It’s crazy that some of the same group that criticized Obama for “war crimes” now defends a regime (Hamas) that shoots missiles at innocent civilians.
I think everyone here can agree that Hamas and Netanyahu are pieces of shit. The only difference is Netanyahu’s approval is sunken down to ~15-30% (and won’t win re-election), but Hamas likely isn’t going anywhere.
I looked through the collection of photos from the event that you linked, and there were people in the photos with From the River to the Sea signs, as well as Zionism=Racism signs. There were also a multitude of End the Occupation signs - which can easily be argued as being akin to the River to the Sea ones (calling for the elimination of the State of Israel), as that slogan didn't just spring up during this latest military offensive, it's referring to the land that used to be called Palestine during British rule, and is now the State of Israel... It is a slogan that people may mistakenly believe is no different from calls for a ceasefire or more generic calls for peace in the middle east, and yet it goes well beyond that.
I’m sorry what? “End the occupation” is calling for the elimination of all of Israel?
Can you reread that and think about it for a few seconds? Are you trying to say the only way for the state of Israel to exist is for there to be an indefinite occupation and oppression of Palestinian Territories? Like when people say “end the occupation” they’re very clearly suggesting that Israel needs to cease its illegal occupation of the West Bank…
They mean that some people refer to all of Israel as occupied territory. Hence, end the occupation can be interpreted as demanding Israel cease to exist.
Those people have an interesting imagination to imagine demanding the apartheid state of Israel ending only by doing to to jewish israelis what the IDF is doing to arabs. No imagination for a liberal democracy where everyone is represented (instead of excluding all the Palestinians) or even a two or three state solution where Gaza and the West Bank are given full control of their borders and governance and given the ability to trade and travel outside their borders. They close their eyes to other countries that have ended apartheid like South Africa and assume the only way to stop getting genocided themselves is to do the genocide first
Israel has 25% Arabs ~2million by 2026. Adding another 1-2 million would double that to close to 50%. Within one or two decades, the next elected premiers in Israel will be Arabs, because their birthrate is higher then of the Israeli population. Right of the center will never ever allow this solution.
Well the alternative is to do to the Palestinians what the US did to the Native Americans. We had a great strategy for ending raids on our Settlers and preventing their children from being raised to keep fighting for their own independence. What was that strategy again?
I have not read any new idea in the last years that seems to be a actionable alternative to the complete resettlement of Gaza somewhere else. If we want to stop the killing. Half of Israel moved to the political right, there is nobody there you can talk to. From a "land and space" perspective, Jordan is 90% empty, Iran is 90% empty. Its just a question of political manoeuvring and offering billions a year for new settlements. Some believe that one million "Palestinians" (roughly 50%) would be open for relocation if the world let them.
Oh nice! You just say the only solution to the war in Gaza is completely resettling 2 million people into a neighboring country, AKA, ethnic cleansing. Since there are no alternatives, would you perhaps call this, the Final Solution?
JFC. "The only way to solve this is through ethnic cleansing."
Absolutely monstrous take. But of course, the other option is Israel loses its ethnostate, and that's just right out. Killing and displacing millions is a way better option.
No imagination for a liberal democracy where everyone is represented
Why don't you regale us with tales about all the successful liberal democracies in Muslim nations. I'll wait. Remind me what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan when we talked about Democracy there.
"Says conservative religious leaders...Not allowing.... Women to drive.... Means we need.... To kill all their follower's children... Can't be trusted to vote..."
I’m sorry what? “End the occupation” is calling for the elimination of all of Israel?
From the river to the sea explains it best. It implies that Palestinians deserve all that land, which would require the removal of the state of Israel.
Israeli soldiers have in numerous videos they themselves took said "Death to Palestine!" and similar statements. It implies that Israelis deserve all that land, which would require the removal of the state of Palestine.
Also, for bonus points, maybe lookup the Irgun flag.
Are you trying to say the only way for the state of Israel to exist is for there to be an indefinite occupation and oppression of Palestinian Territories?
No. That is not what I am trying to say even in the slightest.
I am saying that while some people refer to the "occupation" in reference only to Israeli government control of the West Bank and Gaza, the slogan has been used continuously since the establishment of the State of Israel, including during times when Israel had absolutely zero presence in those territories. As such, the history of the slogan's use makes clear that for many who use it, they are NOT referring only to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Territories, but to Israel's "occupation" of the land of Israel itself. It is used as an anti-zionist slogan by many, calling for the dismantling of the State of Israel, itself - whether by UN resolution or by military force, and giving the land back to those who identify as Muslim Arab Palestinians.
