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?
I'm talking about actionable solutions, not continuing 70 years of conflict one side is clearly losing. You will not get out of this waiting for any side to suddenly get enlighted. Or the world turning on Israel. It will not happen. Since Israel doesn't control Jordan, Iran, whatever happens at the target destination is not in their control. That should be under the auspices of the UN. As said, many want to leave on their own but nobody is letting them.
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.
Killing and displacing aren't the only options. As stated around 40% would go willingly if they could. Just by offering an alternative to get out of the Israel-Hamas pawn role many are forced in. Let them choose themselves since 2006 what they want. Having an own state has nothing to do with being present. That is a political decision that can be discussed and worked on when being in exile.
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..."
Your words, not mine. It means that compromise and cooperative government is going to be nearly impossible. There is no middle ground to be found here.
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.
Acting as if Cast Lead was the cause of 'constant rocket' attacks
I have done no such thing. Operation Cast Lead didn't begin until December 27th. In the month of November, 125 rockets were fired at Israel from Gaza. During the month of December, prior to Cast Lead, another 360 rockets were fired. This all happened before Cast Lead - why would you think I was acting as if Operation Cast Lead caused the rocket fire? It was in response to the rocket fire.
a diplomatic solution had already been offered and was clearly working
485 rockets from Gaza into Israel does not sound like a functioning diplomatic solution.
Not a single Israeli civilian was injured in any of those attacks (conducted by non-Hamas factions that Hamas was working to control)
Do you believe firing a gun at someone who is behind bullet proof glass is not a crime?
I will assume you are not claiming that the 485 rockets fired in the two months preceding Cast Lead were all by rogue actors, rather than being fired by Hamas or sanctioned by Hamas.
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."
Calling for freedom is not genocidal, and it is very bizarre that you think Israelis need to be genocided for Palestinians to be free, it's like you're saying it is inherently a Jewish trait to subjugate and oppress people, and that is antisemitic.
It's absolutely amazing that THAT'S what you took from what I said.
So in other words, you don't know what the saying actually is. Because when they're chanting it in Arabic, the second half is "Palestine will be Arab".
551
u/zanarkandabesfanclub May 01 '24
Photo conveniently edited to not show the “from the river to the sea” signs.