9 ms·

Criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semitic, and many Israelis and Jews are critical of the Israeli government and its actions (even more than usual d

Criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semitic, and many Israelis and Jews are critical of the Israeli government and its actions (even more than usual during the ongoing political crisis). Many of the critics I see lack nuance (basically, "rooting for the underdog"), but that's a different problem. The problem is complicated, and there is no simple solution (some kind of two-state may work after many years). 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.

wolverine876 3y ago
> chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) 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?
- EvgeniyZh 3y ago
  For example, 2017 Hamas charter [1], page 6: 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 https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-israel-self-defense-hamas-3f530205 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-is...
  - dralley 3y ago
    >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. Their "2017 charter" rather dramatically toned down the language. The original version makes no attempt to be politically correct.
    - waffleiron 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > their "2017 charter" rather dramatically toned down the language. Go look up the original version which makes no attempt to be politically correct. 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.
      - wk_end 3y ago
        https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp 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."
        wolverine876 3y ago
        Awesome, thanks. Already this HN page is more informative than 99% of other discussions combined. 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.
- dijit 3y ago
  River to the Sea has clear meaning regarding the establishment of palestine and the eradication of israel. 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.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I understand the claim about that interpretation. Repeating it doesn't help; we got it. If you know of evidence that that's the understanding among Palestinians, that would be great.
    - dijit 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - waffleiron 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - gr48thecat 3y ago
    Jews, Muslims and Christians have lived in that region relatively peacefully for a long time. 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.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > a pluralist state guaranteeing equal access to Christians, Jews and Muslims to their holy sites and shared ancestral homeland. How do you see implementing that politically? What constituency is there?
- bushbaba 3y ago
  From the river to the sea is the entirety of Israel plus Gaza/west bank of landmass. Then calling Palestine shall be free is a call to end the state of Israel. hopefully Oct 7th should demonstrate what that means, which is indiscriminately killing of all Israeli civilians. If you doubt it ask a few Palestinians what would happen to the Jews living in the area if “Palestine is free”.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    That repeats the claim - I'm aware of it from the GGP comment and of course from other public discussion. What I'm looking for is evidence of the claim from reliable sources.
- Cody-99 3y ago
  Why do you think groups like Hamas, PIJ, and their supporters say it? Hamas literally use the words "from the river jordan in the east to the Mediterranean" in their charter while calling for the destruction of Israel. Reading that that statement as anything other than calling for the destruction of Israel is mental gymnastics. When far right nationalists tell you what they want to do take their word for it.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  My (current, possibly misinformed) understanding is that "from the river to the sea" refers to a Palestinian state that stretches from the west bank to Gaza. Under the current reality, I don't see how this would be accomplished without a mass genocide of (Jewish) Israelis. 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.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    There is a well-established solution to conflict, called democracy. People fight it out in ballots and legislatures; they resolve differences by the universal rules (apply to everyone) in indepedent tribunals (courts; they all are guaranteed human rights. 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.
    - mupuff1234 3y ago
      That democracy evaporated very quickly in Gaza.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        So an essential solution hasn't worked everywhere every time. Should we abandon it? Should the founders of the US quit after the Articles of Confederation didn't work out? Later after the Civil War?
- scelerat 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea 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.
  - Qem 3y ago
    > 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. Completely different state appears to be roughly the same state, minus apartheid. If it worked in South Africa, why wouldn't it work here?
    - ars 3y ago
      Wouldn't you have to have apartheid in the first place, in order to minus it?
      - Qem 3y ago
        https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-threshold-crossed https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-thresh...
        ars 3y ago
        That's not a real source. They are well known for having an intense anti-Israel bias. They are so well known they have a mutli-page Wikipedia article on them, including things like hiring known terrorists to lead them. 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.
abusada 3y ago
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. 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?
- EvgeniyZh 3y ago
  > and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone 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?
  - xkekjrktllss 3y ago
    A so-called "2 state solution" is an oxymoron. A state, by definition, has a sovereign monopoly on violence. Your 2 states already exist and they are inevitably at war.
roenxi 3y ago
> Supporting Hamas ... is anti-semitic > https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ 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.
- EvgeniyZh 3y ago
  > There is a difference (an important one) between policies-bad-for-a-group and being motivated by an unreasonable hatred of a group. 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.
- meowface 3y ago
  I'm perfectly fine saying supporting Hamas is antisemitic and that Netanyahu has said and done plenty of antisemitic things, including Holocaust revisionism. https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/2018-12-13/ty-article-opinion/.premium/how-netanyahu-became-a-holocaust-revisionist/0000017f-ded1-d3ff-a7ff-fff1b72a0000 https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/2018-12-13/ty-article-opi...
r00fus 3y ago
> But chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) 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-israels-version-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/ 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.
tmnvix 3y ago
> chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) 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.

wolverine876 3y ago

> chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) 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?