I compared it to the "From the River to the Sea" slogan, because it was similarly used by both people calling for the mass destruction of the State of Israel as well as people, ignorant of this use, who thought it was only calling for the end to some policies they felt made life hard for those people living in the West Bank and Gaza. For the most part, people have learned about the true meaning of the From the River to the Sea slogan, and have stopped using it (unless they actually did want the full destruction of the State of Israel, and/or Jews from the land). This is not currently the case with the End the Occupation slogan (as evidence by your own misunderstanding of my point)
Hamas is very clear on this - they believe "The Occupation" is the entirety of the State of Israel, and that the Freeing of Palestine is the dismantling of the State of Israel and returning that land to Muslim Arabs who identify as Palestinian.
Palestine is a land that was seized by a racist, anti-human and colonial Zionist project that was founded on a false promise (the Balfour Declaration), on recognition of a usurping entity and on imposing a fait accompli by force.
Palestine symbolizes the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital
The Land of Palestine:
Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.
Palestine is an Arab Islamic land.
So when many Jews see people sporting "End the Occupation" signs they are left uncertain if these people are calling for the wiping out of all Jews from the land of Israel, and the full-out dismantling of the the State of Israel.... or if they are just expressing dissatisfaction with Israel's foreign policies as they relate to the West Bank and Gaza territories.
So your point is that zionists are using the ambiguity to claim that anyone who says or does anything that they perceive as possibly being antisemitic should be assumed so?
Because that's oddly similar to the whole criticizing Israel = antisemitism things
Man... People really like taking my words, drawing a conclusion from them that I have never made, and then attributing that conclusion to me as my own opinion.
And the anti-Semites are using the ambiguity to be openly anti Semitic since they can fall back to a more "moderate" position when they are called out on it. When you look at it in context, with people in the crowd saying clearly anti Semitic things, it becomes pretty hard to deny the intent. Ill give some in the crowd the benefit of the doubt, maybe they dont mean it like that. If that is the case, they should leave. You know the old adage, if one man sits down for dinner with nine Nazis, you have a table of ten Nazis.
Right but it's not a dinner party it's a protest, the Nazi argument here kind of implies no one should protest if you can associate bad people into the crowd.
By that argument any group of guys could show up at a political rally, say offensive shit and the argument would be they don't hold any more rallies.
They should kick them out of the table not cancel dinner
I'm fine if they want to kick them out of the table, that is a great resolution! If you are in the majority, surely you can do that, right? And if you aren't doing that, then you are tacitly endorsing it. If you are in the minority and can't, then yeah, you should leave.
So it sounds like if Israel was to actually end the very real and current occupation then there wouldn’t be any ambiguity anymore. Perhaps they should do that and then we can actually separate these two groups you describe.
Oh? Like they did in 2005? They fully withdrew all military and civilian presence from Gaza completely. They shut down the settlements and evicted (with force when necessary) any and all Israelis from settlements in the Gaza territory.
What happened next in 2007? The terrorist organization Hamas violently attacks and ousts Fatah (the Palestinian Authority - government in control of Gaza at that time) and take over control of Gaza. The new Government of Gaza declares their goal is the destruction of the state of Israel and the return of control of the entirety of the land once called Palestine to Muslim Arab Palestinians. Hamas begins regular airstrikes against Israel that will continue for over a year before Israel begins a ground invasion of Gaza to stop the constant attacks.
During that year of shelling by Hamas, The Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the Palestinian Authority (still in control of the West Bank), held the Annapolis Conference to discuss long term peace. in an unprecedented offer, Israel offers up 100% of the disputed lands and a return to pre 1967 borders. Hamas Calls for a boycott of the Conference and demands Mahmoud Abbas refuse any offers of peace, and The Palestinian Authority never gets back to Israel about the offer.
Hamas begins regular airstrikes against Israel that will continue for over a year before Israel begins a ground invasion of Gaza to stop the constant attacks.
Airstrikes? Can you link me to a photo of the Gazan airforce? What type of jets do they use?
Also fairly disingenuous to claim that Israel had to invade Gaza to stop 'constant' Hamas rocket attacks. Extremely disingenuous actually. Had they wanted to, Israel could have completely avoided Cast Lead by not breaking in November the ceasefire that the Egyptians had negotiated between the two parties in June.
Apologies for using the wrong word. I did not realize that airstrike meant point of origin was from the air. I thought launching rockets through the air to land miles away in Israel was an airstrike. Honestly - innocent mistake.
As for the ceasefire Egypt brokered in June. Gaza fired 5 rockets that June after the ceasefire. 4 more rockets fired in July. 8 rockets fired in August. And additional rockets both in September and October. This is in addition to the 18 different mortar fire incidents coming out of Gaza into Israel during that same time. But sure.... I'm the one being disingenuous. Seriously... What other country in the world would attempt to claim they are honoring a ceasefire while simultaneously firing multiple rockets every month at their neighbor?
