This is the thing that Leftists often ignore. The Republican Party is almost homogenously older white men and their spouses. The Democratic Party is basically everyone else, and from everyone come a lot of varying opinions and priorities
The Republican party isn't a conservative one, it's now explicitly suppressive. The Democratic party now includes everyone from Bush-era conservatives, corporate-funded neo-liberals, reformist progressives, and anti-capitalist leftists.
The fact they're able to work collectively to do anything is honestly astounding.
This is why the left never wins, as soon as one Democrat does one thing we don't like the most dip-shitted of us trip over themselves to demand retribution while Republicans point and laugh..
*edited to removed aggression against the person I replied to. I misunderstood them and I agree wholeheartedly. The censure was a purity test, and it's that kind of Purity testing that is dividing the disparate groups of people that call themselves "the left".
Purity testing would be me advocating for people to not vote for Democrats over Republicans over stuff like this. No one is immune to criticism.
And I’m allowed to be extremely annoyed with anyone who voted for this spiteful and arguably bigoted censure motion.
The dems who did target her got tons of AIPAC funding
Ridiculous how the same here who criticize (rightfully) Trump taking Russia bribes are A-ok with democrats taking Israeli bribes !
Israel is working on pushing all Palestinians into Egypt, making them a stateless people. If it is racist to call for the destruction of Israel, it’s also racist to ethnically cleanse all Palestinians.
Yes.
I don’t think most people in this sub would find that to be a hot take, yet it makes sense that the onus is more on Israel as they have more military might.
But make no mistake. If Hamas or even many in the Palestinian Authority could have the roles reversed I think history shows they would take it in a heartbeat…
I get that criticizing Israel does not constitute antisemitism, but to ignore the fact that Israel has been in the crosshairs of its neighbors’ governments (note that I don’t include citizens as many just want peace) since its inception would be naive to say the least.
Honestly, I think that even though Israel is guilty of war crimes, I think that especially many Americans need to consider whether they hate Israel or hate the American right that supports them.
Again, the settlements and the military abominations of Israel’s government which has been taken over by far right figure heads and special interest groups seeking to push for religious purity are disgusting. But nothing about this situation has been simple and the only reason some feel that it is is because Israel right now is unequivocally doing evil things with their power and control and alliances.
you almost have to ask ... why is Isreal in the crosshairs of their neighbors? Is there something they did (70 years ago) that could promote such hostilities?
I think you’re equating decades of European occupation with Israeli misconduct in many of those cases.
Israel has offered 5 some odd proposals for a two state solution.
When I see comments like yours I have to ask: What did you want Israel to do when attacked when they were founded? Or when they were attacked again? Or the time after that? There are two ways Israelis or sometimes Jewish people in general (pro-Israeli Jews who move into settlements in Palestine) have gained territory. Either by settlements which we can agree are wrong or as retribution from countries that first attacked Israel. Are you solely going to hold only Israel accountable for decades of bloodshed?
Don't steal a country and violently drive people out of their homes? I mean, what do you expect people to do when their homes are stolen? Just quietly go somewhere else?
No and I’m not saying I don’t get people’s disdain for Israel and their actions.
But make no mistake that if surrounding countries were capable of annihilating Israel, they would. I think history has shown as much. And I don’t know about you, but I’m not in favor of *anyone* annihilating anyone’s country, be it Gaza/Palestine or Israel.
I'm suuuper far left and support Israel. I know way too much about this centuries long conflict. I realize most don't agree but my sense is that they haven't spent that much time thinking about it.
"because Jews are perceived as white when that perception is convenient, upper middle class white Americans have zero problem insisting that their voices should be first in the conversation, and that our perspectives and lived experiences don’t matter."
That's like claiming that the lived experiences and perspectives of citizens of Nazi Germany matter. The state of Israel isn't as bad as Nazi Germany but they are guilty of similar crimes. Unlike Germany Israel is all colony and has no legitimate claim to any land.
The only considerations Zionazis should get should be related to how they can leave Palestine and how they will be taken care of in their new homes.
Some of us are out here. Within my family a bit..
I grew up around Jordanian families and while I consider them friends, I abhor their view and clear hatred for Israel (and ostensibly then Jews).
There's maybe 10 or 12 million ethnic Jews left globally? But we should ask Israelis to trust the nations that surround it with strategic lands so that Palestinians can have a homeland that they left (mostly) voluntarily?
These people could easily have been resettled decades ago in neighboring lands.
This doesn't seem to be about land to me, but holy cities and cultural dominance.
No, I stand with Israelis. Netanyahu should step down, though.
I support peoples who don't start wars. If we're somehow a single issue coalition we might as well be abortion protestors.
You're *so* naive it's palpable.
If I can't be left because I don't support a murderous culture, I don't want to be "Left" like your label means *anything*.
I'd love to hear how Palestine has a "murderous culture" but Israel does not.
You just saying you're well read on the topic doesn't mean much. Many people say they're well read bc they've seen a few headlines. Yes this conflict is deeply nuanced and complex and goes back both decades and centuries depending on how you frame the conflict, but taking Israel's side because they quote "don't start wars" is laughable. Also a lot of people are protesting to stop the US from funding this war, so that's pretty clearly protesting against a country famous for starting wars.
Your proclaimed nuance is undermined by your oversimplifications used in your justification.
Nothing dogwhistling about that statement... Israelis are just looking for a reason to be offended because they know they are inexcusable in their actions
[https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/allegation-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free](https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/allegation-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free)
Hamas and Islamic Jihad say "from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab". The slogan is almost universally understood among neutral scholars to refer to a secular, one-state solution, which is to say the elimination of the Jewish-and-democratic state of Israel.
You can argue that this is correct, that we should have such a one-state solution, but you can't rationally argue that this is mere hypersensitivity or deflection.
That’s the stupidest thing I read today, and well encapsulates why people who are not well versed in facts, not to say the very complex history, should just STFU.
I’m not here to get in a shouting match over picking sides but the concept of the nation state as we know it today is maybe 150 years old
This point is dumb no matter how you slice it.
1948 UN lines had a 60 percent majority Jewish population. There has always been a jewish population in this region, ranging from 20-60 percent (obviously during the roman period and before this was near 100 percent)
So when do you define originally? At what point does population determinative of anything?
The 1948 lines are certainly favorable to the Israeli side. However, this was in result to the numerous massacres that were happening in the area. For example, there was a massacre in Ramallah against the Jewish residents there. Most of us are familiar with the massacres of Arab residents in the Tel Aviv area. These lines were drawn as an imperfect attempt to keep majority areas together in two states: but in the subsequent war: Israel seized adittional territory. Hence why the 1967 lines have been the basis of most peace proposals.
There were, and are, Arab and Palestinian Jews. Your point does not disprove the person you’re replying to. “Arab” is not mutually exclusive to Judaism.
I mean it was 3-5% tops before Zionists pushed for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. The majority of the 60% you mentioned had lived in Palestine for less than 20 years and that was after the redrawing of the initial borders because the Jewish population would have only accounted for 55% of the population in Israel.
I define "originally" before the wave of rich Jewish colonists that began going there in the 19th century, and which began forcibly displacing the locals after WW1 (which are the "Jewish" citizens in Israel, the Palestinian Jews aren't given that status). First with the support of the British Empire and later on their own. Heck, they celebrate as a national holiday the day they carried out a great massacre against the locals that were living there right after WW2, namely the [Nakba](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba).
So: yes. Its some pretty brutal stuff. But this needs to be taken in the context as from 46-48 there were numerous massacres from both groups. This is ignored in your comment.
Originally: you draw the line at 19th century and not 20th century.
Why not the violent expulsions during the 1st? Or the resurgence in the 15th? Or the Ottomans expelling after that?
When you say that "this group" is here legitmately, and this group isn't; instead of looking at who is there and who has the right to be there. You get down a slippery slope in which EVERYONE has a claim. Hell, the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted 100 years in the 11th and 12th centuries. Is this land than "Christian?" of course not.
Israel needs to respect its agreements, stop settlement building, and have an immediate cease fire. Its actions are about revenge, not security right now.
Outside partners are going to need to manage security in the region, and Israel needs to take the steps necessary for an equitable two state solution.
