5 ms·

> 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 r

> 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.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Thank you for some actual evidence. First, to add some detail from reading it, first the cut off part: 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.
  - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
    > did not turn up Ras Al-Naqurah or Umm Al-Rashrash. 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_HaNikra_Crossing [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilat [3] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh...
- pydry 3y ago
  >Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum. "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.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > "From the river to the sea, palestine will be free" implies a desire to see freedom not genocide. 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.
    - pydry 3y ago
      It absolutely works. If you want to play join the dots from slogan to genocidal racism, Netanyahu's references to Amalak is what you are looking for.
  - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
    "Arbeit macht frei" implies a desire to see freedom not genocide.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      One of my favorites is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea - North Korea. See, they're a democracy - for the people! :) Words, by themselves, are so easy to lie with.
      - bentley 3y ago
        Or the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall—“Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart”—better known as the Berlin Wall.
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.

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.
wolverine876 3y ago
Thank you for some actual evidence. First, to add some detail from reading it, first the cut off part: 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.
- EvgeniyZh 3y ago
  > did not turn up Ras Al-Naqurah or Umm Al-Rashrash. 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_HaNikra_Crossing [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilat [3] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh...
pydry 3y ago
>Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum. "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.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > "From the river to the sea, palestine will be free" implies a desire to see freedom not genocide. 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.
  - pydry 3y ago
    It absolutely works. If you want to play join the dots from slogan to genocidal racism, Netanyahu's references to Amalak is what you are looking for.
- EvgeniyZh 3y ago
  "Arbeit macht frei" implies a desire to see freedom not genocide.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    One of my favorites is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea - North Korea. See, they're a democracy - for the people! :) Words, by themselves, are so easy to lie with.
    - bentley 3y ago
      Or the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall—“Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart”—better known as the Berlin Wall.

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.