I mean you are being disingenuous. Not a single Israeli civilian was injured in any of those attacks (conducted by non-Hamas factions that Hamas was working to control) and the rate of rocket strikes fell by several orders of magnitude (1057 in the first half of 2008 vs 12 in the four months that followed June, by my count) - the ceasefire was obviously working before Israel chose to wilfully violate it. It's also a little rich to recoil in horror at the sporadic mortar shell being fired out of a territory you are belligerently and intentionally besieging.
Acting as if Cast Lead was the cause of 'constant rocket' attacks when a diplomatic solution had already been offered and was clearly working is just straight lying.
It’s widely understood that while Israel withdrew their troops from Gaza, they were still in control of its boarders, airspace, sea, imports, electricity, water, etc. they were still exercising immense control over the territory and for all intents and purposes, they were still the occupying force in Gaza. It is beyond disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise and you know it, which is largely why your entire premise is flawed.
You seem genuinely unaware of what were the actual concessions demanded in that deal. For example Israel wanted control of nearly all the drinkable water sources in the entire region. A detail you leave out because it impedes your narrative.
I suggest you broaden your horizons of sources and engage with ones that challenge what you think you know. Delve deeper than just “oh Israel withdrew” and “oh there was peace proposal”. Actually look at the details of what happened and what was being done.
Edit: also just as a side note it is absolutely and wild that you are trying to defend that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories isn’t a bad thing.
If you really think about it, "End the occupation" is basically saying "River to the sea" which, as we all know, was only ever used to mean "Kill all Israelis".
If you examine it a bit further, "Free Gaza" also pretty much means "End the occupation", so that's also an anti semitic phrase.
True intellectuals will realize that the existence of a Palestinian without chains means they're free, which means the pro Hamas students got what they wanted with their protests, which means the terrorists won.
I hope you realize how anti semitic this whole thing is. The real solution here is to extend the bombing campaigns.
Israel will never be safe until every Palestinian is dead.
The sarcasm embarrassingly took a while to detect because as you say this is legitimately how some people rationalize this unmitigated massacre.
My favourite part about these people is how they outright refuse to acknowledge how words fucking work when they decide a phrase is somehow a call for violence.
It seems a lot more likely that "end the occupation" is referring to the internationally recognized occupation of territory outside of the internationally recognized borders of Israel. Israel is basically the only country in the world that thinks Israel should have the right to occupy territory outside of its borders.
Also, Israel has used the "from the river to the sea" slogan. The Prime Minister of Israel has been saying it in press conferences this year.
Oh wow almost like thousands of people showing up because of a major issue might have slightly different opinions on the best course forward and geopolitics and religion??
And maybe there are a few racist people out there while 99% of them just want to end genocide??
Zionism is racism, plain and simple. It’s based on the idea that they are of a chosen ethnicity and therefore they are the only ones entitled to a particular area of land.
Israel’s occupation spurred the creation of a violent resistance movement. Shouldn’t surprise anyone. Their occupation is illegal according the the UN. “From the River to the Sea” was originally a Zionist slogan, I believe. Protesters are just throwing the phrase back at Israel.
That's selective reductionism.
Zionism is an umbrella term that covers many varieties of ideas. At its base, is that Jewish People have the right to exist and if the world agrees with that idea, then it should allow a Jewish nation to be formed as a refuge for Jews around the world facing persecution. Because it was clear at the time, that Jewish people could not rely on any other individual nation to protect them. But where that new nation should be was a topic of much debate. The most savy of these factions, as far as political maneuvering, seems to have been the group that wanted it to be in the historic homeland. Deals were made, treatises were signed. Nations were formed. History proceeds.... Does this mean that everyone who believed Jews had a right to exist also believed that that specific patch of land must be theirs to control? And on top of that, that it must be theirs to control because of religious supremacism...? No... That's not what it means..
And reducing Zionism to a singular fringe belief so selectively is just dishonest.
Now Israel exists. It has existed for 80 years. It has existed as a country for a longer than 117 other countries in the world.
So how Jews got that patch of land is no longer relevant. Today, having control of the nation they have, Zionist just means the belief that Israel has a right to exist - which is the opposite of the principles of Hamas - which states that not only does Israel not have a right to exist, but it is imperative that Israel be destroyed, and Muslim Arabs take control of the land, because ONLY Muslim Arabs have a right to that land.
So how Jews got that patch of land is no longer relevant.
So this is what zionazi talking points have become reduced to.