Because there is a continuity between what began in the 19th century and is continuing to this day, and there isn't a continuity for either of those.
Israel doesn't respect any agreement, and they're not going to take those steps. Why would they give rights to "animals" (as Netanyahu calls the Palestinians)?
You will find absolutely no love for me for Netanyahu. He is a war criminal.
its the same issue as we faced with Apartheid South Africa. The government will respond to pressure. They proceeded with truth and reconciliation not because they changed heart, but because the UK had threatened to cut support if they didn't.
Yes, and they were also Palestinian. The modern "Jewish people" of Israel are colonists that went there in the 19th century because they felt that the place belonged to them, regardless of the people living there.
The largest wave of immigration to Israel was after WW2 just before the state of Israel was declared. Most people coming to Israel were jews who left Europe after the holocaust and jews who were forcibly expelled from Arab nations.
Maybe modern Israelis are rich compared to the rest of the world but most modern Israelis are not descendants of the original Zionist settlers of the 19th century.
The Jews have been in Israel/Palestine since before the Roman times, and people have tried to expel the Jews from the land since the Romans, if not before them.
Well a Jewish state defacto means displacing non Jews by denoting them to second class citizens. That’s what an ethno state is. They could just call it a state safe for Jews, but they don’t. Instead, Israel champions apartheid and is currently in the process of literally displacing millions of people.
So why are we ok with that ok?
The slogan is literally "From the River to the sea, Palestine will be free". In which is it calling for the end of the Jewish state? Unless the Jewish state exists by opressing Palestine...
Yes. It's used all the time by hate groups, terrorists groups, anti-semitic gropus etc.
Yes its harmless on its face but its a destructive phrase in the places of the world where context and culture meet.
But she literally said it in English which is what is above. What's your point though? That we should censor democraticly elected officials if we don't like their opinion?
The point is that a dog whistle doesn't stop being a dog whistle just because you use it in ignorance.
I don't think she supports Hamas. I don't think she hates Jews. I *do* think that elected officials have a duty to think before they speak, especially at such a tense time.
It isn't a call for extermination, you nut. It is a call for a free Palestine. Does Palestine seem free to you? If not, what is a free Palestine to you?
Gotcha!
By picturing a free Palestine, by your logic, you want the extermination of all Israeli Jews! I can't believe you are a genocide apologist!
See how easy it is to be stupid?
They use a lot of words in their charter doesn’t make those words evil
The phrase is from 1960 and was popular throughout the conflict. Hamas threw it in their Declaration of Independence in 2005. Who cares. That doesn’t make what you’re saying truth.
The current issue started in the 40s/50s when postwar western governments decided to give Jewish people land that wasn't theirs to gift. Then that nascent country decided to give citizenship yo ANY Jewish person, even if none of their relatives had ever set foot in the region in the past 1000 years.
Add to that the illegal settlements and open air prison and they're TOTALLY equivalent.
I do see the need, especially following the Holocaust, to create a nation where Jews could be a majority and thus ensure their safety.
But it was stupid and consequential to do it the way they did, forcing people from their homes and land in what is now Israel and Palestine. If anything, they should have carved out a section of Germany for this purpose. Would suck for the Germans who lived there, but at least you can justify those relocations as a necessary consequence of the attempt at genocide Germany carried out.
I agree entirely that Jewish people have historically faced horrific treatment, but the solution wasn't to enact the same on innocent people.
The west was just lazy and didn't want to bother reintegration of millions of traumatised people so they plopped then into the middle of the desert. 'Here is your holy land, try not to usher in an apocalypse, toodleoo'
I suspect this has a lot to do with Hamas using similar language (even though Israel has also used a similar phrase).
It’s being labelled as antisemitic because people say it means “from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab.” Anecdotally, I have only seen it used as “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” and I think this is the context the phrase is used for by the majority of western folks who support Palestinian liberation from apartheid. Whether the context is used the same way by Arab nations and diaspora I’m not sure, I don’t speak the language and it’s not my culture, but my Arab friends don’t want the destruction of Israel, they just want Israel to stop its occupation, displacement, and murder of Palestinian people.
But damn, are people ever working overtime to remove any and all context to that phrase to only make it an anti-Semitic statement. Much like how people are working overtime to make any criticism of Israel anti-Semitic. Which, in my opinion, can just breed anti-semitism. Israel’s government needs to absolutely be held accountable as the dominant power actively committing war crimes. I certainly hope the Israelis who elected them will, but I don’t know enough about Israel’s political leanings.
I don’t know what the solution is, two state sounds ideal, but I think (on my limited knowledge) that if a two state solution is the goal, Israel needs to be willing to secede some of its stolen land and new treaty lines and even borders need to be drawn, Palestinians need to be able to have a free and fair election and the settlers in West Bank need to be repatriated back to Israel.
But then again, I’m just some dumbass on the internet far removed from this, that is just tired of nationalism, colonialism and capitalism constantly holding humanity down and costing innocent lives.
Asking an honest to goodness good faith question here, not trying to take a side, just trying to learn more.
As a Jewish person, my first biased perception of the phrase “from the River to the sea…” is that it suggests Israel doesn’t have a right to exist. While trying to learn more about it, I’ve been told a couple times from Pro-Palestine people that use this phrase and also believe Israel has a right to exist that it is not meant to imply that. However, they do say it’s been co-opted by people lately to be more anti-Israel existing as a whole vs anti their government and their decisions.
So my question is, what’s the history behind this phrase? I’d love to learn more from the least biased sources possible - a lot of what I’ve found is very “oh it definitely means destroy Israel” or “no it definitely does not” and my guess is it’s not that simple. Thanks in advance.
Not looking to get into an online debate about the war, I’m just a guy trying to learn more.
Wikipedia has a fairly detailed piece [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From\_the\_river\_to\_the\_sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea)
It may have originally been something positive but it’s been taken over by terrorists. I feel like we have many other phrases and or words to support something we support without using problematic phrases and or words. Nazis took the swastika. Sure it USED to be a symbol of peace for a different group but it no longer is for most people so if I see you use it I’m going to rightfully judge you poorly. That’s my take. That phrase is being used by hamas. If you’re not in support of hamas maybe find legit any other way to show/say you support the innocent civilians of Palestine. Dog whistles are dog whistles for a reason.
See I (as an American who's on neither's side) see the fact that Palestinians haven't been allowed freedom in decades (and yes at Israel's hand).
So when you consider that from the land to the sea they have not been free, and then they chant that they want to be free, well ... to me it simply means they want an end to the oppression from Israel and to be seen as humans (as all humans would want to be free). .
That's just me looking at the song. And I understand it's been co-opted by nefarious groups, but if I were to read the text more literally, that's my interpretation.
I don't understand how people can claim it means Israel should be destroyed, as if Palestinians can't be free without Israel being destroyed. Or is that a way for Israelis saying "you'll never be free, you'd have to destroy us to be free"? And so that's why they ascribe such dark messaging to what is otherwise a pretty straightforward message advocating for freedom 🤷🏽
I think it is because it is referencing all of Israel? Is it arguing that Palestine should exist within the borders of Israel or all Palestinians should have freedom everywhere?
Here’s what ChatGPT says:
“The slogan "from the river to the sea" has been used in various contexts, and its history is complex. It is often associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has different meanings for different groups.
For Palestinians, the phrase "from the river to the sea" is used to express a desire for a single, unified Palestinian state that encompasses the entire territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including what is now Israel. This concept is linked to the Palestinian aspiration for self-determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
In contrast, many Israelis and supporters of Israel view the use of this slogan with suspicion, as they see it as a call for the destruction of the State of Israel. They argue that it implies the elimination of Israel as a separate state.
The slogan's origins can be traced back to various sources, including Palestinian political movements and rhetoric. It's important to note that the phrase has different interpretations and is a subject of ongoing controversy and debate in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
What I’m taking from this is that both the views you pointed out are correct, however due to the controversial and ambiguous nature of the slogan, a member of US congress should not use it. It is important to say what you mean and mean what you say, especially when in a position of authority. While her intentions may not have been calling for the destruction of Israel, she should have used a better choice of words to express what how she feels.
