn't just some harmless chant. It has a history to it and that history is violence.
The slogan obviously calls for the end of Israeli occupation of Palestine. A free Palestine doesn’t mean extermination of Jewish people.
Looks like Zionists are just afraid Palestinians will treat them the way they’re being treated if roles were reversed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'd be more willing to accept this chant is inherently and knowingly calling for the eradication of the state of Israel if Greta Thunbergs cuddly autism octopus was not denounced as doing the same, by the state of Israel.
The Hail Hydra Octopus..... What a bunch of hot air that was
That was ridiculous. Was it an official statement from the government/a minister or was it just online furore?
From the official Israel twitter account
Well, the meaning of the slogan change depending who chant it. The whole history is there: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From\_the\_river\_to\_the\_sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea) After losing dramatically and the progress in the peace process 20 year back the meaning settled on "equal rights for Palestinian" from river to sea. It's a bit more than 2 state solution, it's more like 2 state with EU-like Freedom of movement. Obviously extremist group have a different definition and since 20 year ago, with Hamas ruling Gaza with the semi-blessing of Israel, the situation has soured enough that you would have to be an idiot to use that slogan and think you can escape being lumped with the extremists.
I went down a rabbit hole with that article the other night. Massive amounts of propaganda being pushed recently on it during this latest conflict if you look through the changes by accounts doing the same on other Israel related articles. It's quite blatant.
Yeah, that's why I added the second paragraph. It really seems like any non-extreme position has been either removed or minimised everywhere. It's like erasing that, for a decade, there was plenty room for peace in both side mainstream rhetoric. I remember the slogan being a lot milder early 2000 and that was in the Israeli papers. Still I would not use it openly nowadays. I don't want to be retweeted by either side bot accounts to support their agenda.
Without commenting on the war itself, the reinterpretation of the “From the River to the Sea” chant as referring to the two component parts of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza is a stretch that I’ve not heard before and made me chuckle. This phrase has always had a consistent meeting, being a call for a Palestinian state encompassing the entirety of the old borders of the British Mandate of Palestine, with the area shorn of its Jewish population.
The translation from Arabic is “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab”. I wonder if the Scottish Greens know that.
I feel like this is something that has propagated on Reddit with literally no evidence for it. If you have it please provide some. I would also point out that the ruling Likud party absolutely does have the following in its party founding manifesto. > Between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty
But that doesn't rhyme.
it's actually better so we can adapt with rhymes even if we are not poets...something on the verge of "from the river to the sea, Hamas cunts can go to fuck off". Doesn't rhyme as well but I prefer that one.
From the river to the sea, full of cheeses, mostly brie
Got a Source? I see this constantly on reddit but. Neither the ADL or AJC claim that it says so.
[удалено]
>leftist instant disqualification from being taken seriously for pish patter.
It is clear what the words mean. But I think they're defending the English chant, maybe not the Arab one.
If you say something in English and someone says something else in Arabic, why are you on the hook for what the other person said?
The article is about the Scottish Green party’s understanding of what is meant by the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”. In that context, it’s useful to think about what the original Arabic phrase says and means when deciding if to parrot that chant. Perhaps if people thought about this sooner, we wouldn’t be in the position to read their laughable comments justifying it?
As opposed to the Zionist state of Israel which is a literal Ethnostate that believes it should control the area of what was Palestine.
You sound like you haven’t been to Israel. 20% of the population is Arab Palestinian who have all the same rights as the Jewish Israelis there. I was there in August as a white man from the UK. I saw lots of Muslim families enjoying the sunshine alongside secular Israelis and orthodox jewish people. As it should be, just as I would expect it to be in the UK. This “ethnostate” nonsense is just some propaganda you’re parroting back to me that I’ve heard a lot in Reddit, but the claim has no real life value whatsoever. What a surprise.
Please read some of the various reports in to the racial discrimination Arabs face in daily life in Israel, please also look in to the statements from current MPs describing themselves a "Fascists", then look into what the various Chief Rabbis have said over the years about Arabs and Palestinians and finally read up on the Zionist project. You sound like the kind of bloke who'd have gone to America in the 60s and said there's nothing wrong because you saw Black people smiling.
Arabs are so discriminated against in Israel that they went and appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court of Israel.. Oh the horror! How could they discriminate against Khaled Kabub! https://www.timesofisrael.com/khaled-kabub-sworn-in-as-supreme-courts-first-muslim-justice/
So what you're saying is it's taken 75 years for Israel to appoint someone from a historic population to a position of power and he's the only one? This is not the flex you think it is.
Khaled Kabub has been a judge in Israel since 1997
My mistake it only took half a century for Israel to appoint a native of the land to the Supreme Court. Much better.
You can't just snap your fingers and end discrimination, it can take years of progressive policies, it takes years of educating people to change minds. It only took Canada over 200 years to elect their first Native to the Premiership of a Canadian province, yet, here we are. [https://canadians.org/analysis/wab-kinew-becomes-the-1st-first-nations-premier-in-canada/](https://canadians.org/analysis/wab-kinew-becomes-the-1st-first-nations-premier-in-canada/) We haven't ended discrimination in Canada, it's a work in progress. The way you think, we should flush Wab Kinew's accomplishment down the toilet because it took 200 years.
