But chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) and calls for an intifada (de facto violence against Jews) are anti-semitic. Supporting Hamas, whose goal is to kill as many Jews as possible, or saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks is anti-semitic (Hamas is also bad for Gazans, but that's another story). I can go on and on. People holding these views may hold them not because they hate Jews (for example, I don't think that people removing posters of kidnapped Israelis necessarily hate them), but the result is all the same. There is also obvious anti-semitism unrelated to Israel, like attacking synagogues, drawing stars of David on Jewish houses, etc., but that's not what I'm talking about.
And the most vocal anti-Israelis are naturally the most extreme ones and usually include some of the stuff I mentioned. As a result, people call out anti-semitism, usually not referring to anti-Israeli critics you are talking about.
What is the truth of that? I've seen Israeli advocates make that claim and many repeat it. I've also seen an explainer in legitimate source (maybe the NY Times?) say that it means both Palestinians and Jews should be free. Does anyone have some actual, authoritative information? Something from before October 7th might be good.
> saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks
Who has said that?
The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah ... There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. ... Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967.
Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum. Saying "from the river to the sea" means that all people should be free is akin to saying "arbeit macht frei" is a call for the financial independence of working people.
As for your second question, calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives [2].
[1] https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-is...
You can draw a very neat line between the number of jews currently permitted to live peacefully in palestine vs the number of muslims living within israel.
its not complicated, confusing, unclear or opaque.
River to the Sea means to end the israeli state, and the end of that does not have a happy ending for any jews living on that land.
If you doubt it ask a few Palestinians what would happen to the Jews living in the area if “Palestine is free”.
Now Hamas does play on the string of religion to get to people, and so does Israel (isn't it the promised land after all?).. but the main goal is to free the people from the oppressive occupation!
and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone! if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!
and like Bassem Youssef said, let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank. how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?
> https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
Then the Times of Israel is on the record with articles accusing Netanyahu of being anti-semitic. I don't think those things you list are anti-semitic - they just happen to be politically bad for Jews right now. There is a difference (an important one) between policies-bad-for-a-group and being motivated by an unreasonable hatred of a group.
Their "2017 charter" rather dramatically toned down the language. The original version makes no attempt to be politically correct.
I'm open to the suggestion that (some?) people chanting this hope for this to be accomplished without violence, but speakers at such events have also glorified the actions of Hamas on October 7th.
For what it's worth, I don't support the actions of Israel, or the occupation of West bank and Gaza. I support a free Palestine in the sense that West Bank / Gaza should be left alone. There's a good chance that without the blockade, those territories would better arm themselves and it would result in a war which would impact Israel much more significantly as West Bank + Gaza would likely move to reclaim Israeli land. But at this point I don't see an alternative without Israel continuing its egregious human rights violations and genocide of the Palestinian people.
Kind of a shit situation all around.
However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
And from p.2, where 'Palestine' is defined geographically, which seems to include much or all of Israel (including Israel in a two-state solution). However, a quick search did not turn up Ras Al-Naqurah or Umm Al-Rashrash.
The Land of Palestine:
2. Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.
-------------
Second, though I think it obviously weighs significantly on the question, I'll point out some considerations:
* Hamas doesn't speak for Palestinians generally. What does the Palestinian Authority say? Optimally, we'd need information on the Palestinian public now or before Oct 7, when the issue was less politicized and information more reliable.
* Again, the document is significant, but generally, something in a document doesn't reliably tell us the beliefs of the public. Even scripture won't tell you what people are doing or thinking (even the leaders - compare some of their ideas with scripture).
* It's from 2017; I wonder how old the phrase is.
Anyway, hardly criticism; thanks for contributing. It's not an easy question.
> calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives
Warfare, including as currently conducted by Israel, is not the only means of Israel defending itself. IMHO elliding the two seems like an obviously disingenous attack, and it undermines all supporters of Israel by making their other claims equally suspect.
Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?
> if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!
But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone, and the earlier we understand it, the better. For the same reasons, the right of return for every descendant won't work. We need to come up with a meaningful two-state solution, but that failed multiple times. So what's left? What solution do you think both sides may agree on, assuming good faith negotiations? Do you think any side is ready to give up West Jerusalem or their right of return stance?
> let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank.
I think the situation in West Bank is much better both for Israelis and Palestinians than the situation in Gaza (even before 7/10), and more importantly, there are ways to improve it.
> how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?
I don't justify the settlement expansion; I think it is a wrong practice. Do you think removing settlements (plus, say, some territory exchange where removal is too complicated) would solve all West Bank problems?
Do you happen to know where to find it? Is there an English translation (not an English version published by them, but a translation by someone reliable)? Often all sides in Israel speak differently in English and local languages, afaik.
It doesn't work beautifully or easily or perfectly, but it keeps a lid on things generally. Our recent abandonment of it is awful, and serves only the warmongers, hateful, and power-hungry - the people who benefit from the absence of things like universal human rights.
The end of Israel as an exclusionary apartheid state does not have to mean the end of Jews living there, in a pluralist state guaranteeing equal access to Christians, Jews and Muslims to their holy sites and shared ancestral homeland.
It's just dirt, there's nothing special about it. Almost all borders are the results of war and conquest throughout history, it's better to accept that and move on.
Ras Al-Naqurah, I think, is Rosh HaNikra [1], the current northern border of Israel. Umm Al-Rashrash is now Eilat [2], the southernmost Israeli city. For me, both were the first google links.
> Optimally, we'd need information on the Palestinian public now or before Oct 7, when the issue was less politicized and information more reliable.
You can check the polls from July 2023 [3]. For example, 50% thought that Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction.
> Again, the document is significant, but generally, something in a document doesn't reliably tell us the beliefs of the public.
Would you use a slogan actively used by some racist organization to call for white supremacy because it also meant something else you believe in?
> Warfare, including as currently conducted by Israel, is not the only means of Israel defending itself.
I don't see how else you can possibly defend yourself from armed people killing your citizens in their homes. Again, this specific call happened while Hamas was still killing Israelis in Israel.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_HaNikra_Crossing [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilat [3] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh...
I'm pro a 2 state solution based on the 67' borders, fighting over some "right of return" to a place you've never been for generations just seems like a waste of life.
And if you even take the very long term view, a 2 state solution could eventually lead to open borders, and an implicit "right of return" (after decades of peace and building trust).
Sure. You don't have to have anti-semitic views to say anti-semitic things. The thing doesn't become less anti-semitic if you weren't motivated by hatred. It is also an unobservable difference because I can't say what your motivation is, only what is the meaning of your words and actions. Someone may want to ban black people from attending universities so that white people have more spots, the fact that they are not motivated by unreasonable hatred doesn't magically make the ban not racist.
> Ras Al-Naqurah, I think, is Rosh HaNikra [1], the current northern border of Israel. Umm Al-Rashrash is now Eilat [2], the southernmost Israeli city. For me, both were the first google links.
If that's true (as expected), then IMHO the Hamas document effectively calls for driving Jews out of Israel. I expect that if they got their "formula for national consensus", essentially the two-state solution, they'd still aim for the bigger goal.
> Would you use a slogan actively used by some racist organization to call for white supremacy because it also meant something else you believe in?
Good point; I wouldn't (and I don't say that). Though the slogan could be appropriated by Hamas for that reason. We see that plenty these days and this is an extremely politicized issue.
> I don't see how else you can possibly defend yourself from armed people killing your citizens in their homes. Again, this specific call happened while Hamas was still killing Israelis in Israel.
Again, that doesn't seem genuine. You can't think of any other way? I'm sure the Netanyahu government discussed other ways. Almost everyone in the world can think of other ways.
