6 ms·

I don't see why "From the river to the see" would be hateful in isolation. Certainly some people who say it may have hateful thoughts in their minds, but wishin

by mongol 3y ago

I don't see why "From the river to the see" would be hateful in isolation. Certainly some people who say it may have hateful thoughts in their minds, but wishing for palestinian land where Israel is now is not hateful in itself.

krembo 3y ago
Don't you really understand why it's an hateful speech when you wish my country stop to exists?
- tarunupaday 3y ago
  no i do not. as an example, it’s okay for a native american to argue that usa (my country) should not exist as long as that person is not advocating physical violence to do so.
  - Thuggery 3y ago
    Side debate: the USA "ceasing to exist" from the view of a native American, in a manner analogous to Palestinians, would be the status quo that already exists today. In opposition to a racially exclusive "white supremacy" manifest dystenity. The USA already functions as a de facto One State solution where natives have both full rights and a negotiated sub-nationality too. The manifest destiny USA's "right to exist" was settled definitively against as early as 1865.
- arnavpraneet 3y ago
  Unfortunately, wishing for the ceasing-of-existence of an apartheid state is considered justified by most of the world.
  - tety 3y ago
    what makes it an apartheid state? palestinians have no voting rights in all the neighboring arab states, yet a large amount of them do in israel. and if they don’t in Israel they have voting rights for the palestinian authority
    - cultofmetatron 3y ago
      I don't know if this is intentionally obtuse but its TRIVIALLY easy to find examples and journalistic documentaries demonstrating the apartheid going back years just of the top of my head, there are already seperate roads that palestinians are not allowed to go on. palestinians have to go through multiple checkpoints just to travel within their own territory. palestinians are tried in a separate military court with a 90% conviction rate. here's some links https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCh043-gLIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCh043-gLIM how Israel created a water crisis https://novaramedia.com/2023/12/20/israeli-soldiers-are-snatching-palestinians-phones-and-punishing-them-for-having-photos-of-gaza/?fbclid=IwAR2duDzrJb4FfsNMcV2XMpaTPzQnE0sXXNGY_lGCMpbv7bbqu7EHNJTuJyc https://novaramedia.com/2023/12/20/israeli-soldiers-are-snat... Israeli soldiers are arresting and beating up palestinians simply for having photos of gaza. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC6bMfikaiQ&ab_channel=CNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC6bMfikaiQ&ab_channel=CNN here we see settler violence going on in the west bank where hamas does not opearte. its a direct contradiction to the israeli claim that there would be peac in the middle east of the arabs put their guns down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkN6PH5cG7c&ab_channel=AlJazeeraEnglish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkN6PH5cG7c&ab_channel=AlJaz... an israeli company has already put together a promo for luxury homes for israeli's to be built on the ruins of gaza. where will these people who lived there go? oh right, they are being systematically exterminated right now. like, this took just 5 min of googling. The evidence is out there in PLAIN sight so the only way I can understand someone not knowing at this point is if they are intentionally looking the other way. its not too disimilar to germans living near the concentration camps. people looked the other way because it wasn't convenient to know what was really happening.
      - tety 3y ago
        This is a lot of anecdotal evidence. And you are touching a lot of different subjects which I don't have time to refute one by one. Examples: 1. Convinction rate in Israel is over 90% for the entire population, not just palestinians. This is because different reasons such as preference not to press charges if there is not a very high chance of conviction, plea bargains, etc. 2. Multiple checkpoints - The security situation in the west bank is a reflection of the fact this is an occupied territory which should have been solved in subsequent peace negotiations. This never happened, and the reasons for that rest on both sides, but you have to be honest with yourself if you think the Palestinians did not reject multiple fair peace offers. "Systematically exterminated" - This is an extreme hyperbole.. there are enough historical examples of how systematic exterminations looks like to make this a not serious claim. Just compare the amount of casualties of different middle eastern conflicts to the Israeli-Palestinian one Please try to touch something more concrete than multiple anecdotes which most do not really represent anything similar to an apartheid government.
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > Unfortunately, wishing for the ceasing-of-existence of an apartheid state is considered justified by most of the world. Any reason other than hyperbole that you consider Israel to be an apartheid state, as compared to the rest of the Arab countries?
    - throw310822 3y ago
      It's absolutely pointless for us to discuss once again why Israel is considered to be practicing apartheid. It has been established by the major human rights organisations: among which Amnesty International, Human Right Watch, and in Israel, B'Tselem. That's all we need to know, if you don't agree contest those and their findings- which you can consult online.
      - krembo 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - smsm42 3y ago