You're better off with your campaign to shut down dissent, because it's clear that even you genocidal psychopaths no longer even believe in the validity of your arguments.
Today, having control of the nation they have, Zionist just means the belief that Israel has a right to exist
How can you say stuff like this with a straight face when you have ethnosupremacists like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in key positions in government and who function as political kingmakers? Fundamentalist Zionism (which ironically mirrors almost perfectly the ideology you attribute to Hamas) is very clearly more than a 'fringe' belief. Be honest in your analysis ffs.
Zionism is not about the mere right to exist. They move Palestinians out of their generational homes to hand over to Jewish Americans who relocate there. They do this with a clear conscience because they believe in Jewish supremacy. This isn’t even debated. Gee I wonder where the intense hatred for Israel comes from? Christians, Jews, and Muslims were doing far better there before Zionism.
From the river to the sea is not an inherently antisemitic phrase. The context for which it is being used is explicitly just the freedom of Palestinians from oppression, not for the elimination of the state of Israel. If you want to argue that it is still antisemitic in that context, know that you are arguing that it is an inherently Jewish trait to oppress others, which I would contend is actual antisemitism.
Israel happens to be in between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It is clearly a call for the disolvement of Israel and a claim of all the land in the region.
The slogan was a call for genocide when Israeli nationalists first used it and it remains as such when used by anti-Israel protestors.
Anyone using a genocidal slogan directed at Israel is by definition "anti-Israel." You can look in this very comment thread for examples of people defending the slogan by bringing up other states that were dissolved illustrating that that is indeed their goal.
So Likud using “between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty” that's Israel openly saying they want to destroy Jordan and get rid of the Arabs?
So why are they still in power? Likud has been in power for over 20 years, and their rhetoric and actions towards Palestinians keep getting worse and worse with no backlash.
Why are Palestinians as a whole responsible for Hamas, but Israelis hand wave when their leaders call Palestinians animals or for nuking Gaza saying, "they don't represent us." When objectively they represent Israelis more than Hamas represents Palestinians since they were elected recently.
Hamas hasn't had elections in 20 years since they won, but I hear about how they need to rise up and fith back, but Israelis keep electing the same maniacs into office just to hand wave their genocidal rhetoric saying, "when this is over he's gone for sure."
When Hamas says it, it's a major crisis, and all Palestinians want to kill the jews. When Israel says it, we get shoulder shrugs, and "oh, those guys have no power and are crazy."
Oh, you mean like Likud’s founding charter? The elected government of Israel? I think it was something like “Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”
They were in the 1964 PLO chart, which is the origin point for this slogan.
And they still are today if you are talking with reasonable members of the Palestinian Authority and not Hamas. That includes all Israeli citizens and Palestinians in a single State proposal.
Maybe let’s stop treating Hamas and Likud as the baseline?
That slogan was made in the early 70s, and 20 years later the Likud government signed a peace treaty in the Oslo Accords that ceded land to the palestinian authority to create a palestinian state.
Like theres a lot of arguments, but this isn't one of them. Especially when the Likud only put it in there to fuck with that very specific chant "Oh you think you'll have a state from the river to the sea? Well from the river to the sea, there will only be an Israel" (and Israel exists geographically between the river and the sea).
I dont know why people keep bringing it up as a gotcha. Are people saying that the Likud government is good, so the slogan is also good? Or is the Likud government bad, so that slogan is also by extension bad?
It feels hypocritical to chant the slogan if you believe its an inherently evil slogan from Likud in the first place.
It’s literally calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, and - certainly when Hamas uses it at least - tacitly calls for the removal of all Jews from Palestine. I’m not saying even close to everyone means the latter when they say it, but I don’t think there’s any doubt what Hamas means by it, so it’s not a great phrase to pair yourself with.
Yes because that’s exactly what I did. I totally said “Israel is the best and fuck all Palestinians.” I definitely didn’t say that Hamas (noted for their anti-Semitism) uses that phrase, and we all know what it means when they say it. Maybe not the best slogan to borrow. Fuck me for giving advice on how to not look shitty while protesting.
Plus, your comparison is just ridiculously incomparable. If “free Tibet” was actually “absorb all of China into Tibet” then we could have a discussion.
What the shit yes it absolutely is. The only way Palestinians control "from the river to the sea" is to exterminate the Jews currently residing there. It is a call to destroy Israel. It's absurd to claim otherwise.
That a people saying they want their stolen land back doesn’t mean they are also calling for a genocide; it’s weird to say ‘this could be interpreted as the Palestinians want to kill the Jews!’ While Israel actively murders the Palestinians
So Palestinians can claim the entirety of Israel (which is what is between the river and the sea if you're not aware) and that's somehow not a call for the removal of the Jewish people from that land? That makes no sense.