Focusing on one specific statement (and citing an WSJ opinion piece!) also sounds like a call to outrage, not reason. Don't trust WSJ opinion pieces: They always end the same way, which tells you they will say anything to reach that end. Contrast the NYT op-ed page, which has opinions across the spectrum (with the major exception that the conservatives abandoned Trump). Don't trust any opinion pieces - they are all liars, on all sides, is my strong opinion.
I believe we should start with 2 states, and maybe after trust is rebuilt we can look into unionizing them.
Reminds me of "Defund the police." Led to people having to constantly explain that they didn't actually mean that police should have zero funds and be abolished. But, except, a lot of people on Twitter countered that they did mean exactly that, and that all cops are bad and they're all racist. :facepalm:
I'm not sure the source of the English, if it's an official English version or was translated by a third party.
Among other things, it calls for the "obliteration" of Israel by Islam, asserts that "death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of [the Islamic Resistance's] wishes", and cites noted anti-semitic text "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" among other conspiracy theories. It also says:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
It's not Israel's choice or business, effectively. Every Palestinian person has the same right to self-determination as every Israeli/Jewish person. It's also international law about occupied territory seized in war, etc. Israel relies on those rights and laws too.
The ROI is the end of endless warfare, which is Israel's current situation (as is very evident). War is politics by other means; without a political solution, wars continue indefinitely.
> I believe we should start with 2 states, and maybe after trust is rebuilt we can look into unionizing them.
Do you mean a separate Gaza country and West Bank country, along side an Israel country - a three state solution? Again, it's really up to the Palestinians how they want to organize themselves. Who are you to tell them otherwise? Could they tell you what you do in your country?
They're not responsible for what supporters of Israel infer from this phrase.
>But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone
Those who are unsatisfied with not living within a racist ethnostate would be welcome to leave and doubtless many would.
Many South Africans packed their bags and left after apartheid.
>We need to come up with a meaningful two-state solution, but that failed multiple times. So what's left? What solution do you think both sides may agree on, assuming good faith negotiations?
The two state solution failed many times because of a lack of good faith on Israel's side. They supported the creation of Hamas as an Islamist bulwark against the PA precisely to stymie a two state solution.
The only thing that would get them to negotiate in good faith is losing American support. That is key.
>I think the situation in West Bank is much better both for Israelis and Palestinians than the situation in Gaza
They are oppressed and murdered at a far lower tempo. If youve ever seen the way Israelis in, say, Hebron treat Palestinians (i.e. like subhuman scum) you wouldnt ever say that they had it good.
Israel needs to first admit that it's establishment was on the expense of another people that are still suffering until today, without that, it's difficult to move forward, as well as continuing this conversation.
> Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?
Maybe, I don't know what else can it be! the slogan is not calling for killing anyone, FREEDOM = Dignity, Human Rights, I personally just want to be able to go to the beach and travel from an airport nearby.
> But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone....
Why not?
>The right of return for every descendant won't work
Why not?
I'm genuinely clueless. Possibly, you mean something different from what I'm talking about. What other ways of defending against ongoing military action (mostly against civilians) are you thinking of?
> Don't trust any opinion pieces - they are all liars, on all sides, is my strong opinion
I've cited it because it is the first link on Google. I can cite statements themselves [1] [2]. And I don't focus on it; I've given an example of prominent people calling for a ceasefire (basically letting the terrorists run away and prepare next attack) very early in conflict.
[1] https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/stateme...
Agree, that's why i believe in a 2 state solution.
> The ROI is the end of endless warfare
Israel has been prospering more or less, and of course it's a gamble but that's true either way (for example, there could be better and cheaper missile defense tech coming soon, so the risk of war would be lower)
> Do you mean a separate Gaza country and West Bank country, along side an Israel country
Yes, but we can solve that with either an air corridor / connecting road in the beginning and eventually a tunnel - the land mass is fairly small.
Sure it's not ideal, but Gaza + West bank is about a 10x larger land mass than singapore.
