Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Admiral Yi]

Though there absolutely are those using the phrase who mean it in a sense of "Genocide the Jews, Palestine-State Uber Alles", hence the controversy and calls for others to find a less vague phrase, the bulk of those using it don't carry any connotations of a one or two state solution. They just want Palestine (the entire region) to be free.

Please tell me how you know this.

[viper37]

Great thing about a forum is you can easily go back and look.

I give up.  I surrender.

No if you were surrendering, you would apologise for making shit up.

I didn't.  I still don't understand.

[Josquius]

Perhaps they mean free from Hamas, something I think we could all get behind.

That's an obvious part of the equation yes.
Though Israel's role in that is what many would emphasise, which isn't completely invalid.

Though there absolutely are those using the phrase who mean it in a sense of "Genocide the Jews, Palestine-State Uber Alles", hence the controversy and calls for others to find a less vague phrase, the bulk of those using it don't carry any connotations of a one or two state solution. They just want Palestine (the entire region) to be free.

Please tell me how you know this.

A mixture of common sense, actually speaking to people, and what pro-Palestinian writers of varied backgrounds say.

Equally how do you know the opposite is true and that all those hundreds of thousands at pro Palestine marches want Israel wiped out?

[Admiral Yi]

A mixture of common sense, actually speaking to people, and what pro-Palestinian writers of varied backgrounds say.

You linked some Palestinian American professor who discussed the historical roots of the slogan.  Is that what you're referring to?  He was not talking about the meaning chanters are assigning to the slogan.

If you've actually spoken to people who chanted this at protests and they told you they are hoping for a multi-ethnic democratic state that's great.  Can't argue with that. 

There's nothing common sense about your assertion.

Equally how do you know the opposite is true and that all those hundreds of thousands at pro Palestine marches want Israel wiped out?

I don't know the opposite is true.  It's an inference.  The 1948 meaning of from the river to the sea was not something covered much in the media prior to the protests so it's surprising that a couple hundred thousand protestors would be familiar with it.  What does seem more probable to me is that they would have picked up the slogan from it's usage by Hamas.  And the natural inference to me is that  slogan adopted from Hamas would assign a Hamas meaning to it.  And I don't think the Hamas charter (or any of their public announcements) make any mention of a unified multi-ethnic democratic state.

That meaning of the slogan also seems much more congruous with the other protest slogans like genocide and ethnic cleansing.  I have a very hard time imagining a protest leader shouting "stop the genocide!" into a megaphone and then "let's form a unified multi-ethnic state" right after.

[Josquius]

You linked some Palestinian American professor who discussed the historical roots of the slogan.  Is that what you're referring to?  He was not talking about the meaning chanters are assigning to the slogan.

If you've actually spoken to people who chanted this at protests and they told you they are hoping for a multi-ethnic democratic state that's great.  Can't argue with that. 

There's nothing common sense about your assertion.

Its not common sense to come to the conclusion that when hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are generally pretty progressive, are using a vague slogan about freedom in part of the world where (the shit bags of) one people are currently actively oppressing another, they probably don't mean "Genocide everyone from the group doing the bombing"?

Even if we imagine there's absolutely zero evidence either way its usually common sense not to assume the worst possible interpretation. Combined with all else...yeah. Most people at Pro Palestinian marches don't want to wipe out the Israelis. Its an incredibly low bar we're talking about here so its mad to assume the majority of them don't even meet that.

I don't know the opposite is true.  It's an inference.  The 1948 meaning of from the river to the sea was not something covered much in the media prior to the protests so it's surprising that a couple hundred thousand protestors would be familiar with it.  What does seem more probable to me is that they would have picked up the slogan from it's usage by Hamas.  And the natural inference to me is that  slogan adopted from Hamas would assign a Hamas meaning to it.  And I don't think the Hamas charter (or any of their public announcements) make any mention of a unified multi-ethnic democratic state.

That meaning of the slogan also seems much more congruous with the other protest slogans like genocide and ethnic cleansing.  I have a very hard time imagining a protest leader shouting "stop the genocide!" into a megaphone and then "let's form a unified multi-ethnic state" right after.

You say they've picked it up from Hamas... how and when?

I found this an interesting writeup (assuming its reliable, anything conflicting then do share)
https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/on-the-history-meaning-and-power-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/

It certainly does make sense that Hamas et al would usually be using Arabic slogans and that this one would have its origin in more genocidal earlier slogans of Jews and Arabs. But it says nothing about its current usage.

As said last time this discussion came up, that some Jews feel threatened by it I can understand and do feel that a less vague slogan should be found- if it risks a break of solidarity with more extreme groups then thats a good thing- but I don't accept for a second that everyone saying it takes the extremist line.

[garbon]

Great thing about a forum is you can easily go back and look.