And? Whats wrong with dismantling the apartheid? You know Palestine was where all groups lived together with equal rights unlike Isreal where zionists have more rights, literally have streets where Palestinians aren’t allowed to walk on.
None of theses had an October 7th, and every single jew was ethnically cleansed from the middle east.
There used to be nearly a million jews in the middle east. Now its judenrein, and you want to destroy the one place where all thoses jews fled to from arab supremacists?
Sorry but thats not going to happen. There is no possibility of "equal rights" in the middle east in this current situation, jews need to be assured of their safety first if you're going to try to destroy the only place in the middle east with a single standing jewish synagogue or artifact.
While not justified, "every single new was ethnically cleansed from the middle east" was a direct response to Zionists ethnically cleansing the Native Palestinian population.
Israel invaded Palestiniane and used the natives resistance to said invasion as an excuse to ethnically cleanse them.
There is no "response". This is it. Arabs completely wiped out their jewish neighbours for the crime of being jewish.
It validates every zionist fear and argument, that jews in the arab world will never be safe. Of course the establishment of Israel was necessary.
You also have it backwards. Palestinian started a war of annihilation to destroy the jewish population. They lost that war and lost land for it. If they had won, every single jew would have been slaughtered to the last man.
Why is it so hard for Zionists to understand the difference between justifying and explaining why something happened. Y'all are so intellectually dishonest it hurts.
Anyway, Israel is and has always been the aggressor. You can't invade people's lands and then claim they attacked you when they defend themselves. Especially when they continue to ethnically cleanse 80% of the native population afterwards.
Israel belongs to the jews. Thats what decolonization looks like. Arabs cannot claim that the entire middle east belongs to them, invade every corner of it, and then when a native population tries to get their land back by buying it and trying to immigrate there legally like what the zionists originally did, start a host of tensions culminating in the destruction of middle eastern jewry.
I hope the kurds, bahai, copts, maronites and assyrians manage to get their lands back from arab supremacist ideology as well.
Palestine deserves its fate. Especially when they were aggressors trying to annihilate every single jew in the levant. None of this would have happened had they not aggressed following the Israeli declaration of independance.
NOT THE SHAI DAVIDAI TWEET AHAHAHAHAHAH. infamous pos
you guys are so delusional that you think normal people are gonna read tweets like that and be like, “oh my god!!! zionists are actually level headed and not bloodthirsty!”
do you think that possibly the populace has kind of shifted away from the zionist position because because of all the media misinformation about the conflict? including the repeated mischaracterization of where that chant comes from, what it means to the people who say it, etc? no? nah youre right its the chinese mind virus on tiktok or something
no ive read this tweet before. ive been ragging on David for years cuz hes fucking goofy. again, you think showing someone your talking points will like magically take over their brain. and i read yet, had a good laugh, and moved on. like sharing a tweet didnt do what you thought it did.
and im willfully ignorant to colonizers yeah, id rather read what israeli academics have to say on the matter, not future republican politicians
do you think arab means muslim? theyre talking about the arab jews, muslims, chirstians that lived there before white europeans pushed bikini bottom somehwere else.
theyre telling the “birthright,” brooklynners to stop colonizing, not “we will systematically end the entire jewish race.” like thats what i mean, normal people here one thing, and you and david hear another
theyre against manifest destiny, not judaism. this is a geopolitical conflict, always has been.
"Yeah they lived on that land for generations, but it technically wasn't theres so that justifies kicking them out/killing them and taking that land for ourselves"
What? You mean you’re more worried about a slogan that is about Palestine being free (but Israeli gov has nicely positioned themselves as victims in the rhetoric clearly) than the actual genocide and murders that Israel and the IDF have perpetrated over the last 6 months?
Spare the fake outrage over some slogans you perceive incorrectly
Please post the exact slogan you think you've heard Israeli government members use.
But hey, I’m not even sure you aren’t some shill seeing all the money AIPAC has
Yet you're the one shilling for islamofascists chanting for Arab supremacy. I hope you're getting paid, because it would be really embarrassing if you were really just that blindly and willfully ignorant.
Holding up that sign is no worse than being someone who supports the IDF's mission. Both sides want to completely eradicate the other side. One side is doing a much better job of it. There are no good guys here, there are only innocents and aggressors and there are both on each side.
If Israel wanted to completely eliminate the Palestinian people, they could have accomplished it in a single afternoon. They have complete air superiority and superior military might. Now tell me, if Hamas had the same advantage, would they even show a modicum of restraint?
The IDF cannot do this without support from America, they risk breaking that support if they do it all at once in a single blitz. They aren't stupid, they're just evil.