> it's really up to the Palestinians how they want to organize themselves
Sure, but i think it's silly to suffer for so long just due some specific piece of land when you already have land.
And like a said, a 2 state solution doesn't have to be the end all, after trust is rebuilt the countries could have an open border and migration policy.
And israel should remove the settlements of course.
"From the river to the sea, palestine will be free" implies a desire to see freedom not genocide.
If you're looking for slogans that genuinely impute racist genocidal intent look no further than the Israeli Prime Minister's references to Amalek.
People who say that they support Israel may not believe this imputed genocidal intent is what they support that in a practical sense it is.
I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but a few observations:
* Dated 1988.
* It is The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, which goes on to say, The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. Is that the same as Hamas? The added page title (which doesn't seem part of the document), Hamas Covenant 1988, clearly says so.
* Just one thing I noticed, skimming it: Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam.
As it happens, the Palestinians are slightly outnumbered in the area between the river and the sea, which means that when it crops up in the Hamas charter it's difficult to imagine that democracy is how they would seek to maintain control over the region, even ignoring recent history (And yeah, the same question marks about how exactly they would stay in power applies to all the Palestinian and Israeli groups before them that defined the "river and the sea" as the territories they thought their brethren should assume control of, as they pointedly focused on the idea of historical unity rather than self determination)
I'm sure there are people who sincerely believe in the position that a single state solution with some form of democracy would be best for the region and a moderating influence but I don't think they overlap much with the river sea border slogan people...
The phrase was dreamt up by Western Israeli allies to promote an oppressive pipe-dream border arrangement that was not even remotely acceptable by any reasonable standards. Only propagandized westerners even speak of it.
This is done so the Western media can frame Palestinians as uncooperative.
Fair enough.
> letting the terrorists run away
That seems like finding the most outrageous possible interpretation, and in contradition to most of the statements which condemned the attacks in detail. If Ocasio-Cortez and Omar were posting on HN, you'd be violating HN guidelines.
2. Did you ask yourself why people in Gaza fight Israel? it helps to know how much you know about this subject in order to know how to reply to you
> Hamas [...] an acronym of its official name, the Islamic Resistance Movement
To read it literally (and choose one of many possible literal interpretations), doesn't work in this situation, if it ever works. It's not a statement someone just now made up on the spot in an isolated context; it's a slogan in an extremely politicized situation, with many years of history and meaning upon it.
Strong disagree. History is important, but we need to solve present problems. It is possible to live a good life without returning to grandpa's home from 80 years ago. And while Israel did shitty things in 1948, I don't think Jordan or other Arab countries did better. It's impossible to say, but if the proposed borders were accepted, I'm pretty sure there would be much less suffering from both sides.
> I personally just want to be able to go to the beach and travel from an airport nearby.
But other Palestinians want more. You could get your beach in Camp David, any peace attempts included as much, and the disagreement never was around freedom of movement of Palestinians.
> Why not?
Because that would mean to displace people currently living there. Two wrongs do not make a right. And Jews were minorities in many different countries, and it turned out not that good many times. Specifically, Jews had to flee multiple Arabic countries not that long ago. How can we be sure it won't happen again?
> As it happens, the Palestinians are slightly outnumbered in the area between the river and the sea, which means that when it crops up in the Hamas charter it's difficult to imagine that democracy is how they would seek to maintain control over the region
It's long been a basic assumption of experts that Palestinian's higher population growth would result in them having a much larger population in Israel than Jews. That's been a reason and incentive for the two-state solution: Israeli Jews would not want to be a minority in the 'Jewish state'.
The fact that the Israeli right wing has abandoned the two-state solution raises the question of what they intend. Clearly they don't intend being a minority; what other plan do they have?
If you want to play join the dots from slogan to genocidal racism, Netanyahu's references to Amalak is what you are looking for.
You mean what's in the Lukud 1977 charter which was reiterated by Netanyahu recently after 10/7?
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront...