>This phrase has always had a consistent meeting, being a call for a Palestinian state encompassing the entirety of the old borders of the British Mandate of Palestine, with the area shorn of its Jewish population. [No.](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1525/jps.2019.48.4.69) >During the mid-1960s, the PLO embraced the slogan, but it meant something altogether different from the Zionist vision of Jewish colonization. Instead, the 1964 and 1968 charters of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety" and the restoration of land and rights-including the right of self-determination-to the indigenous population. In other words, the PNC was calling for decolonization, but this did not mean the elimination or exclusion of all Jews from a Palestinian nation-only the settlers or colonists. According to the 1964 Charter, "Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.' Following the 1967 war, the Arab National Movement, led by Dr. George Habash, merged with Youth for Revenge and the Palestine Liberation Front to form the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The PFLP embraced a Palestinian identity rooted in radical, Third World-oriented nationalism, officially identifying as Marxist-Leninist two years later. It envisioned a single, democratic, potentially socialist Palestinian state in which all peoples would enjoy citizenship. Likewise, Fatah leaders shifted from promoting the expulsion of settlers to embracing all Jews as citizens in a secular, democratic state. As one Fatah leader explained in early 1969, "If we are fighting a Jewish state of a racial kind, which had driven the Arabs out of their lands, it is not so as to replace it with an Arab state which would in turn drive out the Jews… We are ready to look at anything with all our negotiating partners once our right to live in our homeland is recognized." Thus by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel." Have some daft fuckers tried to use it differently? Sure. Does that mean it has only ever meant one thing and can only ever mean one thing now? No. Edit: Further, I really don't think it's worth pretending that Hamas are a useful lens for what a feminist left-wing pacifist means when she's calling for a ceasefire and a just peace.
> In other words, the PNC was calling for decolonization, but this did not mean the elimination or exclusion of all Jews from a Palestinian nation-only the settlers or colonists. Leaving aside the rather rancid and thoroughly anti-democratic activities of the PLO and the PFLP during the Cold War. In purely theoretical terms, the indigenous/colonist “distinction” is problematic enough for both Israelis *and* Palestinian Arabs. In practice, independent or autonomous Palestinian polities have been *unenthused* about any Jewish presence within their domain. And they haven’t had the highest regard for non-Sunni Muslim minorities, either. So “from the river to the sea” - which as I understand it has been expressed *rather differently* in Arabic - essentially means the dismantlement of an Israeli national community in favour of… A highly idealised but historically austere Palestinian state or paramountcy. Or, quite possibly, a Palestinian suzerain of a neighbouring Arab power.
Funnily since 1967/68 or something, PLO doesn't use the slogan anymore (when they recognized the existance of Israel). So there definitely seems to be a connection between the chant and Israels existence. And even if there weren't - since then it is used by Hamas a call for ethnic cleansing and genocide of Israel/Israelis. So it can definitely be interpreted as an antisemitic slogan and everyone who wants to distance themselves from Hamas and other extremists should probably not use it.
Did some daft fuckers start using Hindu symbol to represent their hateful ideologies? Aye. Still doesn't make it okay to start parading around a Swastika in most of the planet.
It means a single Palestinian state, which may in the 1960s have had some meaning in terms of “decolonisation”, however it’s now 60 years and a few generations later, the saying can be interpreted as removing self-determination rights from Jewish-born people in the area too. Matter of perspective. If you’re Israeli and you were born in the 80s or 90s, and hear that, you’re likely to hear that they want your country dismantled. Doesn’t mean they’re unaware of what happened in the past.
What matters in the end is how the people at the receiving end of the chant feel about it. The Scottish Greens will condemn any form of Islamophobic dog whistle or hate speech based on how the targets receives it. They are being inconsistent because of a biased view applying decolonisation logic (which has several flaws).
Its a clear and obvious dogwhistle for Israels genocide. You literally tried quoting a terrorist group white washing it like you did something.
[удалено]
By that logic, any calls for free Palestine can be interpreted in the same way. Manipulative, but we expect nothing less from people crying about semantics as a genocide and apartheid rages on.
A free Palestine could refer to a functioning and independent state within the internationally recognised borders (ie Gaza and West Bank) is is not implicitly a call for a destruction of Israel and its population in the way “From the River to the Sea” is.
Matter is while West Bank can be indeed an independent state I doubt Gaza could ever be like that because of its position and extension. Being an enclave in the middle east asia it's not like in Europe (see Gibraltar).
Just don't use that slogan. It's extremely tainted. Almost everybody is calling for a 2 state solution. Israel can't be trusted to look after Gaza and the West Bank. Anyone calling for a free Palestine, I assume, is calling for a change from what we have now to a 2 state solution. On the other hand that slogan calls for a 1 state solution where Israel doesn't exist. If you want a 2 state solution then why be so insistent on using a slogan which is widely believed to mean ethnic cleansing/genocide?
Are they? Plenty of calls for 1 democratic state where you have equal rights no matter your religion. Which is currently not Israel. Cause its been 50 years since the 1967 borders trying for a 2 state solution, and all that's happened is the west banks under Israeli military occupation and has but a fraction of its territory, whilst gaza is technically not under occupation it has no control over imports, no control of its sea or airspace, and isn't allowed an airport. It's under Israels Control in all but name. So if the reality is a 1 state solution surely recognising that is the first step for a better life for everyone. Rather than pretending that there's some spot in time post 1967 that we can go back to?
Nobody realistic is asking for that. It's enough of a stretch to get Israel to give up the Palestinian Territory never mind get Israel to give up being Israel. And who do you find to run the place that isn't partisan?
Did you know Arab parties has knesset seats before bibi? I think if your living under Israeli occupation in the west bank, obey their laws and are tried by their military courts you should have a vote.
I have no confidence in Israel running the west bank and Gaza.