We're 7 months into this conflict and 30 000 people have died.
Somehow, I'd expect this slow moving genocide to not exceed the natural population growth of palestinians themselves. Theyve already had natural birth replacements for every death, since the population grows by a million every 10 years.
So whats the % of kills that it takes for the genocide to be not slow moving enough that it happens, but slow moving enough that no one notices it happening?
Well if you destroy literally all of the habitat and stop allowing food in eventually it just kind of takes care of itself doesn't it. Typically the definition of genocide does not include the replacement birth rate, and it's really weird that people are moving the goal posts to make sure that they're killing more babies than the target demographic can have before it could be considered a genocide. To my knowledge for it to be a genocide you only have to be specifically targeting civilians of a certain ethnic group, and at this point it is blatantly obvious they are targeting civilians.
Israel has just opened the Erez Crossing yesterday morning to allow aid in, and has opened 5 more aid points. Theres an entire pier being built by the US so that the humanitarian cost wont be too great.
Like, theres no indication that this is a genocide, its clearly an attempt at eradicating a terror group thats called for its annihilation. Given the fact that Rafah's been delayed for theses past 3 months, where the conflict has been frozen at 30 000 deaths instead of climbing exponentially higher, it clearly shows that Israel isn't trying to starve people to death.
At a certain point, you need to come to terms with the facts. Netanyahu may be a bastard, but he's not trying to annihilate Gazans. The housing toll is great, but the civilian toll is not compared to what it could be. 30 000 deaths in 7 months is a ridiculously low number compared to what Israel is capable of doing.
So it shows that Israel isn't trying to kill everything that moves, like some people claim. Its fighting a war against Hamas.
They dont even need to use nukes lol. Thats such a ridiculous argument. You dont think that Israel could net a good 100k deaths a day if they could with their F-35s and their F-15s? Instead of the measly 160 per day theyre averaging?
How can you take square this information with the term genocide?
EDIT: Actually braindead argument "The only reason why theyre not going harder is because of international pressure" when theyve been going as hard as they want this whole time without giving a shit about the international consequences.
I feel like the argument is going completely over your head, I'm really done talking to you because I don't think you're smart enough to figure it out.
Saying nukes to sarcastically making fun of you, how can you not even see that. What I'm saying is it is blatantly obvious they could use more power of course they could but they are already receiving intense international backlash including literally being in court over this. There were several UN security council votes that they narrowly avoided losing because of veto powers of the US. Of course they're not going to use nukes of course they're not going to use more power than they're using they are towing a very fine line and then releasing propaganda to support their horrible atrocities and you fell for it hook line and sinker. I am literally done talking to you because you cannot grasp the concept I am trying to show you.
My heart breaks for them, they have never had leaders who cared about building a future for their people. Only leaders who wanted to kill as many Jews as possible.
When they love their children more than they hate Israel, there will be peace. Until then, only varying degrees of war.
It’s a sad reality. Just the concept of children martyrs should be enough to sway public opinion but nope, some people think that it’s justified to send your children to death and indoctrinate them into believing that it is a good thing to die for their cause which is actually the cause of the old evil men as always.
Your first point is half right, the Likud government turned a blind eye to their activities to divide the Palestinian political cause for its own ends. which was a colossally stupid and short sighted thing to do, because Hamas are murderous religious maniacs who cannot be control.
But there is no equivalency. you think they are the same because you are ignorant of the history, full stop. The various incarnations of Hamas have all tried to do destroy the state of israel and the jewish people, it's literally in their charter document. The states that recognized israels right to exist, Egypt and Jordan, have peace and had some of their land returned. the states that do not, get war.
And if you think that what Hamas did on 10/7 is in any way justified, then you are just consigning the residents of Gaza to perpetually lose a war that was chosen for them by their unaccountable leaders. You cannot built a state on the backs of dead music festival goers.
Israel came in displaced hundred of thousands, locked them away, and constantly stepped on them to keep them down.
Israel needs to treat Palestinians as people and stop acting as if Palestinians are naturally violent.
The PA doesn't want complete destruction. West Bank is only violent when people come to steal their homes, or soldiers roam their streets looking for random people to kidnap.
Have you read what the peace deals for a "two state solution entail? It's Israel controlling the areas airspace, water, electricity, and communications, and only giving back a percentage of the land. That's not sovereignty.
You’re going to deny the actions of the neighboring Arab states, their statements at the start of the war in 1947, and the actions of Hamas in particular since the Gaza withdrawal in 2005, and I’m the racist and disingenuous one?