To claim that Israels use of this phrase (which explicitly calls for the removal/elimination of Palestinians) is ok while the Palestinian one is not is hypocritical.
They constantly say (understandably) how unhappy they are, they are attacked, etc. Look at the current situation. They don't seem satisfied at all.
> it's silly to suffer for so long just due some specific piece of land when you already have land.
That's not why, or not the only reason. The story is that Arafat (Palestine) rejected the two-state (IIRC) resolution in the 1990s, possibly for that reason. But these days the Israelis have opposed a two-state solution for many years.
Also, it's easy to dismiss others' claims.
And the argument is novel in international relations: Do we dismiss China's claim to Taiwan on the basis that China already has (far more) land? Ukraine's claim to their east and south? Etc.
How do you see implementing that politically? What constituency is there?
Israel actually ranks very high in the happiness index, so they are mostly happy, doesn't mean they don't like to complain about stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2023_re...
> But these days the Israelis have opposed a two-state solution for many years.
Yeah, which makes me sad. But also i believe the younger palestinains have also moved to the right and are less accepting of a two state solution. That's why you need strong leaders on both sides that aren't just pandering to the people, but are willing to go against the public will - and sadly i don't think we will see such leaders in the current generation (and probably not the next one either)
> And the argument is novel in international relations
Not sure it's very novel, israel's recognized international borders are fairly clear, legally there's just dispute over the west bank and some part of the north, but israel proper isn't disputed.
Not only did Palestinians were forcibly evicted in 1948 (The Nakba), they're being continuously occupied by an apartheid, racist and terrorist regime.
This is not a matter of conquest my friend. Because look. And bear with me. This might be long. But it's worth it. The Muslims conquered the lands of Jerusalem in 638 AD where the first Islamic Caliphate, Umar Ibn Khattab, besieged the city and the Christians surrendered. He took over without bloodshed. When Umar Ibn Khattab asked them, where are the Jews? He was surprised to hear they were all slaughtered or driven away by the Byzantine Christians sometime around 138-150 AD. He said, bring 20 Jewish families and establish them here. No lands were stolen, nothing was taken, no forced conversions were made. Jews Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then the Christian crusaders came in the 11th century and SLAUGHTERED everyone, Muslims AND Jews. Then, Islamic leader Salahuddin came 150-200 years later and liberated Jerusalem. Again, same thing. No lands were taken, no forced conversions. He even spared the Christians who slaughtered everyone 150 years ago. Then the Ottomons came and ruled over from 14 or 15th century and implemented the Millet system where every religious community had their own government. Again, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then it allll went down hill from 1917 onwards. I won't go into details but it lead to the Nakba in 1948, where British soldiers were commanded to evict Palestinians. 750K Palestinians displaced. Tens of thousands were killed. Women were raped (watch Tarantulla, watch the Jewish soliders ADMIT TO THIS). So mate, there's a massive difference. It's not just a piece of land. It's generations upon generations of families. And their homes being stolen. They're being KICKED off their lands. Generations where they've experienced so many atrocities. Atrocities that are being committed still to this day.
And if you want to understand even an ounce of the terrorism that Israeli soldiers commit against Palestinians in occupied territory, what better way than to listen straight from the mouths of ex-IDF soldiers? Well, good news for you, ex-IDF soliders in early 2000 created an org called "Breaking the silence". Look it up. THere you'll find over 300 video confessions + 200 text confessions of IDF confessing to acts of terrorism. Examples include occupying a home just to watch the World Cup, or to sleep in it while ALL the family sits in one room. Using children as human shields to do their search operations. They literally coined the term "neighborhood procedure" where they use Palestinians to knock on suspected "terrorists" homes to scout them out (Such cowards). You'll come across videos of soldiers confessing to killing an innocent man on the rooftop bc he looked at them weird. Or killing a child 40 min after he threw a molotov. I mean the list goes on and on. All that I described are from the video confessions. No propaganda. No BS. All straight from ex-IDF soldiers. Watch the videos on "Breaking the silence" and then come tell me if they can just "accept and move on". So it's not just about land my friend. It's about occupation, oppression, etc.