        It's indeed pointless, because it is a lie, always was a lie and continues being a lie. Naming the names of some of the far-left groups doesn't make it less of a lie. Arabs in Israel are integrated, have representation in the Knesset and full legal, electoral and all other rights. Talking about "apartheid" is nonsense, which is obvious to anybody who knows what this word means and what legal policies actually exist in Israel.
        Aerbil313 3y ago
        If this[1] is not apartheid, then nothing is. Separate parks with locked doors for children of different religion, the key given to Jewish moms. 1: Raw video by The Guardian, not even much commentary, see with your own eyes: https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx
        smsm42 3y ago
        This is not apartheid, and something is, but not this. I don't know what exactly happened with those people - though by the fact that they call Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem "settlers" I can know I can't trust a word that they are saying, and the source - which is the horrendously biased against Israel Guardian - even if everything that they say were true (which I very much suspect isn't), it looks like a property dispute, very likely based on the habit of certain parts of the population (not only Arabic, but often also) to build things first and apply for permits never. This is not always prosecuted, but sometimes it is. Sometimes it leads to very nasty disputes. Never has anything to do with "apartheid", which is lack of rights based on race (or, I allow it, ethnicity). Again, Arabs in Israel enjoy exactly the same rights, so the claim of "apartheid" is pure libel. That doesn't change an iota even if you find some instance of somebody being unjustly treated by somebody else or the legal system (again, I have zero reason to believe The Guardian in this particular case, but even if it did, it would have nothing to do with supposed "apartheid"). Also I note if you watch the film carefully, the Arabs do not just demand the property. They demand the Jews to leave Jerusalem (1:26). Israel is just fine with Arabs living in Jerusalem (even if some may claim they are not fairly treated). Arabs are not fine with Jews living in Jerusalem. And we just witnessed on October 7th what they do to Jews they're not fine with, when they can. In Jerusalem, they can't. But they still would like to. I don't think when they are deprived of this capacity, it's called "apartheid" - it's not what that word was supposed to mean.
- mongol 3y ago
  No not neccessarily. There are many examples of peoples who have wished their lands to become liberated from current rulers. I am for example thinking of Finland or the Baltics. It wasn't hateful of them to wish for that, and I never heard anyone even express that idea. There are ways to express hate, but this is not one of them.
  - baobabKoodaa 3y ago
    The difference between Finland liberating from Russian rule vs Palestina liberating from Israel rule (geographically the whole of Israel "from the river to the sea") is that there weren't a huge amount of Russians living in Finland when Finland was liberated. But for Palestine there is. What is your solution to the "jewish problem", and is it a final solution? Please do elaborate how your genocide does not violate those content rules and guidelines.
    - iudqnolq 3y ago
      A brief perusal of Finnish history will show you a series of mass deportations and concentration camps by both sides.
      - baobabKoodaa 3y ago
        Hmmh, I'm actually not familiar with that part of history.
  - Zetobal 3y ago
    What do you mean it was not hateful? War is not hateful?
    - mongol 3y ago
      It is about as hateful as zionism is hateful. It is an expression for the desire of land in this region.
- throwaway17421 3y ago
  [flagged]
- terminous 3y ago
  On its own, "from the river to the sea" is just a description of a geographic area. It is equivalent to a bounded GIS grid. It is not a complete sentence. There is no verb. I wish for a future where there is peace and love, with no violence, from the river to the sea. I wish for a future where all people, from the river to the sea, have full human rights under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I wish for a future where all people, from the river to the sea, are enthusiastic users of GNU/Linux and the worst conflicts are debates over text editors. If someone uses "from the river to the sea" in a sentence where they call for genocide, then what would make that sentence wrong is the verb phrase calling for genocide.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
- tmnvix 3y ago
  No hateful intention needed if the statement is interpreted as not wanting the state of Israel to exist without implying that the people governed by that state should also not exist (it's not even a contradiction to also hold the opinion that those people have a right to exist exactly where they currently do). To my mind that is actually a reasonable opinion to have given the objectively harmful behaviour of the Israeli state (not that I am willing to get on board with it).
- creatonez 3y ago
  Governments are not people groups -- harmful governments can and have been deposed of without violence against its people.
drawkward 3y ago
It isnt hateful in isolation. It could be hateful, it could also just represent a statement of solidarity with Palestinians or support for a two state solution.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>I don't see why "From the river to the see" would be hateful in isolation. It's crazy to me the a lot of the same crowd saying, "I don't see how this is hateful" are the same people who told us that the "Okay" symbol meant "white power" and was literal violence.

