Zionism is an ideology, but the way it’s being used by the Pro-Palestinian movement is racist, because they don’t believe Israel should exist (from the river to the sea). Israel isn’t going anywhere. And Israel is no more an ideology than the Palestinian’s aspirations of a homeland.
Let’s remember, before the 67’ War, Israel proper was controlled by Britain. Gaza was controlled by Egypt, and The West Bank and Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan. There was never a Palestinian state because both Egypt and Jordan were against giving up any land to the Palestinians.
The UN declared a Palestinian state, side by side with Israel. Regardless of belief, the Palestinians never had a state prior to the UN mandate. And the international community is not going to displace Jewish people from the state they declared as the state of Israel.
If we want to claim rights, we’d have to go back to the times of the Babylonian’s and the first mass exodus. And Jews always came back. Even after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Jews and Muslims fought along side each other during the Christian crusades, before the Jews were slaughtered or expelled again. It’s been a vicious cycle of displacement and death for all.
I believe in a Palestinian state, but both people’s future are tied together. Believing you can force 8 million Jews from Israel proper, in itself, would be a genocide as well.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free doesn’t mean that Israeli people will in any way suffer. That’s not revenge, it’s liberation. It’s like claiming that the end of apartheid South Africa implied that the white population there would face oppression. That’s not racist. Being against white supremacy isn’t racism against white people. This is the same thing.
The origins of the chant are embedded in Hamas charter. “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free is laced with genocidal intent.
Its origins started in 1966, when the Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, the father of the country’s current dictator, said: “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”
Hamas has claimed the slogan in their rejection of Israel in the mid 1990’s during the Oslo Peace negotiations.
So regardless of your intent, it has a more nefarious meaning for those committed to Israel’s destruction.
To be clear, being against Zionism and the settler colonial state that is Israel doesn’t mean that the people living in these lands would face oppression. I’m against Zionism and staunchly support the rights of all the people in these lands. I’d love for antisemitism and Zionism to disappear into the annals of history. The pro-Palestinian chant is not originally nor mostly used as a call to oppress Israelis. That some Palestinian extremists have used it this way means that those people are misusing the term. The college students and everyone else supporting Palestinians that use the chant want the liberation of Palestinians from Israeli oppression, not to reverse that oppression back to the millions of Israeli people.
The idea that oppressed people asking to be liberated want revenge as a general goal is in itself rooted in racism. This rhetoric was used by slaveowners, Americans and Canadians invading Native American and First Nation’s people’s land, pro-apartheid South African settlers, and now by pro-Israel talking heads.
Usually it's land and treasure the US coveted, disguised as a Christian mission - Manifest Destiny. Gold and land as God's reward for subduing the "savages."
Don't forget the Doctrine of Discovery out of the Pope that DECLARED AS TRUTH that lands without Christians are "unoccupied" and may be "discovered" and taken. Non-Christians were colonized into the discovering rulers. The Papal Bull of the Vatican so declared in 1493, not ironically, one year after Columbus bumped into the Western Hemisphere. The Church's current Pope Francis finally formally rescinded The Doctrine of Discovery in March 2023, a mere 503 years after it first hit the market. If only history could snap its fingers..... A brilliant analysis suggests the Doctrine, issued before Christians and Catholics separated into two in 1517ish, is a/[The?] Hidden Root of White Supremacy. Clearly, it is there for all too see, once it is brought to light. Check out robertpjones.substack.com. yitb
“The pro-Palestinian chant is not originally nor mostly used as a call to oppress Israelis. That some Palestinian extremists have used it this way means that those people are misusing the term.”
The origins of the chant are embedded in Hamas charter. “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free is laced with genocidal intent.
Its origins started in 1966, when the Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, the father of the country’s current dictator, said: “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”
Hamas has claimed the slogan in their rejection of Israel in the mid 1990’s during the Oslo Peace negotiations.
So regardless of your intent, it has a more nefarious meaning for those committed to Israel’s destruction.
"From the river to the sea" is a Likud statement. Hamas charter does not use the phrase. Please stop saying that the phrase is "laced with genocidal intent" (unlike Bebe's Amalekites reference). Maybe just referencing the Hamas charter intent for dissolution or extinction of the State of Israel would be just as effective?
Not sure what source you used, but the slogan has its origins before the establishment of the Israeli state by Zionists. It was then used by the PLO in the 60s for them wanting a state which encompassed the occupied territories which did include removing the Israelis currently living there. Moving people forcibly is genocidal in nature, but given that at the time many of those calling for that were literally driven out of their homes, I understand the sentiment. The usage of the term has a varied range and seems often relies on context. The term has also been used by Netanyahu to insinuate that Israel will occupy the entire land.