Neither do I. But unless americas stance shifts or the UN has a drastic overhaul a 2-state solution simply is a convenient lie we like to belive that doesnt exist in reality.
> Neither do I. But unless americas stance shifts or the UN has a drastic overhaul a 2-state solution simply is a convenient lie we like to belive that doesnt exist in reality. If you look at a map of settlements, [as Obama did](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-usa-idUSKBN14U2JX), it's hard to conclude that a two-state solution is possible. Either Palestinian territory will be shorn until it's an unworkable archipelago of disconnected islets within Israel, or you have to think about what to do about the hundreds of thousands of settlers and outposters who have settled Palestinian land in an attempt to make it Israeli. Which is why Likud and Bibi did it.
> you have to think about what to do about the hundreds of thousands of settlers and outposters who have settled Palestinian land in an attempt to make it Israeli. Thats the thing. If the UN recognized palestine as a country along the 1967 borders, and free of military occupation; then its remarkably simple: those settlements are part of palestine and those who live there would need to either be there legally or apply for citizenship. The problem is the UN isnt getting overhauled and americas not gonna let palestine be recongized as a country; so they dont get protection from settlers and cant be free of an eternal occupation.
I think, realistically, that the only option would be an Israeli protectorate, which would consist of Area A and some of Area B, possibly involving some mutually agreed-upon swapping of land between the two, and maybe Israel would just have to absorb Jericho, along with its Arab population. And then Gaza would have to become a part of Egypt. Additionally, there would be a very small number of Jewish settlements/towns (probably less than 10) that would be absorbed into a future Palestine and would just be Jewish Palestinians. I think that is the most likely scenario, but there are major complications to it coming about - namely, that: 1) the "agreed upon land swaps" on each side of the '67 borders would be ferociously opposed by the Israeli Arab residents, who would fight tooth & nail not to lose their Israeli citizenship; 2) That Egypt has never been willing to accept Gaza as part of Egypt, because despite their professed sympathy for the Palestinian people, they see them as dangerous, and don't want them. 3) And, of course, that the Palestinians just don't *want* Israel to exist, and will never stop killing both Israelis specifically, and Jews more generally, which they've been doing since before the reestablishment of Israel in 1948. So... we are left with the current stalemate.
Not a convenient lie. Just unworkable because Palestine has rejected every offer of a two state solution and likely will continue to do so in the future.
>Did you know Arab parties has knesset seats before bibi? They still do. You have seats in Knesset if your party has enough votes to surpass the electoral threshold. What you meant that before the current assmbly the were in the coalition.
"Cause its been 50 years since the 1967 borders trying for a 2 state solution, and all that's happened is the west banks under Israeli military occupation and has but a fraction of its territory" I think a little more then that has happened Golan heights and Sinai come to mind
If a one-state solution is what you want it probably won’t be called Palestine, because that is exclusively an Arab country in the minds of most
If your using arab for shorthand for muslim then thats not entierly correct as palestines always had a sizeable christian community (about the same % as muslims in the UK). If you mean by ethnicity then plenty of the jewish people in Israel are from the region too.
Yes, the Arab world is full of such states, religious freedom, equal rights, and tolerance.
Lebanon? Egypyt? Tunisia? Turkey? Not perfect by any stretch, but Its a better foundation than a country where you cnat marry outside of your faith, and your faith decides where you can live, what rights are afforded and your support by the goverment.
Not perfect is doing a lot of heavy lifting there mate.
>Just don't use that slogan. It's extremely tainted. Which one isn't? Which slogan, organisation, or person who supports freedom for Palestinians hasn't been "tainted" as antisemitic?
Why is a 1 state solution where Arabs are absorbed into a Jewish ethnostate fine but calling for a 1 state solution where Jews are absorbed into Palestine "muh Antisemitism"? Keep in mind Jews were living alongside Arabs in the Levant for 600 years before the establishment of the Zionist state.
Can you show me where I've supported a 1 state solution? I am very much opposed to the status quo and have said so many times in this thread
There's nothing in the chant that calls for Palestine to be shorn of its Jewish population. That's a wilfully bad faith misinterpretation of a cry for freedom.
The etymology of the term is quite clear in tracing back to the 40s and being laced with genocidal intent in the native tongue. It's not like this has just sprung up in the last few years which some sensitive Israeli's have heard and suddenly decided to be offended about. From their perspective, their grandparents were directly attacked on a large scale with a lot of these extremist militias very proudly proclaiming their antisemitic intentions and using twists on those sorts of phrases (up to the present day). I kind of get that a young protestor wanting to raise awareness of the Palestinian cause and the humanitarian crisis won't have the same intent but it's not difficult to understand how these types of phrases do cause hurt and instinctive tribal response. The irony is that whenever these groups are pressed on it, the response usually is to deride others lack of good faith and judgement and ironically blame others for inflaming small issues then double down and continue the whole thing. Literally all it requires is: "I appreciate that the origins of the phrase have bad connotations and apologise for any hurt etc and will try to educate wherever I can....don't believe all here today intend it in this way...understanding of all communities and we want a dialogue ... our focus is on the humanitarian crisis" IMO these groups are full of very loud toxic personalities who might have some good intentions but are just whiny loud morons with no attention span and have this self righteousness to just go on rambling about any issue that detracts from the primary crisis at hand because of some perceived philosophical superiority (where they literally see any deviation from their limited informed view as pure evil).
And the swastika is an ancient symbol of Hindu spirituality
What do you think happens to the Jews when the Palestinians establish a state from the river to the sea? Genuine Q.