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/2018-12-13/ty-article-opi...
I'd like to think I have a somewhat decent understanding of the situation, but flawed and with its own biases of course.
Did Israel commit some crimes during 1948? Sure, but it's kinda silly to expect Israel to not use a war that was forced upon them to better their situation, especially when when the Arab nations tried to wipe out Israel.
You can't start a war to wipe someone out, lose that war and later call foul play on such a response.
And again, I think Israel should stop the occupation in the west bank, which is what "breaking the silence" is all about, I'm not trying to protect israel's actions.
And if it's not about land and all about peace and prosperity, what's the issue with a two state solution?
And why didn't you go all the way back to the kingdom of judea in your history lesson?
But yes, I agree that detractors will co-opt language. It's an effective tactic.
That may well be the case in future[1], but I don't think Hamas or even the considerably milder supporters of "Palestine will be free" are proposing those river and sea borders on the assumption that it will remain a predominantly Jewish state for a couple of generations. Perhaps not all of them have in mind Hamas' October approach to the demographic imbalance, but I don't think the solution they're imagining involves leadership being chosen by popular vote either.
Israel's right of course, aren't any more democratic in saying essentially the same thing (the slogan seems to have lost currency, but you'll hear them arguing tha Gaza is part of Israel and they're not saying that because they think everyone there should have a vote in the Knesset)
[1] the other problems with such predictions is that both groups have large diasporas but if votes occur along sectarian lines then only one of them controls passports, and perhaps less darkly there is the possibility that relative population growth is outpaced by younger people becoming less interested in historic conflict dynamics (which seems to be the case in Northern Ireland)
I can't imagine the average Palestinian person having the headroom to do anything about those 1%.
Does that mean that Israel should implement whatever response they feel like? That is what we are watching play out, and it's an ugly scene.
What if, alternatively, the average Palestinian person was actually in a position to help? What would that look like?
--
What this really seems to boil down to is that no Palestinian person gets a say about what happens in Palestine, except for that violent 1%. That's a pretty obvious motivator for people to join that 1% group. It's also a motivator that might potentially be eliminated without violence. It seems to me like that would be worth a try.
When I hear that chant I don't assume that it means 'destroying Jewish country' but rather that the Palestinian nation (i.e. people) should be free between the Jordan and Mediterranean. There is no contradiction in the hypothetical chant "Palestine and Israel shall be free from the river to the sea" if we are talking about nations and not states.
The problem is that neither Israelis nor Palestinians can be free in a state that practices apartheid against them (be that an Israeli or Palestinian state). So you could interpret "Palestine shall be free from the river to the sea" as a call to end apartheid in Israel. Which brings us to the crux of this issue - Israel's determination to remain an ethno-religious apartheid state. The founding of a state where only a certain type of person can be a full citizen is the original sin here in my opinion.
> Strong disagree. History is important, but we need to solve present problems.
I'll go a step further. All history surrounding this must be forgotten, to move forward. There are grievances and counter-grievances, ancestral claims and counter-claims, and conflicting divine proclamations. Those have to all be thrown away, and instead consider only the current situation.
> Hello there, a Palestinian from the west bank here speaking,
> let me tell you something, our resistance has nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish state, if my brother stole my house and killed my children i will fight him just the same, and you would too and everyone else (I assume). jewish, muslim, christian, vegan.. doesn't matter.
I should address "stole your house" and "killed your children" separately. The "stealing houses" issue started during the 1948 war - what you call Nakba and I call Independence. The UN partitioned the holy land, and the Arabs were unsatisfied so started conquering land. Their specific intention was to "steal houses" or "steal land" or however else you want to phrase it. Ergo, this things happened though it did not turn out how they intended. Likewise, no fewer Jews than Arabs had their houses stolen. How many Jews remained in the West Bank after the 1948 war? Zero. How many Arabs remained in the new state of Israel? Hundreds of thousands. And do not forget the houses stolen from the Jews of Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Tunis, and other Arab states.