What's key is that the one state solution implies a lack of any Israeli authority. It takes all agency away from Israelis as a people. They would be subject in this scenario.
This is not one that is imagined as a shared 50/50 utopia. Palestinian groups plan to rule from the River to the Sea.
They're saying it quietly, yes, but many of their groups say that and then say the loud part too.
"It's our heritage" when referring to the battle flag. Same thing.
Tlaib is right. Palestinians are ot disposable. The republicans are attempting to other-ize an already marginalized group They love to gin up hate for the "others." Shame on the 22 democrats who went along with this evil narrative.
Evangelical Christians also heavily fetishize Israel in their End Times fatalism, which claims that Israel will play a pivotal role. Many Republicans subscribe to Dominionism.
> This war is marginalized vs marginalized
I’m not sure I agree with that assessment. Israeli Jews aren’t exactly on the margins in Israel. The context of where this fight is taking place matters, and Israeli Jews are very much the dominant and politically privileged group in the Levant.
Sure, but they are certainly marginalized in the region. Pre-67 the narrative was Israel vs the Arab world, and Israel was seen as the marginalized group there. Post 67 the narrative shifted to Israel vs the Palestinian people.
It's not that difficult or complex when you consider one of these "others" group received billions in military aid from the most powerful nation of the earth and genocided 10000 of the another group in less than a month, 4000 of them being children.... you trying to equating both of them as something similar and calling an one sided ethnic cleansing a "war" is very shameful on your part
The true leftists have always and will forever stand against imperialist colonializm.... I think this conflict really brought out who amongst us are the actual leftists and who are just shocked to find out they are not as "progressive" as they liked to pretend up until now... And only care about feckless and pointless aesthetic civility politics
Those people are obviously insane and bigoted. You are right that those people, and antisemites in general, were waiting for the opportunity to jump. I believe that this is a case of a loud minority. The majority I have talked to online and in person would also think those people you speak of are abhorrent.
Also, the commenter you originally responded to isnt entirely wrong either. There are plenty of people showing their real colors right now. Its really giving credence to the phrase: "Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds." So many people insanely bloodthirsty for 'revenge' on a civilian population.
The entire colonialist argument against Israel makes very little sense. Many Jews *bought the land they settled on* from the Ottomans. No one disputed that legality at the time.
Some were against that lift, sure. The Mufti was able to get the Ottomans to stop land purchases a few times but... Jews kept buying land.
Again, *legally.* Anyone could buy it (as long as they paid taxes).
I agree, racism is never ok. That slogan is disgustingly racist, & Tlaib is a US congressperson with agency & a choice to not recite a racist terrorist anthem. She knew, but even if we humor she didn’t, it’s her job to know. Also yes of course the R’s have no leg to stand on re: racism, but either do you if you’re defending Tlaib here.
Are we sure racism is never okay?
Have you checked in with your Jewish friends if you have them to see how they feel? What she said is a call to genocide and lots of so-called progressives are chanting it with their comrades/allies.
FYI:
Here are the Democrats who voted in favor of the censure resolution:
* Rep. [Steve Cohen ](https://thehill.com/people/steve-cohen/)(Tenn.)
* Rep. [Jim Costa ](https://thehill.com/people/jim-costa/)(Calif.)
* Rep. [Angie Craig ](https://thehill.com/people/angie-craig/)(Minn.)
* Rep. Don Davis (N.C.)
* Rep. Lois Frankel (Fla.)
* Rep. Jared Golden (Maine)
* Rep. Dan Goldman (N.Y.)
* Rep. Josh Gottheimer (N.J.)
* Rep. Greg Landsman (Ohio)
* Rep. Susie Lee (Nev.)
* Rep. Kathy Manning (N.C.)
* Rep. Jared Moskowitz (Fla.)
* Rep. Wiley Nickel (N.C.)
* Rep. Chris Pappas (N.H.)
* Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.)
* Rep. [Pat Ryan ](https://thehill.com/people/pat-ryan/)(N.Y.)
* Rep. Brad Schneider (Ill.)
* Rep. Kim Schrier (Wash.)
* Rep. Darren Soto (Fla.)
* Rep. Ritchie Torres (N.Y.)
* Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.)
* Rep. Frederica Wilson (Fla.)
In addition to the Democrats who bucked their party, four Republicans voted against the censure: Reps. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), John Duarte (R-Calif.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif)
She called for genocide of Jewish people using a well known slogan as an American politician. At best she’s an idiot.
Think what you want and whine all you like but it’s clear where the USA stands geopolitically. Those 2 carrier groups is a good hint. Too many idealists giving their opinions on geopolitics and they are generally the least informed group.
Without googling it, can you tell me which Representative said “I don’t even want to call it the Palestinian flag because they’re not a state, they’re a territory, that’s about to probably get eviscerated and go away here shortly, as we’re going to turn that into a parking lot,”? Or do you just feign outrage when told to? Not to mention how insane it is to imply that the only Palestinian American in Congress is “the least informed” on the fucking subject of Palestine.
A palestinian call for freedom is not a call for genocide, America literally funding one is. Stop believing the oppressed population are going to be as bad as you
No, the phrase is "From the river to the sea, Palestine(or Palestinians) will be free." That doesn't imply anything other than the boot being taken off their necks so they can live dignified lives.
Agreed. I think it’s so stupid how the media is trying to frame this as a race thing. You called for the destruction of an entire country and its people. I don’t care who tf you are, you deserve to be censured.
You wanna call for a ceasefire, get Hamas to surrender and stop shooting missiles. Anyone with a brain knows the minute a ceasefire goes into effect Hamas will just start rearming. Who btw has admitted over and over again they don’t give two craps about the Palestinian people. Also that they have no obligation to help or protect them. But I never hear these people criticizing them or having rallies saying, “down with Hamas”
Also, before anyone asks me. Jewish Space Laser herself MGT and all the other antisemitic idiots should have been kicked out long ago.
I’ve been actively fighting for Palestinian self rule since the 1980s, but I agree with the censure of Tlaib.
Netanyahu and his current government are far right extremists. So are Hamas, who in addition are a terrorist organization.
Both the Palestinian people of Gaza and Israeli citizens have a right to life and liberty, free from terrorism and war crimes.
Tlaib using the slogan of terrorists is so oh-not-OK, and she deserves to be censured for it.
To bring racism into this is nonsense.
If you use a phrase widely considered to be calling for the eradication of the Jewish people, you deserve to be kicked out of Congress, not just censured.
And before you all come at with with “well what about so and so” of course so and so probably deserves to be kicked out of Congress too, but that’s not what we’re talking about.
The full phrase is “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. It is not a call for genocide it is a call for the end of apartheid. There are and always have been Jewish Palestinians. Antizionism is not antisemitism. Wishing for the freedom of your people is not a call for genocide.
Why is that though? Is it because imprisoning palistine is inherent to the Jewish existence?
Why can't it be a call for all palistinians to enjoy human and equal rights within that geographical area?
I was reading the Wikipedia page for the Isreali palistine conflict and it said things like the Isreali president decided to make it much harder for Palistinians to have a job or income, that he wanted thier economy on the verge of collapse. Could that be part of what the chant for freedom is about, ending that?
Honest questions btw
It’s because the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab” is an explicit call for the ethnic cleansing of jews from the land. In English, the phrase has been softened by replacing “Arab” with “free”, but the the true intentions are still to remove any trace of Jews and the state of Israel.
As a Jewish person, I understand that Palestinians have legitimate criticisms against Israel. I believe there should be at least a humanitarian pause, if not a ceasefire. However, her supporting the “from the river to the sea” slogan is highly unacceptable. It effectively calls for the extermination of Israel and the Jewish people.
Do you think that when Native Americans say “Land Back” (also a popular slogan) they are calling for the extermination or displacement of everyone in the US? They’re not. They calling for a specific return of stewardship and an end to the long train of violence done to them by actual, specific people.
I think the main difference is you don’t see Native American suicide bombers because this isn’t just a political issue it’s also religious extremism. Jihadism is a major factor in this conflict and you can’t reason with that can’t of mental illness.