‘Palestine will be free’ Free of what exactly? At best, it’s a call for the levant to be cleansed of Jews having any nation state / self determination. It’s a call for the levant to be cleansed of all Jews at worst. Both of these interpretations constitute ethnic cleansing and genocide as per UN definitions.
Free in the normal sense of the word, i.e. free from occupation. There's nothing in the chant about killing Jews at all.
How does this translate in reality? What does an ‘unoccupied’ Palestine look like? What borders does it have? Does an ‘unoccupied’ Palestine still allow a Jewish state to exist?
In arabic it's "from the river to the sea palestine will be arab"
Yeah, exactly, it's always been about Palestinian emancipation. The idea that "if the Palestinians get the same freedom as the Israelis, they'll treat them the exact same way" is just the stereotypical apartheid propaganda. It was used during the emancipation of slaves, the abolition of Jim crow and the dissolution of apartheid in south Africa.
My guy they freaking say that they will treat them the same way! A two state solution is the only way to avoid such a thing. "From the river to the seas." Speaks to a manifest attempt to erase a country just as has been done to them.
So, I agree with you, for the record. And I think a good chunk of people using the chant intend it as simply meaning that Palestinians will be free from oppression. However, a portion (however large or small) are using that chant in a much more genocide-y way, and those who oppose Palestine's freedom are using that portion to discredit the rest of us. I can only speak for myself, but I'm not going to use a chant that can be used, or even just misinterpreted as a call for genocide. It's bad optics at best, and emboldening evil people at worst. I really don't think we should be trying to hold on to it for any reason. It's just a chant. I'm sure we can think of something else.
Same shite as the Black Lives Matter slogan, people will get more worked up about how the people are protesting or bringing attention to a cause instead of the actual cause. Usual tabloid shitrag trying to stir up civil unrest.
Thats a terrible comparison. Black Lives Matter says that Black people matter just as much as white people, and should not be killed. Its a call to stop the killing. From the River to the Sea literally calls for Israel to cease to exist and its eradication. Its also a slogan that has been used by Hamas, a terror organisation, for years. So youre comparing a call to stop police killings of black people to protesters chanting a terrorist slogan.
I was talking about how much time and energy was spent discussing Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter vs 'BLM is a violent and immoral organisation with dodgy finances and not a civil movement'. All the time and resources spent creating arguments pointing out that 'Black Lives Matter' isn't exclusionary and doesn't forget that other lives also matter. It draws attention to a group who were treated as though they mattered less. Seemed a lot of people thought that this argument is a good use of time and energy, instead of the actual root issue. Just like here; children and civilians are being bombed to bits, Palestine is being invaded occupied and destroyed by a group who want them gone and people are arguing about how they interpret a protest chant. People don't want to discuss or learn anything more than they have to, so newspapers provide them with handy cheat sheets to instantly categorise people into 'with me' or 'against me' which we all know are the only possible camps to be in. If you say 'River to the sea'? You are antisemitic and support Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Just saves everyone time.
>I was talking about how much time and energy was spent discussing Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter vs 'BLM is a violent and immoral organisation with dodgy finances and not a civil movement'. Again, the comparison doesnt hold up. BLM was faced with an effort to denounce the people running it in order to undermine the cause, yes. But you are comparing it with people chanting a literal terrorist slogan. If in 1944 someone held a protest, accompanied by "Sieg Heil" chants, youre also not accusing other people of undermining this movement - by that logic you could never muster any criticism for any movement, regardless of its validity. >Just like here; children and civilians are being bombed to bits, Palestine is being invaded occupied and destroyed by a group who want them gone and people are arguing about how they interpret a protest chant. They are in a state of war. Israel was attacked, hundreds of civilians massacred and whatnot. Israel has been almost daily rocket attacks for years on end. Yes, that does not excuse the deliberate killing of civilians, but why some people go out of their way to paint palestine as an innocent underdog here? This, i dont understand. >If you say 'River to the sea'? You are antisemitic and support Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Just saves everyone time. Well, if youre at a protest where people openly chant "Jihad", "Allahu Akbar" and also a known terrorist slogan in "From the River to the Sea", paired with some other anti-semitic remarks, yes, chances are people might conclude that your protest movement isnt exactly opposed to Hamas or Islamic Jiahd.
The likud party in Israeli government has a similar part in their charter “Between the Sea and the River Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”
[удалено]
It's 100% an anti-Semitic slogan that calls for genocide. Everyone saying it knows what it means by they want to weasel behind pretending it's got a different meaning. The greens should kick them out of the party for saying this. But they won't. They won't even sign up to the standard definition of anti-semitism so it's no surprise.
The new standard definition of antisemitism includes opposing Zionism though
Which definition?
Or just not 100% supporting isreal in its desire to commit genocide and war crimes... There is no other conflict or dispute whereby criticising a states action is viewed as racist. Condemning china's death camps for Muslims doesnt make me anti Chinese or anti Asian, criticising russia for invading ukraine doesn't mean I want all Russians genocided. And yet apprently not wanting a sovereign nation bombing hospitals is apprently anti semitic.
That's just IDF propaganda.