As for the "killed your children" there are so many ways that children both Palestinian and Jewish have been killed. Do you agree with me that Palestinian children are often involved in violence? I'll tell you that the first time I ever saw an Arab with a rifle he was shooting it in one arm (in the air, but towards Israels myself included) and a small child, maybe four or five, in the other. And I've seen enough similar things myself since. I have no doubt that innocent children have been killed - no doubt at all. But I do dispute the idea that the Israeli state is deliberately killing children. I served in the army, and anybody who would ever say anything remotely stupid to the hint of deliberately hurting a civilian was disciplined severely. I'm sure the entire army is not as my small battalion was, but I do believe that my battalion was representative.
> let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank. how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?
Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.
QUOTE
The phrase was popularised in the 1960s as part of a wider call for Palestinian liberation creating a democratic state freeing Palestinians from oppression from Israeli as well as from other Arab regimes such as Jordan and Egypt.[6][7] In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah, although this was later expanded.[8][9] Palestinian progressives use it to call for a united democracy over the whole territory.[10] while others say "it's a call for peace and equality after ... decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians."
/QUOTE
Even in the most charitable interpretations about what happens to the Jews living there, it is a call to replace the state of Israel with a completely different state.
Well, there have been many proposals for a 2-state solution but at many times, both sides have jeopardized and rejected offers.
Better their situation? Really? At the expense of displacing almost a million people? Come on man, are you hearing yourself? Not only have they displaced them, they've killed tens of thousands of them. On top of that, they've been taking more and more land as the decades have gone by. Not to mention the acts of terrorism they've inflicted on Palestinians in occupied territory.
1948 was a result of a war that Arab nations started? Can you elaborate on that? Why did they start it? Please elucidate me.
Yes I am. Do you think international borders around the world have been the same since the beginning of time? All nations have done the same and have shaped their own border through wars, in this case the war was a defensive one which makes it one of the more righteous ones.
Do you dispute the right to exist of the US or Australia? Why not? If anything jews are actually indigenous to the land.
Are you aware that not all of those 700k were displaced by israel? A large percentage of them fled on their own, and some also listened to the advice from arab nations and left their homes.
> 1948 was a result of a war that Arab nations started? Can you elaborate on that? Why did they start it? Please elucidate me.
Are you claiming that they didn't start it?
The Hamas charter that was used during the last elections in Palestine explicitly calls for the total destruction of Israel. To reach that goal, unrestricted jihad is necessary. Negotiated resolution are considered unacceptable. Hamas won those elections.
Hamas has since revised that charter in 2017; but retained the goal of completely eliminating Israel - it is till a constitutive element of their political beliefs.
> we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone! if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!
You might have a personal interpretation, but make no mistake about the intentions of the elected representatives of the Palestinian population when they chant that.
South Africa managed to pull it, and end apartheid. Why wouldn't it work for Israel?
(And guess what, now I can go to Polish Silesia anytime I want! Not that I ever would, because my connection to that place is as tenuous as yours to Israeli land)
Completely different state appears to be roughly the same state, minus apartheid. If it worked in South Africa, why wouldn't it work here?
Israel should end the apartheid in the west bank, but israel proper (67' borders) is a liberal democracy, there's no reason to give that up.
And then you argue for the ‘67 borders: that’s 50 years ago, what makes those the borders we should roll back to when almost no Palestinians of today were alive before then?
I can't comment on all the situations because I have very little familiarity with refugees in africa, but assuming they don't have a state to return to and they can form a new state where they are? Then yes, 100% yes.
The 67' borders are internationally recognized, so I'm saying accept that and move on.
My grandparents lived in eastern Europe before the Holocaust, I'm not crying to return there because I have a new home.