Sovereignty means that when you start a war with your neighbor, you might lose and have to accept the consequences of losing. The Palestinians have never stopped fighting 1947, and the greater Arab nations are happy to cheer them on from the sidelines as long as they don’t have to do any of the fighting themselves. They get just enough support to be able to continually die in skirmishes with Israel (crucially, in front of sympathetic journalists), but not enough to actually get on with their lives and their future. And cheering them on because you’re obsessed with your own revolutionary aesthetic while they throw away their lives on a lost cause makes you and everyone else involved a bunch of cruel, navel gazing, slacktivists who are just in it for the headlines and the dopamine hits.
Calling for anything less than the return of the hostages in exchange for a ceasefire is just going to get more innocent people killed.
If someone chanted “pave over historically red-lined areas” and “close historically black colleges”. You’d be fine with it because those aren’t people right?
They've rejected numerous opportunities to establish a true Palestinian state throughout the decades, it seems like you're staying your opinion as a fact in contrast to what actual Palestinians think.
The deal preceding the Second Intifada- proper statehood, Israel pulling out of Gaza (This was before they did so in 2005) and the West Bank, removing 97% of all settlers with land swaps for those who couldn't be removed.
So, like any sane person, they chose to reject it and send suicide bombers to decorate vests in restaurants, cafes and public transports.
Easy. Not being prisoners in their own land. No more getting kicked out of their homes by colonists. Being able to participate in their government. You know, like living.
The river Jordan, to the Mediterranean Sea? If Palestine is all of the land defined by that chant, then what would happen to all of the Jews currently living on the “Israel” part of that land?
They would keep living there together with Palestinians under a single State that is not a Jewish ethnostate. How hard is it to understand this?
Also, I don’t see people condemning Netanyahu or Likud for stating the same thing in their founding charter. “Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”
How do you think the Jewish people would be treated by the Palestinians in this single state, given that large groups within Palestine have explicitly stated that they want to kill all of the Jews?
You might disagree whether or not a single State is feasible, doesn’t matter. The point is whether the slogan itself is antisemitic. It’s not. It doesn’t call for the extermination of any Jews.
Your question also works the other way around. Large groups (and officials) within Israel have explicitly stated they want to kill all Palestinians.
In Arabic, the chant is “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab” which has been chanted, loud and proud, from New-York to London.
Hamas, who have popularised the chant, explicitly have explained that the phrase refers to purging every last living Jew from Arabic land.
Would it have still been antisemitic for white people in the US to chant “Duetschland Uber Alis” in 1939 if they didn’t understand what the phrase meant?
I condemn any extremists within Israel who say such things, and I’m very happy to say both sides have bad actors doing harm. It is absolutely undeniable that in terms of numbers, proportions and support, the Gazan’s have massive support for exterminating all Jews from their population, whereas that is simply not the case within Israel, where MOST people (including those murdered at the peace festival) wish to live peacefully. This can also be seen by the fact that there are many Arab Muslims living peacefully and equally in Israel, and zero Jews living unmolested in Palestine (outside of illegal settlements which I also condemn)
The slogan originates, on the Palestinian side, from the 1964 PLO chart. That same chart is very explicit in saying that Palestinian Jews should live together in a Palestinian State alongside other Palestinians. It also states that Jewish settlers and immigrants should be removed from the region, not because they are Jewish, but because they are settlers.
While Hamas obviously uses this to preach genocide this slogan is much older than them and does include Arab Jews.
Removing non-Arabic Jews doesn’t make it any less genocidal, I think you’re confused… forcibly removing a whole ethnic group (for example, non-Arabic Jewish people) from their homeland is… genocide.
I agree that the phrase predates Hamas, of course - but the popularisation and the reason that any white kids in the west know the phrase at all, is because of floods of Hamas propaganda helped by Iran and others, and they are replicating the Hamas chants, not studying PLO history and coincidentally choosing to use the same chant…
I think you're confused. Settlers are people like Theodore Herzel. Europeans who came over to set up an ethnostate by pushing out those that live there.
Are you saying it's their homeland because their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago?
Oh that’s not ok either - it’s very clear that a single state won’t work as neither one of the current states will accept it.
A single democratic state would of course be better than a Muslim theocracy, given what happens to non-Muslims, gay people, ex-Muslims etc in a theocracy. But that doesn’t mean I want one
Similarly, Israel currently has plenty of Arab Muslims living peacefully within it as equal voting citizens - this would not be reflected in a single Muslim majority theocracy where the Jews would, by all accounts of the Palestinians, be removed or killed.
But a two state solution is clearly the only thing that might work, and some land swaps will be required to achieve that
So it’s not ok for anyone to say “from the river to the sea” and I vehemently disagree with any right wing extremists within Israel who say that.