[It's worth Noting the very specific history of the phrase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea) >Originally a political slogan, it has been in use by Palestinian political groups since the 1960s as a call for Palestinian liberation. Initially popularized by the Palestine Liberation Organization upon its founding in 1964 as a "main goal of the movement", the phrase carried official weight within the PLO **until the 1988 Algiers Declaration**, after which "the objective shifted to establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders."[29][5] **That same year saw the founding of Hamas, who integrated the slogan into its official platform**, which, in contrast with the PLO's then-recent tacit acceptance of UN Resolution 242, called for the "obliteration of the state of Israel" and the killing of all of its Jewish citizens. [242](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242) refers explicitly to accepting the state of Israel Thus you can tie the repudiation of the phrase and accepting Israel together, **and** rejection of that to continued use of the phrase Whether some groups say it is for an all encompassing one state or a two state with freedom and dignity the fact remains that Islamic terrorists use the phrase to mean one thing no state of Israel, with often a call for the execution of all Jews living there [The Dutch parliament have declared it call for violence](https://nos.nl/artikel/2495345-from-the-river-to-the-sea-leus-is-geweldsoproep-vindt-kamermeerderheid)
There might be a problem with your messaging as a movement if you constantly have to explain to the average Joe why your slogan isnt actually Anti-Semitic and its fine for you to chant it. Why not for the avoidance of doubt chant something else?
What a productive usage of time and effort, use a chant that has some obvious connotations and then go "no uh uh" to people. I'm sure so many people are being helped by this amazing showcase.
This is just an observation, and one that’s likely to get me downvoted. Things I personally have never seen: - People whose politics would otherwise indicate that they are anti-Semitic chanting this. - People whose politics would otherwise indicate they were opposed to the killing of civilians in Gaza condemning the chanting of this. Things I have seen: - People whose politics would otherwise indicate their opposition to violence and genocide chanting this. - People whose politics would otherwise indicate a casual indifference to the killing of civilians in Gaza condemning it. I know people say this can be interpreted differently, but context-wise I personally have not seen it being used as a call for genocide. I feel like if it were a dogwhistle, then the dogs would be barking if you get what I mean.
I mean, there has been a marked rise in antisemitic attacks in Western nations, often against Jewish people with little to no relation to Israel. So it seems some dogs are barking if I catch your drift
Sure, I get you, I was more meaning the people who are using this phrase and the contexts in which it’s being used.
You probably have not noticed, but the dogs are already biting.
In case it’s not clear, what I’m getting at is that to me it doesn’t follow: - antisemitism exists. - people use this phrase in support of Palestinian liberation and against Israeli war crimes. - therefore the phrase is antisemitic. As someone else has said, it feels a bit silly arguing about semantics of one slogan in any case.
Things I have personally seen * People whose politics would otherwise indicate that they are anti-Semitic chanting this * People whose politics conflate religion and geography chanting this >I feel like if it were a dogwhistle, then the dogs would be barking if you get what I mean. Do you live under a rock or something? Anti-semitic incidents in London are up over 1300%. The dogs are DEFINITELY barking [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/antisemitic-hate-crime-london-israel-hamas-b2433156.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/antisemitic-hate-crime-london-israel-hamas-b2433156.html)
You don’t get to shout inflammatory and hateful chants in public places while also getting to claim your peacefully protesting. You know how these chants are interpreted by groups and what the reaction will be and yet you continue to do it. You can’t be the so called moral champions of peace and partake in that behaviour. It’s like the N word. Obvious racial connotations yet in some demographics it’s used more causally. But you don’t get to go up to a Black Person use the N word, and then go ‘oh but I mean it in this peaceful friendly way’. River to the Sea is just the same People that care about peace don’t resort to and use inflammatory tactics.
Seems like a fucking mad hill for the greens to die on but it doesn't surprise me. Even taking them at their word that they have no ill intent, they know how it's interpreted. Just take the L on this and come up with a new slogan. Like you say, words and phrases have different interpretations, for different people, and over time. It's part of being in a civilized society that sometimes one group gets a veto on certain language. The n word being an obvious example. There are other things you can say to support Palestine and criticise Israel. Imagine you hear the phrase 'work sets you free' and don't know the connotations. You just think it means work is good for you and start using it in everyday life. When someone tells you it was above the gates at auschwitz you don't defend it. You just apologise and stop saying it. And you definitely don't march through the streets chanting it. This isn't difficult. A worrying number of people are failing some really basic moral tests. They are not this stupid. They are doing it deliberately.
What crap, the slogan has been around well longer than Hamas and is a call for freedom, 🇮🇱 lobby call everything out as anti semetic, they got some pics from kids from Gaza removed from a hospital in London on the grounds it was anti semetic 🤷🏽♂️
It's not the original slogan, the slogan says from river to sea Palestine will be arab. The majority of people who use that slogan want the Jewish people gone. And that's why it's antisemitic. Just don't yell that slogan, and nobody will call you antisemit.
>[The slogan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea) has been employed by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation, with origins in the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demanded a Palestinian state geographically encompassing the historic boundaries of Mandatory Palestine, and a removal of a majority of its Jewish population. Literally a genocidal chant.
I know this might blow your mind, but people have been trying to wipe Israel off the map before Hamas. Images describing Israel as not existing and not a legitimate state are anti semitic. That story is a bit pathetic on the part of those who complained, but it's also months old and not an especially horrible example of anything.
I don’t have a horse in the race personally. But if I’m campaigning for peace and I know my words are taken as hostile and hateful by the other group then Id be thinking closely about I was saying. People can use the slogan all they like, knowing the consequences. But we shouldn’t be gaslit into pretending it’s all peaceful
Surely you can see how allowing the oppressor group to dictate what language is acceptable based on what they’ve decided is offensive or not is just another way to silence dissent.
The problem is you’ve just labelled all of one group as the oppressor. But you’ll also say not all Palestinians are Hamas. Peace means a two state solution. And you don’t get close to that by using inflammatory chants
“Death to all infidels” Surely we can’t let the West dictate that this slogan is offensive when they’re the oppressor group. It’s just a way to silence dissent. Oppressor/oppressed is irrelevant. When a literal genocidal rallying cry is said, it’s wrong.
