4 ms·

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. Un

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?
    - mupuff1234 3y ago
      You're asking israelis to take a huge risk and with minimal ROI - why should they? I believe we should start with 2 states, and maybe after trust is rebuilt we can look into unionizing them.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > You're asking israelis to take a huge risk and with minimal ROI - why should they? 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?
        mupuff1234 3y ago
        > Every Palestinian person has the same right to self-determination as every Israeli/Jewish person 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.
- notahacker 3y ago
  The well established solution called democracy generally concludes that people should be allowed to continue living in separate jurisdictions rather than being consolidated into one territory between "river and sea" for reasons of history and religious symbolism though. 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...
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Yes, I didn't mean a one-state democracy (though I see how it could be interpreted that way). I agree about a two-state solution. > 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?
    - notahacker 3y ago
      > 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 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)
waffleiron 3y ago
I am going to answer this as honestly as possible, but this is a personal interpretation (like everything in this hn thread), it doesn’t refer to a free Palestinian state as much as it does to the people. When Israel is inherently setup as a country for Jewish people, that does indeed call for the abolition of the state of Israel as is, but to me that is like saying fighting against apartheid in South Africa was calling for a genocide of whites. It could have been if they would have fought for the need of having an apartheid state, but it wasn’t necessary.
bjourne 3y ago
[flagged]

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?
  - mupuff1234 3y ago
    You're asking israelis to take a huge risk and with minimal ROI - why should they? I believe we should start with 2 states, and maybe after trust is rebuilt we can look into unionizing them.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > You're asking israelis to take a huge risk and with minimal ROI - why should they? 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?
      - mupuff1234 3y ago
        > Every Palestinian person has the same right to self-determination as every Israeli/Jewish person 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.
notahacker 3y ago
The well established solution called democracy generally concludes that people should be allowed to continue living in separate jurisdictions rather than being consolidated into one territory between "river and sea" for reasons of history and religious symbolism though. 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...
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Yes, I didn't mean a one-state democracy (though I see how it could be interpreted that way). I agree about a two-state solution. > 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?
  - notahacker 3y ago
    > 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 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)

waffleiron 3y ago

I am going to answer this as honestly as possible, but this is a personal interpretation (like everything in this hn thread), it doesn’t refer to a free Palestinian state as much as it does to the people. When Israel is inherently setup as a country for Jewish people, that does indeed call for the abolition of the state of Israel as is, but to me that is like saying fighting against apartheid in South Africa was calling for a genocide of whites. It could have been if they would have fought for the need of having an apartheid state, but it wasn’t necessary.

bjourne 3y ago

[flagged]