I give up.  I surrender.

No if you were surrendering, you would apologise for making shit up.

I didn't.  I still don't understand.

You wrote:

But you won't ascribe them to entire effort to fight back against climate change, where as here, you seem to equate this act of vandalism to the entire Palestinian cause.

I never said anything like that. If you look at what I wrote, I said that I think those sorts of actions distract from the Palestinian cause + that action bears a resemblence to those chanting for Palestine to be free.

Only operating in a very dishonest fashion could you take that to mean I think all Palestinians are vandals and as you wrote: 'Destroying a painting of one of Israel's founders = All Palestinians are antisemites.'

You made shit up. I don't understand why but would ask you to respectfully not do so.

[Razgovory]

An older Palestinian slogan recorded in 1920 is perhaps more appropriate.  "Palestine is ours, the Jews are our dogs".

[grumbler]

Eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine

Its quite the mess with the Fatah/Hamas split and continued Israeli oppression, but the two state solution isn't out of nowhere.

I looked at the List of UN Member States and it doesn't list Palestine.  A wiki article that notes the aspiration of Palestinians to establish a state is not proof that such a state actually exists.  The two state solution isn't out of nowhere.

I've heard some frame it as River=West Bank and Sea= Gaza.
Its from the river to the sea, no mention of all inclusive. Though generally the rights of Palestinians in Israel are also included in the call- and then there's the big problem of illegally seized lands today Jewish held within Israel and compensation.

If Palestinians were saying "Near the river and near the sea" your interpretation that they are just referring to Gaza and the West bank would be reasonable.  I don't think that you can posit that interpretation unless you ignore the meaning of "from... to..."

Israeli Palestinians have the same rights as other Israelis.  There's the big problem of illegally seized Jewish-held lands today within Israel and compensation.

No. This would be the separate, historically popular from the river to the sea Palestine is Arab/Jewish.

Can you restate this in a fashion that makes a clear argument?

And no. Of course its not a call for the 'destruction' of Israel. Not in the slightest.

I disagree, and a look at the map would show you how untenable your position is.

You do get some on the Israeli right who'd argue the sort of changes freedom would entail would amount to the destruction of Israel (equal rights for Arabs? Madness) but from my point of view and the point of view of many of the people far more invested in this than me...not really.
Freedom and justice doesn't have to come at the expense of others.

This is mere argumentum ad numerum.  That you and some others believe something is not evidence of anything.  As gfar as "equal rights for Arabs? Madness" goes, Arabs in Israel do have equal rights, so it clearly is not madness at all.  Freedom and justice doesn't have to come at the expense of others.

I would say the ideal dream-world situation is that 'Israel' is 'destroyed' as in there is no nation called Israel, merely one united region-wide multi-ethnic Palestine. But realistically you'd be looking at a confederation structure at best and getting rid of the name Israel is such a non-issue it isn't worth bothering with.

This is why the "from the river to the sea" slogan is so moronic and counter-productive.  It's completely unrealistic and serves only to antagonize people who might otherwise be allies.

(snip of the vague generalizations)

(now lets watch the selective quoting and spinning to come from some here)

I am looking forward to it.  Commence when ready.

[HVC]

An older Palestinian slogan recorded in 1920 is perhaps more appropriate.  "Palestine is ours, the Jews are our dogs".

All else being ignored they have top notch slogan writers.

[Josquius]

I looked at the List of UN Member States and it doesn't list Palestine.  A wiki article that notes the aspiration of Palestinians to establish a state is not proof that such a state actually exists.  The two state solution isn't out of nowhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine

Argue if you like that its not a proper state as its not on the UN list (poor Taiwan) but it clearly isn't a complete non-state.
A 'something' named Palestine certainly exists distinct from the region of Palestine.

If Palestinians were saying "Near the river and near the sea" your interpretation that they are just referring to Gaza and the West bank would be reasonable.  I don't think that you can posit that interpretation unless you ignore the meaning of "from... to..."

If a business was to say "We have branches from New York to LA!" does this mean it must be an unbroken chain of branches all the way across the country?

As said this is just one definition I've seen. Its deliberately vague and could mean any number of things. This is perhaps the 'lightest', the other extreme is then the all inclusive every single inch is Arab.

Israeli Palestinians have the same rights as other Israelis. 

Officially.
I've seen a fair bit of reporting that the reality is quite iffy.

No. This would be the separate, historically popular from the river to the sea Palestine is Arab/Jewish.

Can you restate this in a fashion that makes a clear argument?

Historically "From the river to the sea is Jewish/Arab" were popular expressions.
You can clearly see the difference here to the much vaguer saying that the region should be free.

I disagree, and a look at the map would show you how untenable your position is.

This makes no sense.