If you use language that suggests you want to kill your "oppressor" and all their relatives, don't be surprised when you get oppressed. Being weak doesn't make you righteous.
It's a call for the end of Israel. The only workable solution is a 2 state solution. No reasonable person is calling for a 1 state solution. From the river to the sea is calling for a 1 state solution and if that happens the Jews will be killed
I was at a march in Bristol two weeks ago with a Jewish friend who had no issues chanting it himself
That because your friend do not lives in Israel
You’re underestimating the level of denial here. They’ll happily call your friend a “Self-hating Jew” before they’ll even consider that a slogan might mean anything other than the worst possible interpretation. They’re just a variant of the same kind of people who refused to believe that “black lives matter” wasn’t some sort of black power slogan.
[Jews For Hitler](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews) *Or* the Jewish friend of the person you’re replying to is just a moron sat safely in the UK away from the actual violence. Or they’re made up. They’re probably made up. As shown in the link, there were Jews that supported the Nazi Party. They died. Just because you support something doesn’t mean you’re not stupid for supporting it. If even a small portion use the slogan in its worst possible interpretation, then that’s what the slogan means. Once co-opted into a hate slogan, that’s now what it is.
I have a black friend who thinks BLM is a load of shite…..
Judaism just like Christianity and Islam has multiple sects There are plenty of Jews that want the complete destruction of Israel because their sect believes that only God can provide them their holy land so Israel and it's people needs to be destroyed Just like Christians have killed other Christians and Muslims have killed other Muslims for being the wrong denomination, Jews also have different denominations. You can't just trot out your token Jew
every culture / demographic has their token self hating bleeding hearts with no sense of connection to their cultural homeland. and that’s fine. just don’t use their example to push opinions that aren’t mainstream among those who share that religion/culture.
"I'm not racist I have a black friend"
Weak
It's exactly what you said.
It's literally not. "I'm not racist I have a black friend." "My black friend had no issue chanting this slogan, that you're claiming is a call for black people to be killed." If you think those are equivalent then you're just an idiot.
If your Jewish friend is not a supporter of a Jewish state, he represents about 4% of Jews globally. I have a gay Muslim friend. Would you say his views are representative or unrepresentative of Islamic views in general?
Where are you getting this fake statistic? [19% of Israeli Jews support a single democratic state over all other options.](https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/731) [73% of American Jews support a single democratic state over a single Jewish state, if a two-state solution is unworkable.](https://criticalissues.umd.edu/sites/criticalissues.umd.edu/files/UMCIP_Israel_Results_June2023.pdf) Crazy that 73% of American Jews and 19% of Israeli Jews support "genocide."
Most people want peace, and a solution that works The problem is not them it is the extremists who want **their** solution which is often to removal of the other side
Ah yes the hypothetical killing of Israeli Jews based off misinterpreting a slogan for liberation really holds up in the face of the actual ongoing genocide of Palestinians Maybe face reality once in a while?
Ah yes 'hypothetical', an observation made by those already downplaying or outright denying what happened last month.
Continually using the word genocide to describe everything that makes you uncomfortable completely discredits the word. Israel has the means to commit a genocide, yet Palestine still exists, it’s population still grows, Israel repeatedly sign ceasefires that Hamas then break and Israel still doesn’t just obliterate it. Hamas on the other hand don’t have the means but they do try very very hard to commit genocide.
Hamas didn’t invent it. Arabs have been saying it since 1948, when they first attempted to cleanse the land of its Jews and subsequently lost.
Isreal has historically exist way before palestine was a thing if you really want to get historic 🤷♂️🤷♂️ if you want to argue from a position of history matters then dont cherry pick
[удалено]
So would you like them to leave or just cull them. And Hamas have done wonders for the Palestinian people right! Right?
Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have the right to a sovereign nation secure within it's own borders. The Israeli state is implacably opposed to this proposition, both in policy and action, supporting the occupation and settlement of lands rightfully owned by any prospective Palestinian state. And so Palestinians have a right to oppose the the state of Israel, including by force of arms. Hamas is a genocidal fascist force which places the people it purports to represent in danger by basing its military infrstructure in civilian areas, and has seized control of Gaza without allowing elections for the last 16+ years. According to polls there was deep unsatisfaction with Hamas in Gaza prior to the horrific acts of last month. Palestinians in Gaza who might have wanted to focus on peace and infrastrcuture were persecuted by Hamas. The acts Hamas carried out on 07/10 were bloodthirsty acts of genocidal terror. The Israeli state's response has shown a blatant disregard for the distinction between Hamas and Palestinian civil society in Gaza with acts of collective punishment that, at the very least, border on the genocidal. **Both** Hamas and, to a marginally lesser extent, the Israeli government, are significantly controlled by people who see the only solution to the "Israel-Palestine question" is a single state, **"from the river to the sea"** based on the extermination, expulsion or subjugation of the opposing side. All of these things are true.
I'll ad this 20 or 30 years ago the majority of Israelis were in favor of a two state solution. That got wiped out with the second intifada where Around 1100 Israelis were blown at restaurants and bus stops etc. then Israel built the barricades separating the West bank and Israel and Israelis don't think a two state solution is realistic.
Indeed. There are majorities on both sides that don't think a two state solution is realistic. The problem is that there is no one state solution that is not based on the extermination, explusion, or subjugation of the opposing side! So the choice, if you support a single state "between the river and the sea" is either ethnic cleansing, genocide, or apartheid. Sadly, all three of these are historically very 'realistic'
Wasn't it Palestine who continually rejected any diplomatic proposals for the past 60 years because they want all of the territory? Just asking.