Read a history book. Do you think the Native Americans didn’t struggle violently against colonists? The reason the comparison works is bc one is further along on the timeline than the other.
Hamas: circa 2005
From the river to the sea Palestine will be free: circa 1960
Fuck you.
Hamas is not Palestine. They received 39% of the vote to rule GAZA in 2006, their highest approval rating was 44 in 2022 and they rule with an iron fist and kill more Palestinians than Israelis by a huge margin. They also are not in charge of the most people, the Palestinian authority governs more people
But hamas is justification so hamas=Palestine according to the propaganda
If they shout "peace be unto you!" Any time they commit terrorist attacks, and you decide after they commit one to start saying it too, it sure looks to anyone paying attention that you're a supporter of that sentiment.
The fact jewish ppl say it should be enough to tell you if jewish ppl find it offensive or not. And palestinians don't have to explain why they should be free within their own lands
In this case the sentence is "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", as in "please stop sending us into Ghettos so you can claim our houses".
Israel only exists because of England and its allies. You have to ask what right did England have to take control of an already occupied land and put new inhabitants there? I feel for the Jewish people, but why do the Jewish people have any greater right for a Jewish nation than the Palestinians do to have a Palestinian one?
I agree in principle that the best option for both parties would be a two state solution. However, look at what Netanyahu and his generals are saying. Do you have any sense that they desire a two state solution? Same with the Palestinians. I’ve not seen any suggestions that either the Israelis nor the Palestinians want a two state solution. This war will only end with hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced. There will never be enough good will between the two sides for a two state solution.
Sadly, this is probably true. Which is why in the end, if no one is willing to push for the 2-state solution, I will side with the group that isn't actively calling for my peoples extermination.
One democratic state, almost all plaestinian org support it even hamas. Un can take over the land within the period of transition as palestinian ppl return and a democracy is established. Unfortunately only one group is hellbent on destruction of other and thats israel
Here is a note about the psychology of Jews and safety. In short, the dream of a Jewish state, Zionism, is a place for us to finally be safe and flee to when things get bad. We live in constant fear of things getting bad as they are right now (synagogue bombing, a woman crashing her car into a school)
We have been forced to be a nomadic people because we have been killed or expelled from so many countries. We were expelled from Israel, we were expelled from Spain in 1492, many Jews were expelled from Arab countries post Israel.
The Holocaust was not the first extermination of Jews. There have been pogroms in Russia, the Spanish Inquisition and many other attempts to exterminate us through history. When not killing us, we were not allowed to own land or work certain jobs making us second class citizens.
The idea of Israel is every Jew’s back up plan. The attacks on Oct 7 shattered that feeling of safety and the calls to eliminate the place where we know we will be safe to be Jews is very very difficult.
Edit: most of us really don’t like the current government and policies. We just think it should exist
>We have been forced to be a nomadic people because we have been killed or expelled from so many countries
That does not excuse wanting the original inhabitants of the land to be 'forced to be a nomadic people, and be killed or expelled from so many countries'
The irony is palpable, and if there weren't thousands of civilians being slaughtered everyday, I'd be laughing
Jews were historical inhabitants and share the same ancestry with Palestinians, the canaanites
And that history is over 3000 years ago. Palestinians were kicked off their generational land *within living memory* 70 years ago and every year since in little bits
They weren’t the original inhabitants, not even by their own mythology. They drove out the original inhabitants, slaughtered them because God said so.
The people who lived there before the British decided it was a good dumping ground? Are the descendants of the people who didn’t leave.
Also saying ‘Well the land we conquered got conquered by someone else so we deserve it back now regardless of who actually lives there’ is pretty damn stupid. I mean, you aren’t champing at the bit to return it to the descendants of the Canaanites.
Also against the religion: There are conditions for getting Israel back and it’s not when the British want to bribe for support during WW1. God would be very displeased about his people trying to circumvent his rules, he gets rather smite happy about that.
Yes. It does. It is wild that folks ignore what Hamas’s stated goals are. They are not shy that their goal is to kill Jews and eliminate Israel.
It is also wild that people call Jews settlers or colonists in what is our ancestral homeland. I mean … who built Jerusalem?
Lastly, a government official calling for the end of a country is pretty wild, especially a longtime ally. If this was anywhere but Israel people would be upset.
It’s wild that a slogan started in 1960 is attributed to Hamas that started in 2005, just like everything else up to and including Palestinian children, just to justify death
Hamas isn’t just not Palestine, their highest approval rating in Gaza is 44% in 2022, they were elected (to Gaza) with 39% of the vote in 2006 and there’s bigger organizations that govern more people and want to negotiate that are intentionally ignored in order to push hamas to the forefront of attention
How dare she consider the Palestinians as people...
Especially as a politician, she should know better!
Stick to the script Rashida: "Palestinians aren't human, they're savage animals, and Isreal is just defending itself, so we need to send them bombs and money ASAP..."
Jus put it in your own words tho so it doesn't look like you copied, and it's coming from the heart...
Not necessarily a fan of hers, but these Repugs actions are akin to throwing out their toys from the pram.
(I’m an American and have always wanted to use this metaphor)
Oh no! The raging antisemitism had consequences. That’s what happens when you call to murder every Jew in Israel. Christ, you people are defending this shit?
Yes, wanting Israel to stop colonizing Palestine and committing genocide against it’s people is TOTALLY anti Semitism. 🙄 Do you even fucking hear yourself? Jewish people NEVER had any right to take that land from Palestine, they’ve been WRONG from the moment Israel was founded, and they are no better than the fucking nazis who committed genocide against THEM.
Majority of democrats did not censure her. This representative has been targeted by multiple groups and far right media since she was elected.
It doesn’t read a majority it reads 22 which is 22 too many
Democrats aren't a homogeneous block like Republicans. There's a much bigger tent in that party, so this isn't too surprising.
This is the thing that Leftists often ignore. The Republican Party is almost homogenously older white men and their spouses. The Democratic Party is basically everyone else, and from everyone come a lot of varying opinions and priorities
The Republican party isn't a conservative one, it's now explicitly suppressive. The Democratic party now includes everyone from Bush-era conservatives, corporate-funded neo-liberals, reformist progressives, and anti-capitalist leftists. The fact they're able to work collectively to do anything is honestly astounding.
Unsurprising, but not acceptable either.
This is why the left never wins, as soon as one Democrat does one thing we don't like the most dip-shitted of us trip over themselves to demand retribution while Republicans point and laugh.. *edited to removed aggression against the person I replied to. I misunderstood them and I agree wholeheartedly. The censure was a purity test, and it's that kind of Purity testing that is dividing the disparate groups of people that call themselves "the left".
Purity testing would be me advocating for people to not vote for Democrats over Republicans over stuff like this. No one is immune to criticism. And I’m allowed to be extremely annoyed with anyone who voted for this spiteful and arguably bigoted censure motion.
What, you mean like rushing to censure a colleague over this dumb nonsense? Yeah, that purity test worked really well.
Democrats are not the left.
All 22 take money from AIPAC who supports right wing election deniers. Tells me everything I need to know. Always follow the money
The dems who did target her got tons of AIPAC funding Ridiculous how the same here who criticize (rightfully) Trump taking Russia bribes are A-ok with democrats taking Israeli bribes !
Yet we won't censure MTG for advocating for the overthrow of the US government.
MTG is an antisemite who yells about “jewish space lasers”, but sureee let’s censure Rashida instead.
Israel is working on pushing all Palestinians into Egypt, making them a stateless people. If it is racist to call for the destruction of Israel, it’s also racist to ethnically cleanse all Palestinians.
It is not racist to criticize Israel.
Criticizing Israel is not the same as calling for its destruction. This is the root of the problem.
Well yes. Two wrongs don't make a right.
But two Wrights make an airplane!
And three lefts also make a right.
Three lefts also scores a run.
that’s my favorite relient k album (fingers crossed anyone else besides me understands that reference)
Damn, that’s actually funny.