This is mere argumentum ad numerum.  That you and some others believe something is not evidence of anything.  As gfar as "equal rights for Arabs? Madness" goes, Arabs in Israel do have equal rights, so it clearly is not madness at all.  Freedom and justice doesn't have to come at the expense of others.

Yeah, you were doing so well but there's the old Grumbler. This isn't debate club. Its a discussion.

So you're saying that people believing something is no evidence that people believe something?
That I think and say we shouldn't be killing Israelis or Palestinians in no way shows that I think we shouldn't be killing Israelis or Palestinians?

This is why the "from the river to the sea" slogan is so moronic and counter-productive.  It's completely unrealistic and serves only to antagonize people who might otherwise be allies.

That's going into another topic completely however.
I agree given the controversy built around from the river to the sea that the genuine pro peace groups should be looking for something else that specifically excludes the extremists.
But this says nothing about the issue that most pro-Palestine folks aren't in favour of tossing the Israelis into the sea.
There are lots of reasons why a disorganised big tent protest movement might be slow to move on from a catchphrase that has really taken off.
That they're all genocidal nut bags...is certainly not completely impossible...People do lie.
But it really doesn't add up.

[crazy canuck]

I've certainly heard from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.
Is that all that is being referred to with chants (seemed to imply more than one) calling for a Palestine ruled one state solution? (it doesn't)
As that seems very off.

The phrase "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" certainly does imply a one-state solution.  You cannot get a Palestine "from the river to the sea" without eliminating the non-Palestine between the river and the sea.  A look at a map of the Middle East will demonstrate that for you.

The trouble is the multiple meanings of the word Palestine.

Palestine is a 'country'- the West Bank and Gaza, the areas 'ran' by the Palestinians.
Palestine is also a region- Israel and Palestine are both in the historic region of Palestine.
Though there absolutely are those using the phrase who mean it in a sense of "Genocide the Jews, Palestine-State Uber Alles", hence the controversy and calls for others to find a less vague phrase, the bulk of those using it don't carry any connotations of a one or two state solution. They just want Palestine (the entire region) to be free.

'Free' too is awfully vague in wording- North Korea is 'Free' according to the sense of the word used by the genocidal nuts and those on the right who want to smear all pro-Palestinian folks as the same.
Its absolutely not a free country according to many other definitions.

Such lawyering is beneath you. The origin of the chant is obvious and the best defense people chanting it can have is stupidity and ignorance of the larger context of what they think they are protesting about.

That is not lawyering, unless you count the kind of lawyering Trump is getting these days.   


Jos, the difficulty with your position is that, as Grumbler first pointed out to you, the phrase "from the river to the sea, Palestinians will be free" is used by many who chant it, including supporters of Hamas, to mean the eradication of the state of Israel.  It can also mean free in the sense of equal rights but while many academics have pointed out this meaning, they largely also concede that the first meaning is often the one meant by those who chant it.

I also agree with whoever made the point that it is a slogan that does the Palestinian movement more harm than good.  That point has also been made by a number of scholars both Jewish and Islamic.

[Razgovory]

What people think when they say "From the river to the sea"

What Josquius thinks it means 

[grumbler]

If the bumper-sticker-thinkers had thought for two seconds about their bumper-sticker slogan, they'd have made it read "Palestinians will be free" to obviate the inevitable conclusion of bystanders that they are referring to a Palestine that stretches from the river to the sea.  Only their most slavish apologists even attempt to justify the phrase as using something other than the usual definitions of "river," "sea" and "Palestine."

[Valmy]

It is based on the lie that the Israelis are colonists and settlers. Well I guess all those Jews fleeing ethnic cleansing in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Turkey...and others are just like colonists in the Americas? That is fucking convenient for Arab nationalists isn't it? Ethnic cleansing when done by Muslims? Fine. Get those dirty Jews. They are all colonists who don't deserve to live there anyway. Hell what about all the Palestinian Jews who suffered brutal pogroms before they joined the Zionists for protection? You don't hear that a significant number of Palestinians were Jewish at one point do you? No. All Palestinians are Muslims and Christians just coincidentally....

And believe me the Palestinians and the others know this history. They know that these are the people they drove from their homes. They just hope their supporters in the West and elsewhere are too stupid and ignorant to do their basic homework or don't care and just hate Jews as well.

So, you know, if you want me to think you are not some nationalists far right nutcase, at least acknowledge who at least half the Israelis are first.

That doesn't excuse the Israelis own bullshit and the actions of the Netanyahu government of course, but it amazes me how so many are eager to be chumps and tools.

[viper37]

that action bears a resemblence to those chanting for Palestine to be free.

This is the part I misunderstood, obviously.  I thought it was sarcasm, as this chant is usually ascribe to be antisemitism and call for the extermination of all Israelis.

I am sorry.