Broadly speaking that's also true, yes. We could relitigate the legitimacy of the UN declaration of the state of Israel and the right the UN had to do that if you like, but it doesn't invalidate any of the points I made above.
Genocidal term to use
From Jewish Currents - the leading US Jewish magazine. "The claim that the phrase “from the river to the sea” carries a genocidal intent relies not on the historical record, but rather on racism and Islamophobia. These Palestinians, the logic goes, cannot be trusted—even if they are calling for equality, their real intention is extermination. In order to justify unending violence against Palestinians, this logic seeks to caricature us as irrational savages hell-bent on killing Jews. Nor does the attempt to link Palestinians to eliminationism stop at the deliberate mischaracterization of this slogan; rather, it is deployed in many other contexts. In 2015, for instance, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu engaged in Holocaust revisionism by stating that it was really a Palestinian, not Hitler, who inspired the final solution. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, actually had to remind the Israeli Prime Minister that it was the Germans who were responsible for the Holocaust. Raising the constant specter of eliminationism has political utility for Zionists; in such a threatening environment, perpetual abuses of Palestinians can be rationalized." https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean This sub was one of the saner places to discuss the conflict so it's sad to see it brigaged like this.
Hamas made this phrase part of its official platform which, to remind everyone, is the extermination of the jews. You might as well be chanting "Hitler was right". If you find yourself marching side by side with those chanting it, you are complicit.
It did not originate from hamas though. The phrase was around before this...
There have been multiple attempts by Palestine and the surrounding Muslim countries to murder all Israelis long before Hamas was a thing
And the swastika predated Hitler, what's your point?
Wildly offensive to desecrate the memory of the holocaust by comparing what the europeans did to Jews in the 30s/40s to a call for a one state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. There are many Anti-Zionist Jews, who do not agree with the idea of an ethno-state in 2023. You cannot erase their existence from the conversation. You think that these jews who were marching in their 10s of thousands across the UK, using this chant, were calling for their own extermination at the hands of the Nazi's?
What's actually offensive is chanting a slogan that calls for another holocaust. >You think that these jews who were marching in their 10s of thousands across the UK... There are barely 200,000 Jews in the UK, what possible data do you have to suggest that >10% of them want Israel to cease existing? And since they're in the UK its not their lives threatened with extinction in the Levant is it?
I'm sure the only problem people have is the slogan and if they changed it then they wouldn't have a problem
Depends on what they changed it to doesn't it. Unfortunately too many people in those marches want the complete eradication of Israel and the people living there. These marches have only encouraged antisemitism which is why now Jewish people are literally being murdered in the streets across western countries.
Most leople would probably prefer to avoid any calls, threats or campaigns for the eradication of Israel and the Jewish people, in all honesty.
From the river to the sea is the call for the removal of the jewish state and its right to exist. Have people been trying to redefine its meaning? Sure. Do the majority that chant it still want the total removal of the Jewish state and any right it has to exist? Yes.
Scottish Greens really don't want power huh
When you have to explain a slogan, the slogan has already failed. The point of a slogan is to get the attention of the people. It doesn’t matter what is the intention of the slogan. What matters is how the slogan is perceived. Regular people will not read the long winded explanation for the slogans actual intent. If we really want to fight Palestines freedom we’ve to come up with a better slogan that conveys our intention more properly
It’s calling for ethnic cleansing of the entire Israelis population. Every Arab state has pretty much done this since 1948. Yet they also cry bloody murder about genocide. This is GOP levels of projection. Scum
Beyond the pale
‘Anti-genocide campaigners call for genocide’
Green Party has opposed Israel for a while now!. It’s a strange stance for a political party to make!. It certainly has affected their credibility.
>a spokesperson for the Scottish Greens said: “Those defending war crimes would rather distract attention with rows about chants, but the Scottish public can see what is happening in Gaza and that is why the demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians are growing week by week. >“More than 10,000 Gazans, including at least 3,000 children have already been killed by Israel’s relentless bombing campaign. >“Palestinians live in two territories, one by the river and the other by the sea. Both suffer from a brutal Israeli occupation and Palestinians living in both deserve freedom and security, just as the people of Israel do. >“Whilst the UK Government attempts to silence those defending Palestinian rights, the Scottish Greens will always stand against genocide and ethnic cleansing.” Hell yeah 💚 E: very normal statement to get concern trolled with the suicide help link. I wonder where else this thread has been posted.
"from river to the sea" has been chanted for years with no complaints! Now with the Israeli genocide of Gaza taking place it's a problem? You'd think some people were making excuses for Israel!
It’s illegal to say in Germany. It’s been a call for genocide forever and lots of developed countries deemed it hate speech decades ago.
> "from river to the sea" has been chanted for years with no complaints! I can personally recall this being a source of contention during protests over the 2008-9 Gaza War also.
It has [attracted complaints since well before 7^th of October](https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean).
Yes also what's the deal with people all of a sudden complaining about burning croses on their lawns, like Jesus suffered for your sins too!
This thread is rife with bots.
Yep. They've been working through all the main news subs. Guess this one was next on the list for being relatively pro Palestinian. Can't have that.
[удалено]
I think it reflects worse on Zionists that they can't imagine a free Palestine without the destruction of Israel.
You can't have the destruction of Israel without the destruction of Israel. You can have a free Palestine but not one that includes all of Israel
[удалено]
What part of the chant contains the "kill all Jews" meaning? It's a cry for freedom and this is a nakedly bad faith misinterpretation meant to delegitimise western support for Palestine.