In the context I and many others for Palestine use it in, it includes or insinuates “Palestine will be free.” As in we want an end to the occupation and peace for all people within it. You can’t just claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent and are using it that way because you’re just demonizing a whole movement and excluding crucial context of the actual goals.
“You can’t just claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent and are using it that way because you’re just demonizing a whole movement and excluding crucial context of the actual goals.”
Don’t take my words out of context. I’m not saying all protesters feel this way but there are many who do. The slogan is judged by who uses it as a negative connotation.
The Swat-sticker, before it was appropriated by the Nazi’s was a symbol of peace, prosperity and good fortune by many cultures, east and West going back thousands of years.
The guy who said, "using the word Zionism," is "racist" — and told the original poster to, "support a two state solution, instead of a pipe dream of believing Israel can be driven into the sea" — is now telling someone, "Don’t take my words out of context?"
The guy who said, "Zionism is an ideology, but the way it’s being used by the Pro-Palestinian movement is racist, because they don’t believe Israel should exist (from the river to the sea)?" THAT guy says, "Don’t take my words out of context?"
Because THAT guy:
• Definitely DID "claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent"
• Definitely WAS "demonizing a whole movement"
• Definitely WAS "excluding crucial context of the actual goals"
Just like pikachu said.
In fact, that guy still is doing all of those things; he just walked back the scope of his accusation a little bit. He's now baselessly demonizing "many" pro-Palestine protesters, instead of all of them.
I don't believe, for a minute, that there are "many" pro-Palestinian protesters who are motivated by any manner of immoral intent.
Just like Israel's accusations against innocent Palestinians (and against UNRWA), Zionists' accusations against pro-Palestinian protesters, have fallen apart, one after another (but of course the lies are repeated ad nauseam, in the time it takes to prove a lie false).
No one here thinks Hamas are heroes. Zionism isn’t a racist term. It’s an ideology.
Zionism is an ideology, but the way it’s being used by the Pro-Palestinian movement is racist, because they don’t believe Israel should exist (from the river to the sea). Israel isn’t going anywhere. And Israel is no more an ideology than the Palestinian’s aspirations of a homeland.
Let’s remember, before the 67’ War, Israel proper was controlled by Britain. Gaza was controlled by Egypt, and The West Bank and Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan. There was never a Palestinian state because both Egypt and Jordan were against giving up any land to the Palestinians.
The UN declared a Palestinian state, side by side with Israel. Regardless of belief, the Palestinians never had a state prior to the UN mandate. And the international community is not going to displace Jewish people from the state they declared as the state of Israel.
If we want to claim rights, we’d have to go back to the times of the Babylonian’s and the first mass exodus. And Jews always came back. Even after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Jews and Muslims fought along side each other during the Christian crusades, before the Jews were slaughtered or expelled again. It’s been a vicious cycle of displacement and death for all.
I believe in a Palestinian state, but both people’s future are tied together. Believing you can force 8 million Jews from Israel proper, in itself, would be a genocide as well.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free doesn’t mean that Israeli people will in any way suffer. That’s not revenge, it’s liberation. It’s like claiming that the end of apartheid South Africa implied that the white population there would face oppression. That’s not racist. Being against white supremacy isn’t racism against white people. This is the same thing.
The origins of the chant are embedded in Hamas charter. “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free is laced with genocidal intent.
Its origins started in 1966, when the Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, the father of the country’s current dictator, said: “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”
Hamas has claimed the slogan in their rejection of Israel in the mid 1990’s during the Oslo Peace negotiations.
So regardless of your intent, it has a more nefarious meaning for those committed to Israel’s destruction.
IMHO…:)
To be clear, being against Zionism and the settler colonial state that is Israel doesn’t mean that the people living in these lands would face oppression. I’m against Zionism and staunchly support the rights of all the people in these lands. I’d love for antisemitism and Zionism to disappear into the annals of history. The pro-Palestinian chant is not originally nor mostly used as a call to oppress Israelis. That some Palestinian extremists have used it this way means that those people are misusing the term. The college students and everyone else supporting Palestinians that use the chant want the liberation of Palestinians from Israeli oppression, not to reverse that oppression back to the millions of Israeli people.