EvgeniyZh 3y ago
For example, 2017 Hamas charter [1], page 6: 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 https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-israel-self-defense-hamas-3f530205 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-is...
- dralley 3y ago
  >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. Their "2017 charter" rather dramatically toned down the language. The original version makes no attempt to be politically correct.
  - waffleiron 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > their "2017 charter" rather dramatically toned down the language. Go look up the original version which makes no attempt to be politically correct. 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.
    - wk_end 3y ago
      https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp 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."
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Awesome, thanks. Already this HN page is more informative than 99% of other discussions combined. 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.
dijit 3y ago
River to the Sea has clear meaning regarding the establishment of palestine and the eradication of israel. 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.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I understand the claim about that interpretation. Repeating it doesn't help; we got it. If you know of evidence that that's the understanding among Palestinians, that would be great.
  - dijit 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - waffleiron 3y ago
      [flagged]
- gr48thecat 3y ago
  Jews, Muslims and Christians have lived in that region relatively peacefully for a long time. 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.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > a pluralist state guaranteeing equal access to Christians, Jews and Muslims to their holy sites and shared ancestral homeland. How do you see implementing that politically? What constituency is there?
bushbaba 3y ago
From the river to the sea is the entirety of Israel plus Gaza/west bank of landmass. Then calling Palestine shall be free is a call to end the state of Israel. hopefully Oct 7th should demonstrate what that means, which is indiscriminately killing of all Israeli civilians. If you doubt it ask a few Palestinians what would happen to the Jews living in the area if “Palestine is free”.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  That repeats the claim - I'm aware of it from the GGP comment and of course from other public discussion. What I'm looking for is evidence of the claim from reliable sources.
Cody-99 3y ago
Why do you think groups like Hamas, PIJ, and their supporters say it? Hamas literally use the words "from the river jordan in the east to the Mediterranean" in their charter while calling for the destruction of Israel. Reading that that statement as anything other than calling for the destruction of Israel is mental gymnastics. When far right nationalists tell you what they want to do take their word for it.
pcthrowaway 3y ago
My (current, possibly misinformed) understanding is that "from the river to the sea" refers to a Palestinian state that stretches from the west bank to Gaza. Under the current reality, I don't see how this would be accomplished without a mass genocide of (Jewish) Israelis. 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.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  There is a well-established solution to conflict, called democracy. People fight it out in ballots and legislatures; they resolve differences by the universal rules (apply to everyone) in indepedent tribunals (courts; they all are guaranteed human rights. 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.
  - mupuff1234 3y ago
    That democracy evaporated very quickly in Gaza.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      So an essential solution hasn't worked everywhere every time. Should we abandon it? Should the founders of the US quit after the Articles of Confederation didn't work out? Later after the Civil War?
scelerat 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea 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.
- Qem 3y ago
  > 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. Completely different state appears to be roughly the same state, minus apartheid. If it worked in South Africa, why wouldn't it work here?
  - ars 3y ago
    Wouldn't you have to have apartheid in the first place, in order to minus it?
    - Qem 3y ago
      https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-threshold-crossed https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-thresh...
      - ars 3y ago
        That's not a real source. They are well known for having an intense anti-Israel bias. They are so well known they have a mutli-page Wikipedia article on them, including things like hiring known terrorists to lead them. 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.

abusada 3y ago

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. 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?

EvgeniyZh 3y ago
> and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone 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?
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago
  A so-called "2 state solution" is an oxymoron. A state, by definition, has a sovereign monopoly on violence. Your 2 states already exist and they are inevitably at war.

roenxi 3y ago

> Supporting Hamas ... is anti-semitic > https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ 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.

EvgeniyZh 3y ago
> There is a difference (an important one) between policies-bad-for-a-group and being motivated by an unreasonable hatred of a group. 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.
meowface 3y ago
I'm perfectly fine saying supporting Hamas is antisemitic and that Netanyahu has said and done plenty of antisemitic things, including Holocaust revisionism. https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/2018-12-13/ty-article-opinion/.premium/how-netanyahu-became-a-holocaust-revisionist/0000017f-ded1-d3ff-a7ff-fff1b72a0000 https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/2018-12-13/ty-article-opi...

r00fus 3y ago

> But chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) 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-israels-version-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/ 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.

tmnvix 3y ago

> chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) 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.