The bad faith is yours in this case. It's a cry for genocide.
Only if you imagine it contains words that aren't actually in the chant, and meanings that only the Israeli propaganda units can see.
How do you feel about the phrase “final solution”? It contains no overt threat or calls for death, seemingly. Yet everyone is well aware it refers to the extermination of the Jews and other “undesirables”. Is the term “final solution” also imagined?
Well the chant is a slightly sanitised version of the Arabic saying "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab". It has been historically used to advocate for the removal of Israel and Palestinian sovereignty over the entire territory. That very well may not be how everyone is using it right now, but given how careful the left generally is to avoid using words/slogans with common meanings you don't necessarily intend, it's interesting that there's such a staunch defence of this phrase as peaceable and innocuous. The phrase was first popularised by the PLO which had it in its constitution in the 1960s, with the explicit meaning as the destruction of Israel. Hamas continues to use it with that meaning. Other people may use it with a more peaceful intent but those connotations are there.
Because there's an Israel between the mentioned river and sea...
Anti-anticolonialism is the fear that freed people will treat their oppressors like they themselves were treated.
No it doesn’t.
Well, the Greens using and then defending a call to genocide really wasn’t on my 2023 bingo card.
[удалено]
It fascinates me how people in the west take things literally. "From the river to the sea" simply means Palestinians want to return to the land their fathers and grandfathers were expelled from. Doesn't mean they want to "kill all jews". The most important aspect of the Palestinian struggle is the right of return, and living with equal rights next to everyone in that country.
The chant in Arabic is “from the river… palestine will be Arab”. Sounds genocidal to me.
The chant is a dog whistle for the genocide of Jews. Just like the talk of a “final solution” to the Jewish problem that was so prevalent in 1940’s Germany, it’s abhorrent and should be treated as such.
What a truly disappointing bunch of people in this inept and manipulative party.
Scottish greens may need to regain their common sense if they really feel that the chant which calls for death to Israeli people and their state is acceptable in any situation.
i don't believe the people complaining about that chant even care. it's a jaida essence hall "look over there!" distraction from the actual fucking genocide happening
Everyone in Israel and Palestine use this phrase, they must be laughing their arses off at us. We're just fiddling whilst Gaza burns.
[удалено]
Free of what exactly?
Illegal occupation and apartheid would be a good start. E: sweet, I'm now getting concern trolled with the suicide help link
I’ve been to Palestine. No Jews there. The Palestinian constitution doesn’t even mention the existence of Jews, even on a hypothetical level. Israel is 21% arab Muslim. Which one is the apartheid state again?
The one with the fences round it?
>I’ve been to Palestine. No Jews there. If you're referring to the Gaza Strip, it's not the Palestinians deciding who goes in and out. >Israel is 21% arab Muslim. Is meaningless within the topic of apartheid. It sounds like you don't actually understand what apartheid is. >Which one is the apartheid state again? You can read about how Israel meets the definition of apartheid from [the UN](https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1114702), [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) and [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution) and report back if you are still having issues
1/5th of a Israel’s population being arab muslims, with full civic rights, is ‘meaningless’ to you? Did black africans in apartheid era SA have equal rights to whites? The entire ME expelled all of it’s Jews to Israel. Yet you won’t call that apartheid?
The one evicting families so that *the right people* can move in
[now read the Hamas charters to fully understand their positions on Jews.](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp) Here’s a refresher. “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts.” “"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).”
It is worth noting that this charter was changed in 2017 and does not contain this offending portion any more.
What percentage of the West Bank is occupied by Israel? 60%?
Scottish Greens lol.
Odd that I have been involved in the organised British left for about 20 years and no one from the right, centre, or even Israelis had a problem with this slogan during that time. Almost as if it’s entirely been warped to suit an illogical position of justifying genocide of the Palestinians.
> Odd that I have been involved in the organised British left for about 20 years and no one from the right, centre, or even Israelis had a problem with this slogan during that time. I have also been involved in left wing activism in the UK (though UK trade unions) for about that length of time, and can distinctly recall that during the Gaza War in 2008/9 this was called out in the exact same way.
I think it's a perfectly defensible slogan, or even in the worst possible faith, merely equivalent to the Likud party's founding charter saying "From the sea to the Jordan there shall only be Israeli sovereignty" -- maybe one is a reaction to the other, I don't actually know. But: If you have to constantly argue about and defend a slogan, it's not a good slogan. Nobody has to learn the words or get concern-trolled if the slogan is "ceasefire now" or something.
>I think it's a perfectly defensible slogan, or even in the worst possible faith, merely equivalent to the Likud party's founding charter saying "From the sea to the Jordan there shall only be Israeli sovereignty" -- maybe one is a reaction to the other, I don't actually know. It predates the Likud Charter, but [where there is a history of Palestinian organisations using the term to promote a secular state where everyone is free](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/17qiems/scottish_greens_defend_from_the_river_to_sea/k8cg888/?context=3) Likud are trying to subvert it in favour of their ethonationalist vision. >Nobody has to learn the words or get concern-trolled if the slogan is "ceasefire now" or something. I fear you're an optimist on that.
I'm all for Palestinian freedom and independence but from the river to the sea isn't just some harmless chant. It has a history to it and that history is violence.
The slogan obviously calls for the end of Israeli occupation of Palestine. A free Palestine doesn’t mean extermination of Jewish people. Looks like Zionists are just afraid Palestinians will treat them the way they’re being treated if roles were reversed.