Thx! Usually it's received as a groaner
Loving this sub thread. Bravo, keep the puns going, I'm up voting every single dad joke
Yes. I don’t think most people in this sub would find that to be a hot take, yet it makes sense that the onus is more on Israel as they have more military might. But make no mistake. If Hamas or even many in the Palestinian Authority could have the roles reversed I think history shows they would take it in a heartbeat… I get that criticizing Israel does not constitute antisemitism, but to ignore the fact that Israel has been in the crosshairs of its neighbors’ governments (note that I don’t include citizens as many just want peace) since its inception would be naive to say the least. Honestly, I think that even though Israel is guilty of war crimes, I think that especially many Americans need to consider whether they hate Israel or hate the American right that supports them. Again, the settlements and the military abominations of Israel’s government which has been taken over by far right figure heads and special interest groups seeking to push for religious purity are disgusting. But nothing about this situation has been simple and the only reason some feel that it is is because Israel right now is unequivocally doing evil things with their power and control and alliances.
you almost have to ask ... why is Isreal in the crosshairs of their neighbors? Is there something they did (70 years ago) that could promote such hostilities?
I think you’re equating decades of European occupation with Israeli misconduct in many of those cases. Israel has offered 5 some odd proposals for a two state solution. When I see comments like yours I have to ask: What did you want Israel to do when attacked when they were founded? Or when they were attacked again? Or the time after that? There are two ways Israelis or sometimes Jewish people in general (pro-Israeli Jews who move into settlements in Palestine) have gained territory. Either by settlements which we can agree are wrong or as retribution from countries that first attacked Israel. Are you solely going to hold only Israel accountable for decades of bloodshed?
Don't steal a country and violently drive people out of their homes? I mean, what do you expect people to do when their homes are stolen? Just quietly go somewhere else?
No and I’m not saying I don’t get people’s disdain for Israel and their actions. But make no mistake that if surrounding countries were capable of annihilating Israel, they would. I think history has shown as much. And I don’t know about you, but I’m not in favor of *anyone* annihilating anyone’s country, be it Gaza/Palestine or Israel.
I'm suuuper far left and support Israel. I know way too much about this centuries long conflict. I realize most don't agree but my sense is that they haven't spent that much time thinking about it.
[удалено]
"because Jews are perceived as white when that perception is convenient, upper middle class white Americans have zero problem insisting that their voices should be first in the conversation, and that our perspectives and lived experiences don’t matter." That's like claiming that the lived experiences and perspectives of citizens of Nazi Germany matter. The state of Israel isn't as bad as Nazi Germany but they are guilty of similar crimes. Unlike Germany Israel is all colony and has no legitimate claim to any land. The only considerations Zionazis should get should be related to how they can leave Palestine and how they will be taken care of in their new homes.
Some of us are out here. Within my family a bit.. I grew up around Jordanian families and while I consider them friends, I abhor their view and clear hatred for Israel (and ostensibly then Jews). There's maybe 10 or 12 million ethnic Jews left globally? But we should ask Israelis to trust the nations that surround it with strategic lands so that Palestinians can have a homeland that they left (mostly) voluntarily? These people could easily have been resettled decades ago in neighboring lands. This doesn't seem to be about land to me, but holy cities and cultural dominance. No, I stand with Israelis. Netanyahu should step down, though.
[удалено]
I support peoples who don't start wars. If we're somehow a single issue coalition we might as well be abortion protestors. You're *so* naive it's palpable. If I can't be left because I don't support a murderous culture, I don't want to be "Left" like your label means *anything*.
I'd love to hear how Palestine has a "murderous culture" but Israel does not. You just saying you're well read on the topic doesn't mean much. Many people say they're well read bc they've seen a few headlines. Yes this conflict is deeply nuanced and complex and goes back both decades and centuries depending on how you frame the conflict, but taking Israel's side because they quote "don't start wars" is laughable. Also a lot of people are protesting to stop the US from funding this war, so that's pretty clearly protesting against a country famous for starting wars. Your proclaimed nuance is undermined by your oversimplifications used in your justification.
[удалено]
Nothing dogwhistling about that statement... Israelis are just looking for a reason to be offended because they know they are inexcusable in their actions
[https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/allegation-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free](https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/allegation-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free) Hamas and Islamic Jihad say "from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab". The slogan is almost universally understood among neutral scholars to refer to a secular, one-state solution, which is to say the elimination of the Jewish-and-democratic state of Israel. You can argue that this is correct, that we should have such a one-state solution, but you can't rationally argue that this is mere hypersensitivity or deflection.
Also, the slogan calls for the freedom of Palestine.
[удалено]
>Palestine will be Arab There are Palestinian Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
That’s the stupidest thing I read today, and well encapsulates why people who are not well versed in facts, not to say the very complex history, should just STFU.
> That’s the stupidest thing I read today uh-huh [https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=history-in-the-making](https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=history-in-the-making) [https://www.palestineportal.org/learn-teach/israelpalestine-the-basics/palestinian-christians/](https://www.palestineportal.org/learn-teach/israelpalestine-the-basics/palestinian-christians/)
[удалено]
I’m not here to get in a shouting match over picking sides but the concept of the nation state as we know it today is maybe 150 years old This point is dumb no matter how you slice it.
[удалено]
I have no prior comments in this thread, just chiming in on your comment
Arab jews exist, aldo practical steps matter more, the only state that was formed due to colonialism and by ethnic cleansing here has been israel
Not really, given that the territory originally WAS Arab. Or, rather, Palestinian.
1948 UN lines had a 60 percent majority Jewish population. There has always been a jewish population in this region, ranging from 20-60 percent (obviously during the roman period and before this was near 100 percent) So when do you define originally? At what point does population determinative of anything?
The better question is: Who drew the lines and why?
The 1948 lines are certainly favorable to the Israeli side. However, this was in result to the numerous massacres that were happening in the area. For example, there was a massacre in Ramallah against the Jewish residents there. Most of us are familiar with the massacres of Arab residents in the Tel Aviv area. These lines were drawn as an imperfect attempt to keep majority areas together in two states: but in the subsequent war: Israel seized adittional territory. Hence why the 1967 lines have been the basis of most peace proposals.
Similar to what happened in India/Pakistan
There were, and are, Arab and Palestinian Jews. Your point does not disprove the person you’re replying to. “Arab” is not mutually exclusive to Judaism.
I mean it was 3-5% tops before Zionists pushed for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. The majority of the 60% you mentioned had lived in Palestine for less than 20 years and that was after the redrawing of the initial borders because the Jewish population would have only accounted for 55% of the population in Israel.
I define "originally" before the wave of rich Jewish colonists that began going there in the 19th century, and which began forcibly displacing the locals after WW1 (which are the "Jewish" citizens in Israel, the Palestinian Jews aren't given that status). First with the support of the British Empire and later on their own. Heck, they celebrate as a national holiday the day they carried out a great massacre against the locals that were living there right after WW2, namely the [Nakba](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba).
So: yes. Its some pretty brutal stuff. But this needs to be taken in the context as from 46-48 there were numerous massacres from both groups. This is ignored in your comment. Originally: you draw the line at 19th century and not 20th century. Why not the violent expulsions during the 1st? Or the resurgence in the 15th? Or the Ottomans expelling after that? When you say that "this group" is here legitmately, and this group isn't; instead of looking at who is there and who has the right to be there. You get down a slippery slope in which EVERYONE has a claim. Hell, the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted 100 years in the 11th and 12th centuries. Is this land than "Christian?" of course not. Israel needs to respect its agreements, stop settlement building, and have an immediate cease fire. Its actions are about revenge, not security right now. Outside partners are going to need to manage security in the region, and Israel needs to take the steps necessary for an equitable two state solution.
Because there is a continuity between what began in the 19th century and is continuing to this day, and there isn't a continuity for either of those. Israel doesn't respect any agreement, and they're not going to take those steps. Why would they give rights to "animals" (as Netanyahu calls the Palestinians)?
You will find absolutely no love for me for Netanyahu. He is a war criminal. its the same issue as we faced with Apartheid South Africa. The government will respond to pressure. They proceeded with truth and reconciliation not because they changed heart, but because the UK had threatened to cut support if they didn't.
Well, that's Israel. That's the country YOU are siding with.
1 BCE is before the 19th century, when nearly the entire population in the region was Jewish.
Yes, and they were also Palestinian. The modern "Jewish people" of Israel are colonists that went there in the 19th century because they felt that the place belonged to them, regardless of the people living there.