The idea that oppressed people asking to be liberated want revenge as a general goal is in itself rooted in racism. This rhetoric was used by slaveowners, Americans and Canadians invading Native American and First Nation’s people’s land, pro-apartheid South African settlers, and now by pro-Israel talking heads.
Usually it's land and treasure the US coveted, disguised as a Christian mission - Manifest Destiny. Gold and land as God's reward for subduing the "savages."
Don't forget the Doctrine of Discovery out of the Pope that DECLARED AS TRUTH that lands without Christians are "unoccupied" and may be "discovered" and taken. Non-Christians were colonized into the discovering rulers. The Papal Bull of the Vatican so declared in 1493, not ironically, one year after Columbus bumped into the Western Hemisphere. The Church's current Pope Francis finally formally rescinded The Doctrine of Discovery in March 2023, a mere 503 years after it first hit the market. If only history could snap its fingers..... A brilliant analysis suggests the Doctrine, issued before Christians and Catholics separated into two in 1517ish, is a/[The?] Hidden Root of White Supremacy. Clearly, it is there for all too see, once it is brought to light. Check out robertpjones.substack.com. yitb
“The pro-Palestinian chant is not originally nor mostly used as a call to oppress Israelis. That some Palestinian extremists have used it this way means that those people are misusing the term.”
The origins of the chant are embedded in Hamas charter. “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free is laced with genocidal intent.
Its origins started in 1966, when the Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, the father of the country’s current dictator, said: “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”
Hamas has claimed the slogan in their rejection of Israel in the mid 1990’s during the Oslo Peace negotiations.
So regardless of your intent, it has a more nefarious meaning for those committed to Israel’s destruction.
IMHO…:)
"From the river to the sea" is a Likud statement. Hamas charter does not use the phrase. Please stop saying that the phrase is "laced with genocidal intent" (unlike Bebe's Amalekites reference). Maybe just referencing the Hamas charter intent for dissolution or extinction of the State of Israel would be just as effective?
Not sure what source you used, but the slogan has its origins before the establishment of the Israeli state by Zionists. It was then used by the PLO in the 60s for them wanting a state which encompassed the occupied territories which did include removing the Israelis currently living there. Moving people forcibly is genocidal in nature, but given that at the time many of those calling for that were literally driven out of their homes, I understand the sentiment. The usage of the term has a varied range and seems often relies on context. The term has also been used by Netanyahu to insinuate that Israel will occupy the entire land.
In the context I and many others for Palestine use it in, it includes or insinuates “Palestine will be free.” As in we want an end to the occupation and peace for all people within it. You can’t just claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent and are using it that way because you’re just demonizing a whole movement and excluding crucial context of the actual goals.
“You can’t just claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent and are using it that way because you’re just demonizing a whole movement and excluding crucial context of the actual goals.”
Don’t take my words out of context. I’m not saying all protesters feel this way but there are many who do. The slogan is judged by who uses it as a negative connotation.
The Swat-sticker, before it was appropriated by the Nazi’s was a symbol of peace, prosperity and good fortune by many cultures, east and West going back thousands of years.
Not anymore!..:)
The guy who said, "using the word Zionism," is "racist" — and told the original poster to, "support a two state solution, instead of a pipe dream of believing Israel can be driven into the sea" — is now telling someone, "Don’t take my words out of context?"
The guy who said, "Zionism is an ideology, but the way it’s being used by the Pro-Palestinian movement is racist, because they don’t believe Israel should exist (from the river to the sea)?" THAT guy says, "Don’t take my words out of context?"
Because THAT guy:
• Definitely DID "claim that pro-Palestine protesters have nefarious intent"
• Definitely WAS "demonizing a whole movement"
• Definitely WAS "excluding crucial context of the actual goals"
Just like pikachu said.
In fact, that guy still is doing all of those things; he just walked back the scope of his accusation a little bit. He's now baselessly demonizing "many" pro-Palestine protesters, instead of all of them.
I don't believe, for a minute, that there are "many" pro-Palestinian protesters who are motivated by any manner of immoral intent.
Just like Israel's accusations against innocent Palestinians (and against UNRWA), Zionists' accusations against pro-Palestinian protesters, have fallen apart, one after another (but of course the lies are repeated ad nauseam, in the time it takes to prove a lie false).
But the swastika still isn’t an inherently racist symbol. It’s still very much used in many cultures. Context and intent are important
Did anyone listen to the Israeli chants about the Arabs? I can't hear you talking about it !
Did some read the charter of the running likud party!