I do in fact think “from the river to the sea” is neither an acceptable or advisable thing to say
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is an unacceptable or inadvisable thing to say in the midst of a genocide of the Palestinian people, because it suggests that the state responsible for the genocide shouldn’t exist?
I’ll say “free Palestine” all day long but will never use the other slogan.
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is an unacceptable or inadvisable thing to say in the midst of a genocide of the Palestinian people, because it suggests that the state responsible for the genocide shouldn’t exist?
Uh… yes. Germany exists. Turkey exists. Russia exists. Unless there’s something about Israel in particular that you especially don’t like but aren’t willing to say in public?
Urss used to exists now it decomposed to many countries, we are fine witb it so what is the problem to have a one state solution ?
Israel made the mess and occupied gaza and the west bank in 67 then nevwr stopped building settlements making the two state solution a non viable solution
Nazi Germany didn’t have a right to exist, nor did Apartheid South Africa, nor Rhodesia.
People have a right to exist.
Apartheid has no right to exist. Genocide has no right to exist. Ethnic cleansing has no right to exist.
You can either prioritize that people have a right to exist, or that an ethnosupremacist state committed to ethnic cleansing of native populations has the right to exist.
That is the situation. You are clearly choosing the latter. Maybe because there’s something in particular about the people being exterminated that you especially don’t like but aren’t willing to say in public?
Congratulations, Zionists also consider “free Palestine” a dog whistle for the destruction of Israel, so you’d better stop saying that too.
Though at this point, hand ringing about whether people are calling for the destruction in Israel is like hand ringing about whether people were calling for the destruction of Nazi Germany in 1942.
How’d you come to that conclusion? Are you saying that “From the river to the sea” is distinct from “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”?
The precise origins of the phrase are disputed. According to the American historian Robin D. G. Kelley, the phrase “began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel.”
The Israeli-American historian Omer Bartov notes that Zionist usage of such language predates the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and began with the Revisionist movement of Zionism led by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, which spoke of establishing a Jewish state in all of Palestine
And the indigenous reclaiming or reappropriating words and phrases totally never happened in history, ever. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is fundamentally different from “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”. Notice how the Euroanglo-Zionazis never utter the former phrase.
Understand that the former phrase is more than just a reappropration to the latter, but a call for the liberation of indigenous land from occupation by settler-colonialists. It’s no dogwhistle, and it is very crystal clear what it means: not one inch for Euroanglo-Zionazis.
Likewise, it’s very crystal clear what Euroanglo-Zionazis mean with their Lebensraum ass phrase: total wipeout of indigenous land and its people in favor of Euroanglo-Zionazis.
Well yes that is directly what happened. Both Israeli and Arabic are fundamentally not English languages, so the phrase “From the river to the sea” is always a translation.
The Palestinians saw the Israelis using the phrase and hijacked it, finishing it differently as a form of resistance. What many people get wrong though is that they claim only the first part of the phrase is already against Israel, while that part of the slogan was invented by Israel.
This is my last comment to you before I block you for being a histrionic liar: laws can be changed without destroying a country. The USA for example used to wholesale endorse slavery and managed to get rid of that without wiping out the country altogether.
Nah we basically did wipe out the country, and our failure to hang every single confederate is directly responsible for the state of the country today. So maybe reconsider the statement, guy. See also: germany, nazis
Also, we basically did wipe out the country in the civil war, and our failure to hang every single confederate is directly responsible for the state of the country today. See also: germany, nazis
Nah we basically did wipe out the country, and our failure to hang every single confederate is directly responsible for the state of the country today. So maybe reconsider the statement, guy. See also: germany, nazis
Removed by mod
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is an unacceptable or inadvisable thing to say in the midst of a genocide of the Palestinian people, because it suggests that the state responsible for the genocide shouldn’t exist?
Uh… yes. Germany exists. Turkey exists. Russia exists. Unless there’s something about Israel in particular that you especially don’t like but aren’t willing to say in public?
Urss used to exists now it decomposed to many countries, we are fine witb it so what is the problem to have a one state solution ? Israel made the mess and occupied gaza and the west bank in 67 then nevwr stopped building settlements making the two state solution a non viable solution
Nazi Germany didn’t have a right to exist, nor did Apartheid South Africa, nor Rhodesia.
People have a right to exist.
Apartheid has no right to exist. Genocide has no right to exist. Ethnic cleansing has no right to exist.
You can either prioritize that people have a right to exist, or that an ethnosupremacist state committed to ethnic cleansing of native populations has the right to exist.
That is the situation. You are clearly choosing the latter. Maybe because there’s something in particular about the people being exterminated that you especially don’t like but aren’t willing to say in public?
Yeah, their genocide is active.
Moron.
Not a big fan of the genocide.
Congratulations, Zionists also consider “free Palestine” a dog whistle for the destruction of Israel, so you’d better stop saying that too.
Though at this point, hand ringing about whether people are calling for the destruction in Israel is like hand ringing about whether people were calling for the destruction of Nazi Germany in 1942.
Removed by mod
How’d you come to that conclusion? Are you saying that “From the river to the sea” is distinct from “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
And the indigenous reclaiming or reappropriating words and phrases totally never happened in history, ever. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is fundamentally different from “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”. Notice how the Euroanglo-Zionazis never utter the former phrase.
Understand that the former phrase is more than just a reappropration to the latter, but a call for the liberation of indigenous land from occupation by settler-colonialists. It’s no dogwhistle, and it is very crystal clear what it means: not one inch for Euroanglo-Zionazis.
Likewise, it’s very crystal clear what Euroanglo-Zionazis mean with their Lebensraum ass phrase: total wipeout of indigenous land and its people in favor of Euroanglo-Zionazis.
Well yes that is directly what happened. Both Israeli and Arabic are fundamentally not English languages, so the phrase “From the river to the sea” is always a translation.
The Palestinians saw the Israelis using the phrase and hijacked it, finishing it differently as a form of resistance. What many people get wrong though is that they claim only the first part of the phrase is already against Israel, while that part of the slogan was invented by Israel.
“Zionism is when you don’t want the wholesale dissolution of an entire country”
That one’s going in the .ml hall of fame, thanks
Zionism is supporting the existence of the genocidal Israeli Apartheid. Akin to Nazism. Which you apparently do.
Can you quote for me paragraph 1C in Israeli basic law and tell me you support it https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/activity/documents/BasicLawsPDF/BasicLawNationState.pdf
This is my last comment to you before I block you for being a histrionic liar: laws can be changed without destroying a country. The USA for example used to wholesale endorse slavery and managed to get rid of that without wiping out the country altogether.
Nah we basically did wipe out the country, and our failure to hang every single confederate is directly responsible for the state of the country today. So maybe reconsider the statement, guy. See also: germany, nazis
If you change Israeli basic law then it is no longer Israel.
Either you’re unaware of what you just said, or you too are advocating for the abolishment of Israel.
Also, we basically did wipe out the country in the civil war, and our failure to hang every single confederate is directly responsible for the state of the country today. See also: germany, nazis
Nah we basically did wipe out the country, and our failure to hang every single confederate is directly responsible for the state of the country today. So maybe reconsider the statement, guy. See also: germany, nazis