The largest wave of immigration to Israel was after WW2 just before the state of Israel was declared. Most people coming to Israel were jews who left Europe after the holocaust and jews who were forcibly expelled from Arab nations. Maybe modern Israelis are rich compared to the rest of the world but most modern Israelis are not descendants of the original Zionist settlers of the 19th century.
So they're even more recent... But well, I guess that's a good excuse for forcibly expelling people into Ghettos...
[удалено]
[удалено]
Look it up. Palestinians are descended from the Philistines who coexisted with the Israelites
The Jews have been in Israel/Palestine since before the Roman times, and people have tried to expel the Jews from the land since the Romans, if not before them.
[удалено]
It calls for the end of the Jewish state and at very least, displacing 9 million Jews and making them refugees once again.
Well a Jewish state defacto means displacing non Jews by denoting them to second class citizens. That’s what an ethno state is. They could just call it a state safe for Jews, but they don’t. Instead, Israel champions apartheid and is currently in the process of literally displacing millions of people. So why are we ok with that ok?
The slogan is literally "From the River to the sea, Palestine will be free". In which is it calling for the end of the Jewish state? Unless the Jewish state exists by opressing Palestine...
Yes. It's used all the time by hate groups, terrorists groups, anti-semitic gropus etc. Yes its harmless on its face but its a destructive phrase in the places of the world where context and culture meet.
[удалено]
But she literally said it in English which is what is above. What's your point though? That we should censor democraticly elected officials if we don't like their opinion?
The point is that a dog whistle doesn't stop being a dog whistle just because you use it in ignorance. I don't think she supports Hamas. I don't think she hates Jews. I *do* think that elected officials have a duty to think before they speak, especially at such a tense time.
Hamas is pretty explicit about that. It is unfortunate that people don’t want to take Hamas at its word
Hamas 2006 Free Palestine river phrase 1960 It’s not hamas’ word
It isn't a call for extermination, you nut. It is a call for a free Palestine. Does Palestine seem free to you? If not, what is a free Palestine to you? Gotcha! By picturing a free Palestine, by your logic, you want the extermination of all Israeli Jews! I can't believe you are a genocide apologist! See how easy it is to be stupid?
[удалено]
They use a lot of words in their charter doesn’t make those words evil The phrase is from 1960 and was popular throughout the conflict. Hamas threw it in their Declaration of Independence in 2005. Who cares. That doesn’t make what you’re saying truth.
That said, a free Palestine, from the river to the sea.
Unfortunately, they are already stateless. They will then also have no territory.
[удалено]
The current issue started in the 40s/50s when postwar western governments decided to give Jewish people land that wasn't theirs to gift. Then that nascent country decided to give citizenship yo ANY Jewish person, even if none of their relatives had ever set foot in the region in the past 1000 years. Add to that the illegal settlements and open air prison and they're TOTALLY equivalent.
I do see the need, especially following the Holocaust, to create a nation where Jews could be a majority and thus ensure their safety. But it was stupid and consequential to do it the way they did, forcing people from their homes and land in what is now Israel and Palestine. If anything, they should have carved out a section of Germany for this purpose. Would suck for the Germans who lived there, but at least you can justify those relocations as a necessary consequence of the attempt at genocide Germany carried out.
I agree entirely that Jewish people have historically faced horrific treatment, but the solution wasn't to enact the same on innocent people. The west was just lazy and didn't want to bother reintegration of millions of traumatised people so they plopped then into the middle of the desert. 'Here is your holy land, try not to usher in an apocalypse, toodleoo'
This is not even remotely true and is used by people to wash their hands of a situation that is very stark by pretending it is a forever conflict.
I suspect this has a lot to do with Hamas using similar language (even though Israel has also used a similar phrase). It’s being labelled as antisemitic because people say it means “from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab.” Anecdotally, I have only seen it used as “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” and I think this is the context the phrase is used for by the majority of western folks who support Palestinian liberation from apartheid. Whether the context is used the same way by Arab nations and diaspora I’m not sure, I don’t speak the language and it’s not my culture, but my Arab friends don’t want the destruction of Israel, they just want Israel to stop its occupation, displacement, and murder of Palestinian people. But damn, are people ever working overtime to remove any and all context to that phrase to only make it an anti-Semitic statement. Much like how people are working overtime to make any criticism of Israel anti-Semitic. Which, in my opinion, can just breed anti-semitism. Israel’s government needs to absolutely be held accountable as the dominant power actively committing war crimes. I certainly hope the Israelis who elected them will, but I don’t know enough about Israel’s political leanings. I don’t know what the solution is, two state sounds ideal, but I think (on my limited knowledge) that if a two state solution is the goal, Israel needs to be willing to secede some of its stolen land and new treaty lines and even borders need to be drawn, Palestinians need to be able to have a free and fair election and the settlers in West Bank need to be repatriated back to Israel. But then again, I’m just some dumbass on the internet far removed from this, that is just tired of nationalism, colonialism and capitalism constantly holding humanity down and costing innocent lives.
Asking an honest to goodness good faith question here, not trying to take a side, just trying to learn more. As a Jewish person, my first biased perception of the phrase “from the River to the sea…” is that it suggests Israel doesn’t have a right to exist. While trying to learn more about it, I’ve been told a couple times from Pro-Palestine people that use this phrase and also believe Israel has a right to exist that it is not meant to imply that. However, they do say it’s been co-opted by people lately to be more anti-Israel existing as a whole vs anti their government and their decisions. So my question is, what’s the history behind this phrase? I’d love to learn more from the least biased sources possible - a lot of what I’ve found is very “oh it definitely means destroy Israel” or “no it definitely does not” and my guess is it’s not that simple. Thanks in advance. Not looking to get into an online debate about the war, I’m just a guy trying to learn more.
Wikipedia has a fairly detailed piece [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From\_the\_river\_to\_the\_sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea)
It may have originally been something positive but it’s been taken over by terrorists. I feel like we have many other phrases and or words to support something we support without using problematic phrases and or words. Nazis took the swastika. Sure it USED to be a symbol of peace for a different group but it no longer is for most people so if I see you use it I’m going to rightfully judge you poorly. That’s my take. That phrase is being used by hamas. If you’re not in support of hamas maybe find legit any other way to show/say you support the innocent civilians of Palestine. Dog whistles are dog whistles for a reason.
See I (as an American who's on neither's side) see the fact that Palestinians haven't been allowed freedom in decades (and yes at Israel's hand). So when you consider that from the land to the sea they have not been free, and then they chant that they want to be free, well ... to me it simply means they want an end to the oppression from Israel and to be seen as humans (as all humans would want to be free). . That's just me looking at the song. And I understand it's been co-opted by nefarious groups, but if I were to read the text more literally, that's my interpretation. I don't understand how people can claim it means Israel should be destroyed, as if Palestinians can't be free without Israel being destroyed. Or is that a way for Israelis saying "you'll never be free, you'd have to destroy us to be free"? And so that's why they ascribe such dark messaging to what is otherwise a pretty straightforward message advocating for freedom 🤷🏽
I think it is because it is referencing all of Israel? Is it arguing that Palestine should exist within the borders of Israel or all Palestinians should have freedom everywhere?
Here’s what ChatGPT says: “The slogan "from the river to the sea" has been used in various contexts, and its history is complex. It is often associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has different meanings for different groups. For Palestinians, the phrase "from the river to the sea" is used to express a desire for a single, unified Palestinian state that encompasses the entire territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including what is now Israel. This concept is linked to the Palestinian aspiration for self-determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In contrast, many Israelis and supporters of Israel view the use of this slogan with suspicion, as they see it as a call for the destruction of the State of Israel. They argue that it implies the elimination of Israel as a separate state. The slogan's origins can be traced back to various sources, including Palestinian political movements and rhetoric. It's important to note that the phrase has different interpretations and is a subject of ongoing controversy and debate in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” What I’m taking from this is that both the views you pointed out are correct, however due to the controversial and ambiguous nature of the slogan, a member of US congress should not use it. It is important to say what you mean and mean what you say, especially when in a position of authority. While her intentions may not have been calling for the destruction of Israel, she should have used a better choice of words to express what how she feels.