Throughout history humans have been nomadic and moved from place to place. If you take any person and go up along their ancestry line at some point you'd probably encounter some ancestor that was displaced (by another tribe, nation, lord, just some bastard, etc), and yet we don't dwell on that.
Like that makes it okay? And man, you don't even realize that you don't know what you're talking about. You keep making orthogonal points. Here's what I'm saying, land keeps getting taken. By Israelis. That's an international crime. Quite literally. The UN was established at the time. And guess what. The Israelis were promised a certain percentage of Palestinian land by the British, but they took more. And kept taking more and more with illegal settlements man. Even to this day man. They've kicked Palestinians off in 1948 and they continue to do that. That's what you don't understand and you keep glossing over it as if it's been done. It's happening NOW man.
A large percentage of them fled on their own? I don't know how true that is but that's effectively the same thing as being driven away. What compelled them to do that? You do realize tens of thousands were killed too right...? Like dude, I don't think you even hear yourself. Why wouldn't they leave on their own if they were being killed? And chased away? The British soldiers physically evicted Palestinians. Don't you know that? Why did they also leave on their own? Like don't you think about these things? You can ask the same questions to Jews when Muslims ruled over them. The Jews didn't leave when Muslims ruled over them. So why didn't the Jews leave when Muslims took over Spain? Hmm? Why didn't the Jews leave when Islamic ruler, Salahuddin conquered Jerusalem back in the 13th century? Why did they come back? Why did Umar Ibn Khattab, the first Caliphate of Islam, establish 20 Jewish families in Jerusalem when he conquered Jerusalem and found out the Jews were driven and slaughtered by the Christian? You see where I'm getting at? When Muslims ruled, Jews were protected. They weren't displaced. They kept their own lands. No displacement. And then the colonial British came and **ed everything up. Thanks Britain. Thanks a lot.
Do you know who Abraham is? Yeah. It all starts from him. Earliest historical records show, he was born in present day Iraq. And he emigrated to the land of Canaan. According to both historical records AND the Old testament. It literally says in the Old Testament that the Caananites were in the land where Abraham traveled to and also says God will promise the land to the children of Isaac and Jacob (who was later renamed Israel). T
So what I've told you alone tells you that Jews were NOT indigenous to present day Israel. It was the Caananites man. Like bro. You saying that alone discredits anything you know so far because you're quite literally just parroting sh*t you hear without doing any research. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Seriously. Open a book. And read. Do more research.
And btw https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891 - Jews are not any less indigenous than Palestinians.
Palestinians as a people and identity only started to exist in the 1900s - please learn your history, these are basic facts.
I agree about the west bank, I think Israel should remove the settlements.
I don't see what Muslim history in the are has to do with anything. Jews are indigenous to the area, border fights exist, and the current situation exist. Israel was founded and expanded after a few successful defensive wars - you just need to accept that as a fact.
Now we can be pragmatic and try a two state solution or we can continue arguing about history.
Palestinians can fight for what they view as justice for generations and get nowhere except more suffering, or they can decide that the west bank and Gaza are enough. It's their call. I know what I would decide
The article you linked said that blockading Gaza (before the war) is somehow Apartheid, that's just ludicrous on the surface, and is representative of the nonsense they peddle.
I never said Palestinians did not emigrate to the area.
I'm refuting the fact that you're saying Jews are indigenous to the land there. That's completely false.
It's so ironic that you tell me to learn history and claim these are basic facts when the paper your OWN paper that you linked refutes you. It literally says Palestinians and Jews come Caananites. Which is true. Because the Jews and other folks mixed with Caananites. That's what I'm saying mate. Abraham emigrated from Iraq to the land of Canaan. He had Isaac who had Israel and then that's how the 12 tribes of Israel conquered the land of Judea. They spread their seed early on. But they were not indigenous.
You literally have no clue about what you're talking about.
Jews are indigenous to the land according to any normal "indigenous" definition.