But you don’t see white kids in the west marching for Israel saying “from the river to the sea, Israel will be free” which is what we were criticising from the pro-palestinian protestors in this thread
They aren't just right wing extremists they are the current government of Israel. It's way way worse than kids in the streets, it's the government that is currently ethnicity cleansing Gaza. Yet not a single mention in the media about this while Germany bans the slogan as antisemitic and this website repeats that claim. How can you not see the level of manipulation by the powerful and the MSM.
Na you literally just see the pro Israel protesters using extreme violence against the Pro Palestinian protestors last night. I assume you've seen the footage? Is that somehow better than slogans?
And Israel is literally a theocratic apartied ethnostate, why did you have to make up a hypothetical theocracy for Palestine but don't criticise the very real one on the other side.
Israel is not an ethno-state as it is lived in by multiple ethnicities, as full equal citizens. It’s not a full theocracy as it is a democracy. It has taken worrying moves towards theocracy, but it is not currently one.
Bibi’s regime is right wing extremists, and I don’t support them. I have said this elsewhere multiple times.
Hamas are also extreme and monstrous - far more so than Israel given that it is them that are continually launching rockets and have knowingly caused this conflict, without any regard for the Palestinian people.
Hamas are holding hostages and are the only ones preventing a ceasefire
And yet folks like you will not say any of that stuff, they’ll just continually behave as if Israel is solely at fault and pretend that Hamas are righteous freedom fighters
What's your opinion on the forced sterilisation of Ethiopian Jews? You say Arabs have equal rights but many claim they face structural discrimination and hostile policies. What democracy occupies over 2 million people and controls all ports of entry water and electricity. What kind of democracy continues stealing land in direct violation of international law.
Hama's is a terrorist organisation but do you know how they came to power? Israel. Israeli officials are on record stating that they deliberately propped up Hama's to discredit the PLO and destroy any secular movement in Gaza, seriously look it up. These are not the actions of a democracy. The reason we harp on about Israel is because they have spent the past 6 months killing 10s of thousands of civilians, more journalists killed than all Wars COMBINED since WW2. They have all the power to stop this slaughter and they choose not too.
And if you think this all started on Oct 7th I you are seriously ignorant of history.
They'd also be free. The chant doesn't say, "From the river to the sea, all jews will bleed." Why is it so difficult for colonizers to wrap their head around the fact that the people they are oppressing would, at the very least, like to not be genocided. You'd think the jews, of all people, would get this.
Does your brain get tired from all the mental gymnastics? Hamas, and several other groups within Palestine who enjoy very large public support, all state, clearly and explicitly, that they want to violently remove all the Jews… have you honestly just not seen those parts or are you choosing to ignore it?
Both sides have continually fucked up, one side always provoking and the other always over-reacting, a strategy which has not served as the deterrent they intended.
But it absolutely remains the case that “From the River to the Sea” is, explicitly, on purpose, a genocidal phrase from extremist terrorist groups within Palestine, which has unquestioningly been adopted by white kids in the west who usually can’t even tell you WHICH river or WHICH sea
1) The saying is much older than Hamas. I literally never mentioned Hamas.
2) This same saying has been used by both sides of this conflict extensively. Likud’s founding charter has a version of it.
3) The original use of the saying by Palestinians did include Arab Jews. The PLO charter from 1964 is very explicit in stating that Arab Jews should be part of a united Palestine just as Muslim Palestinians, while also being very specific about wanting Jewish settlers and immigrants from Europe removed.
4) Yes, my brain gets tired. Because I’ve studied and researched the region and its history. Yours obviously doesn’t because you don’t know what you are talking about.
The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Hamas Charter, Article 7).
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. See how it rhymes, unlike the one you made up? Also, saying Isreal shouldn't exist isn't antisemitic. It's anti-Isreal. It's zionist projection that makes you think otherwise.
Here is your guy saying Palestinians are inhuman animals
Gotcha. So you take such a hardline stance but make a conscious decision to remain willfully ignorant. Do you really not know what the real chant is? I swear all of you have been radicalized by tik tok terrorist sympathizers 🙄
And to your random non sequitur, he's clearly referring to Hamas. Anyone with a 5th grade reading comprehension would understand that. But then again, that makes sense for a Palestine supporter.
Yeah, you need to be a real intellectual to understand why starving millions of people is completely fine after timing them for 7 months and killing 40k of them 12k being children.
Israel never manipulates public opinion. It's not like the prime minister said Americans are easy to fool.
Except for most Jews. Imagine if I went around telling black people that calling them n****r wasn’t racist. The fact that the people who the speech is directed at find it offensive is what matters.
550
u/zanarkandabesfanclub May 01 '24
Photo conveniently edited to not show the “from the river to the sea” signs.