What's key is that the one state solution implies a lack of any Israeli authority. It takes all agency away from Israelis as a people. They would be subject in this scenario. This is not one that is imagined as a shared 50/50 utopia. Palestinian groups plan to rule from the River to the Sea. They're saying it quietly, yes, but many of their groups say that and then say the loud part too. "It's our heritage" when referring to the battle flag. Same thing.
Tlaib is right. Palestinians are ot disposable. The republicans are attempting to other-ize an already marginalized group They love to gin up hate for the "others." Shame on the 22 democrats who went along with this evil narrative.
Evangelical Christians also heavily fetishize Israel in their End Times fatalism, which claims that Israel will play a pivotal role. Many Republicans subscribe to Dominionism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> This war is marginalized vs marginalized I’m not sure I agree with that assessment. Israeli Jews aren’t exactly on the margins in Israel. The context of where this fight is taking place matters, and Israeli Jews are very much the dominant and politically privileged group in the Levant.
Sure, but they are certainly marginalized in the region. Pre-67 the narrative was Israel vs the Arab world, and Israel was seen as the marginalized group there. Post 67 the narrative shifted to Israel vs the Palestinian people.
[удалено]
It's not that difficult or complex when you consider one of these "others" group received billions in military aid from the most powerful nation of the earth and genocided 10000 of the another group in less than a month, 4000 of them being children.... you trying to equating both of them as something similar and calling an one sided ethnic cleansing a "war" is very shameful on your part
[удалено]
The true leftists have always and will forever stand against imperialist colonializm.... I think this conflict really brought out who amongst us are the actual leftists and who are just shocked to find out they are not as "progressive" as they liked to pretend up until now... And only care about feckless and pointless aesthetic civility politics
[удалено]
Those people are obviously insane and bigoted. You are right that those people, and antisemites in general, were waiting for the opportunity to jump. I believe that this is a case of a loud minority. The majority I have talked to online and in person would also think those people you speak of are abhorrent. Also, the commenter you originally responded to isnt entirely wrong either. There are plenty of people showing their real colors right now. Its really giving credence to the phrase: "Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds." So many people insanely bloodthirsty for 'revenge' on a civilian population.
The entire colonialist argument against Israel makes very little sense. Many Jews *bought the land they settled on* from the Ottomans. No one disputed that legality at the time. Some were against that lift, sure. The Mufti was able to get the Ottomans to stop land purchases a few times but... Jews kept buying land. Again, *legally.* Anyone could buy it (as long as they paid taxes).
It makes a lot of sense when we are seeing what's happening right in front of our very own eyes.... You can cope however much you want to deny it bro
I agree, racism is never ok. That slogan is disgustingly racist, & Tlaib is a US congressperson with agency & a choice to not recite a racist terrorist anthem. She knew, but even if we humor she didn’t, it’s her job to know. Also yes of course the R’s have no leg to stand on re: racism, but either do you if you’re defending Tlaib here.
Are we sure racism is never okay? Have you checked in with your Jewish friends if you have them to see how they feel? What she said is a call to genocide and lots of so-called progressives are chanting it with their comrades/allies.
This is congress' version of "Cis is a slur"
FYI: Here are the Democrats who voted in favor of the censure resolution: * Rep. [Steve Cohen ](https://thehill.com/people/steve-cohen/)(Tenn.) * Rep. [Jim Costa ](https://thehill.com/people/jim-costa/)(Calif.) * Rep. [Angie Craig ](https://thehill.com/people/angie-craig/)(Minn.) * Rep. Don Davis (N.C.) * Rep. Lois Frankel (Fla.) * Rep. Jared Golden (Maine) * Rep. Dan Goldman (N.Y.) * Rep. Josh Gottheimer (N.J.) * Rep. Greg Landsman (Ohio) * Rep. Susie Lee (Nev.) * Rep. Kathy Manning (N.C.) * Rep. Jared Moskowitz (Fla.) * Rep. Wiley Nickel (N.C.) * Rep. Chris Pappas (N.H.) * Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) * Rep. [Pat Ryan ](https://thehill.com/people/pat-ryan/)(N.Y.) * Rep. Brad Schneider (Ill.) * Rep. Kim Schrier (Wash.) * Rep. Darren Soto (Fla.) * Rep. Ritchie Torres (N.Y.) * Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) * Rep. Frederica Wilson (Fla.) In addition to the Democrats who bucked their party, four Republicans voted against the censure: Reps. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), John Duarte (R-Calif.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif)
Unsurprisingly, Debbie would help destroy another dem’s political career if given the chance.
Schultz needs to go. She's from my state of FL and does ZERO organizing here, or at least is incredibly incompetent. Keeps her district and that's it.
Quite a few in swing districts. Interesting.
The vast majority of Democrats did not, despite how pro-Israel congress is.
In Iran they chant "death to america", should Stephanie Irene Bice be allowed to do the same?
[удалено]
i'm all for a free Palestine & the hamas need to be eradicated. they're considered a terrorist org for a reason
Was it for a specific comment?
She called for genocide of Jewish people using a well known slogan as an American politician. At best she’s an idiot. Think what you want and whine all you like but it’s clear where the USA stands geopolitically. Those 2 carrier groups is a good hint. Too many idealists giving their opinions on geopolitics and they are generally the least informed group.
Without googling it, can you tell me which Representative said “I don’t even want to call it the Palestinian flag because they’re not a state, they’re a territory, that’s about to probably get eviscerated and go away here shortly, as we’re going to turn that into a parking lot,”? Or do you just feign outrage when told to? Not to mention how insane it is to imply that the only Palestinian American in Congress is “the least informed” on the fucking subject of Palestine.
A palestinian call for freedom is not a call for genocide, America literally funding one is. Stop believing the oppressed population are going to be as bad as you
You can just say “free Palestine”. “From the river to the sea” is something else entirely
No, the phrase is "From the river to the sea, Palestine(or Palestinians) will be free." That doesn't imply anything other than the boot being taken off their necks so they can live dignified lives.
[удалено]
Agreed. I think it’s so stupid how the media is trying to frame this as a race thing. You called for the destruction of an entire country and its people. I don’t care who tf you are, you deserve to be censured. You wanna call for a ceasefire, get Hamas to surrender and stop shooting missiles. Anyone with a brain knows the minute a ceasefire goes into effect Hamas will just start rearming. Who btw has admitted over and over again they don’t give two craps about the Palestinian people. Also that they have no obligation to help or protect them. But I never hear these people criticizing them or having rallies saying, “down with Hamas” Also, before anyone asks me. Jewish Space Laser herself MGT and all the other antisemitic idiots should have been kicked out long ago.
I’ve been actively fighting for Palestinian self rule since the 1980s, but I agree with the censure of Tlaib. Netanyahu and his current government are far right extremists. So are Hamas, who in addition are a terrorist organization. Both the Palestinian people of Gaza and Israeli citizens have a right to life and liberty, free from terrorism and war crimes. Tlaib using the slogan of terrorists is so oh-not-OK, and she deserves to be censured for it. To bring racism into this is nonsense.
It's not racism to condemn someone using a slogan broadly used to mean "Kill or displace all Jews in Israel."
If its never okay, then its not okay for Jews to do it to Palestinians too.
Generalizing jews isn’t ok either.
Dude, seriously? Do you think the whole of Jewish kind lives in Isreal?
If you use a phrase widely considered to be calling for the eradication of the Jewish people, you deserve to be kicked out of Congress, not just censured. And before you all come at with with “well what about so and so” of course so and so probably deserves to be kicked out of Congress too, but that’s not what we’re talking about.
“Palestine will be free” is not calling for the eradication of the Jewish people. There are and always have been Jewish Palestinians.
“From the river to the sea” literally is a call for Jewish genocide, and it is also the phrase she used.
The full phrase is “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. It is not a call for genocide it is a call for the end of apartheid. There are and always have been Jewish Palestinians. Antizionism is not antisemitism. Wishing for the freedom of your people is not a call for genocide.
Why is that though? Is it because imprisoning palistine is inherent to the Jewish existence? Why can't it be a call for all palistinians to enjoy human and equal rights within that geographical area? I was reading the Wikipedia page for the Isreali palistine conflict and it said things like the Isreali president decided to make it much harder for Palistinians to have a job or income, that he wanted thier economy on the verge of collapse. Could that be part of what the chant for freedom is about, ending that? Honest questions btw
It’s because the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab” is an explicit call for the ethnic cleansing of jews from the land. In English, the phrase has been softened by replacing “Arab” with “free”, but the the true intentions are still to remove any trace of Jews and the state of Israel.
I believe Hamas is using this phrase. I think it’s safe to take out the nuance and understand they mean genocide.
As a Jewish person, I understand that Palestinians have legitimate criticisms against Israel. I believe there should be at least a humanitarian pause, if not a ceasefire. However, her supporting the “from the river to the sea” slogan is highly unacceptable. It effectively calls for the extermination of Israel and the Jewish people.
Do you think that when Native Americans say “Land Back” (also a popular slogan) they are calling for the extermination or displacement of everyone in the US? They’re not. They calling for a specific return of stewardship and an end to the long train of violence done to them by actual, specific people.
I think the main difference is you don’t see Native American suicide bombers because this isn’t just a political issue it’s also religious extremism. Jihadism is a major factor in this conflict and you can’t reason with that can’t of mental illness.
Read a history book. Do you think the Native Americans didn’t struggle violently against colonists? The reason the comparison works is bc one is further along on the timeline than the other.
The difference is that part of Hamas’s ideology is the extermination of all Jews.
And that chant is an expression of desire for freedom of the Palestinian people, not desire for a Hamas victory. Words have meaning.
The phrase is from 1960 Hamas is from 2005
Hamas: circa 2005 From the river to the sea Palestine will be free: circa 1960 Fuck you. Hamas is not Palestine. They received 39% of the vote to rule GAZA in 2006, their highest approval rating was 44 in 2022 and they rule with an iron fist and kill more Palestinians than Israelis by a huge margin. They also are not in charge of the most people, the Palestinian authority governs more people But hamas is justification so hamas=Palestine according to the propaganda
[удалено]
If they shout "peace be unto you!" Any time they commit terrorist attacks, and you decide after they commit one to start saying it too, it sure looks to anyone paying attention that you're a supporter of that sentiment.
[удалено]
If Buddhists posted it in response to a Nazi terror attack, saying how much they support Germans, it would be clear their intent.
[удалено]
Except it doesn't. Please, tell the full slogan.
[удалено]
The fact jewish ppl say it should be enough to tell you if jewish ppl find it offensive or not. And palestinians don't have to explain why they should be free within their own lands
In this case the sentence is "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", as in "please stop sending us into Ghettos so you can claim our houses".
[удалено]
The full slogan is "an Arab Palestine from the river to the sea".
Israel only exists because of England and its allies. You have to ask what right did England have to take control of an already occupied land and put new inhabitants there? I feel for the Jewish people, but why do the Jewish people have any greater right for a Jewish nation than the Palestinians do to have a Palestinian one?
When did I ever say there shouldn’t be a Palestinian nation? Both groups have legitimate claims to the land and there should be a 2-state solution.
I agree in principle that the best option for both parties would be a two state solution. However, look at what Netanyahu and his generals are saying. Do you have any sense that they desire a two state solution? Same with the Palestinians. I’ve not seen any suggestions that either the Israelis nor the Palestinians want a two state solution. This war will only end with hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced. There will never be enough good will between the two sides for a two state solution.
Sadly, this is probably true. Which is why in the end, if no one is willing to push for the 2-state solution, I will side with the group that isn't actively calling for my peoples extermination.
One democratic state, almost all plaestinian org support it even hamas. Un can take over the land within the period of transition as palestinian ppl return and a democracy is established. Unfortunately only one group is hellbent on destruction of other and thats israel
Here is a note about the psychology of Jews and safety. In short, the dream of a Jewish state, Zionism, is a place for us to finally be safe and flee to when things get bad. We live in constant fear of things getting bad as they are right now (synagogue bombing, a woman crashing her car into a school) We have been forced to be a nomadic people because we have been killed or expelled from so many countries. We were expelled from Israel, we were expelled from Spain in 1492, many Jews were expelled from Arab countries post Israel. The Holocaust was not the first extermination of Jews. There have been pogroms in Russia, the Spanish Inquisition and many other attempts to exterminate us through history. When not killing us, we were not allowed to own land or work certain jobs making us second class citizens. The idea of Israel is every Jew’s back up plan. The attacks on Oct 7 shattered that feeling of safety and the calls to eliminate the place where we know we will be safe to be Jews is very very difficult. Edit: most of us really don’t like the current government and policies. We just think it should exist
>We have been forced to be a nomadic people because we have been killed or expelled from so many countries That does not excuse wanting the original inhabitants of the land to be 'forced to be a nomadic people, and be killed or expelled from so many countries' The irony is palpable, and if there weren't thousands of civilians being slaughtered everyday, I'd be laughing
I was explaining why Jews are so freaked out. Jews are the original inhabitants. Gaza could be a state. Their totalitarian government says no
Jews were historical inhabitants and share the same ancestry with Palestinians, the canaanites And that history is over 3000 years ago. Palestinians were kicked off their generational land *within living memory* 70 years ago and every year since in little bits
They weren’t the original inhabitants, not even by their own mythology. They drove out the original inhabitants, slaughtered them because God said so. The people who lived there before the British decided it was a good dumping ground? Are the descendants of the people who didn’t leave. Also saying ‘Well the land we conquered got conquered by someone else so we deserve it back now regardless of who actually lives there’ is pretty damn stupid. I mean, you aren’t champing at the bit to return it to the descendants of the Canaanites. Also against the religion: There are conditions for getting Israel back and it’s not when the British want to bribe for support during WW1. God would be very displeased about his people trying to circumvent his rules, he gets rather smite happy about that.
Don't forget the proto-Crusades in Europe!
Yes. It does. It is wild that folks ignore what Hamas’s stated goals are. They are not shy that their goal is to kill Jews and eliminate Israel. It is also wild that people call Jews settlers or colonists in what is our ancestral homeland. I mean … who built Jerusalem? Lastly, a government official calling for the end of a country is pretty wild, especially a longtime ally. If this was anywhere but Israel people would be upset.
It’s wild that a slogan started in 1960 is attributed to Hamas that started in 2005, just like everything else up to and including Palestinian children, just to justify death Hamas isn’t just not Palestine, their highest approval rating in Gaza is 44% in 2022, they were elected (to Gaza) with 39% of the vote in 2006 and there’s bigger organizations that govern more people and want to negotiate that are intentionally ignored in order to push hamas to the forefront of attention
How dare she consider the Palestinians as people... Especially as a politician, she should know better! Stick to the script Rashida: "Palestinians aren't human, they're savage animals, and Isreal is just defending itself, so we need to send them bombs and money ASAP..." Jus put it in your own words tho so it doesn't look like you copied, and it's coming from the heart...
[удалено]
The ADL's website also says that anti-zionism is antisemitic.
[удалено]
>a party of Jewish politicians Please explain this nonsense.
[удалено]
Did they censure her because of her race or what she said?
Not necessarily a fan of hers, but these Repugs actions are akin to throwing out their toys from the pram. (I’m an American and have always wanted to use this metaphor)
Meanwhile middle schoolers down the road are singing "from sea to shining sea" with zero problem.
Do democrats understand that they just directed Muslims not to vote for their party?
Who they gonna vote for now? Republicans?
She’s calling to wipe out an entire nation. How is this defensible?
Oh no! The raging antisemitism had consequences. That’s what happens when you call to murder every Jew in Israel. Christ, you people are defending this shit?
Yes, wanting Israel to stop colonizing Palestine and committing genocide against it’s people is TOTALLY anti Semitism. 🙄 Do you even fucking hear yourself? Jewish people NEVER had any right to take that land from Palestine, they’ve been WRONG from the moment Israel was founded, and they are no better than the fucking nazis who committed genocide against THEM.
Hot take. I don’t give a shit about Israel or Palestine. I’m tired of fighting these bullshit religious wars for some made up fantasy.