by mongol 3y ago

krembo 3y ago

Don't you really understand why it's an hateful speech when you wish my country stop to exists?

tarunupaday 3y ago
no i do not. as an example, it’s okay for a native american to argue that usa (my country) should not exist as long as that person is not advocating physical violence to do so.
- Thuggery 3y ago
  Side debate: the USA "ceasing to exist" from the view of a native American, in a manner analogous to Palestinians, would be the status quo that already exists today. In opposition to a racially exclusive "white supremacy" manifest dystenity. The USA already functions as a de facto One State solution where natives have both full rights and a negotiated sub-nationality too. The manifest destiny USA's "right to exist" was settled definitively against as early as 1865.
arnavpraneet 3y ago
Unfortunately, wishing for the ceasing-of-existence of an apartheid state is considered justified by most of the world.
- tety 3y ago
  what makes it an apartheid state? palestinians have no voting rights in all the neighboring arab states, yet a large amount of them do in israel. and if they don’t in Israel they have voting rights for the palestinian authority
  - cultofmetatron 3y ago
    I don't know if this is intentionally obtuse but its TRIVIALLY easy to find examples and journalistic documentaries demonstrating the apartheid going back years just of the top of my head, there are already seperate roads that palestinians are not allowed to go on. palestinians have to go through multiple checkpoints just to travel within their own territory. palestinians are tried in a separate military court with a 90% conviction rate. here's some links https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCh043-gLIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCh043-gLIM how Israel created a water crisis https://novaramedia.com/2023/12/20/israeli-soldiers-are-snatching-palestinians-phones-and-punishing-them-for-having-photos-of-gaza/?fbclid=IwAR2duDzrJb4FfsNMcV2XMpaTPzQnE0sXXNGY_lGCMpbv7bbqu7EHNJTuJyc https://novaramedia.com/2023/12/20/israeli-soldiers-are-snat... Israeli soldiers are arresting and beating up palestinians simply for having photos of gaza. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC6bMfikaiQ&ab_channel=CNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC6bMfikaiQ&ab_channel=CNN here we see settler violence going on in the west bank where hamas does not opearte. its a direct contradiction to the israeli claim that there would be peac in the middle east of the arabs put their guns down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkN6PH5cG7c&ab_channel=AlJazeeraEnglish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkN6PH5cG7c&ab_channel=AlJaz... an israeli company has already put together a promo for luxury homes for israeli's to be built on the ruins of gaza. where will these people who lived there go? oh right, they are being systematically exterminated right now. like, this took just 5 min of googling. The evidence is out there in PLAIN sight so the only way I can understand someone not knowing at this point is if they are intentionally looking the other way. its not too disimilar to germans living near the concentration camps. people looked the other way because it wasn't convenient to know what was really happening.
    - tety 3y ago
      This is a lot of anecdotal evidence. And you are touching a lot of different subjects which I don't have time to refute one by one. Examples: 1. Convinction rate in Israel is over 90% for the entire population, not just palestinians. This is because different reasons such as preference not to press charges if there is not a very high chance of conviction, plea bargains, etc. 2. Multiple checkpoints - The security situation in the west bank is a reflection of the fact this is an occupied territory which should have been solved in subsequent peace negotiations. This never happened, and the reasons for that rest on both sides, but you have to be honest with yourself if you think the Palestinians did not reject multiple fair peace offers. "Systematically exterminated" - This is an extreme hyperbole.. there are enough historical examples of how systematic exterminations looks like to make this a not serious claim. Just compare the amount of casualties of different middle eastern conflicts to the Israeli-Palestinian one Please try to touch something more concrete than multiple anecdotes which most do not really represent anything similar to an apartheid government.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > Unfortunately, wishing for the ceasing-of-existence of an apartheid state is considered justified by most of the world. Any reason other than hyperbole that you consider Israel to be an apartheid state, as compared to the rest of the Arab countries?
  - throw310822 3y ago
    It's absolutely pointless for us to discuss once again why Israel is considered to be practicing apartheid. It has been established by the major human rights organisations: among which Amnesty International, Human Right Watch, and in Israel, B'Tselem. That's all we need to know, if you don't agree contest those and their findings- which you can consult online.
    - krembo 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - smsm42 3y ago
      It's indeed pointless, because it is a lie, always was a lie and continues being a lie. Naming the names of some of the far-left groups doesn't make it less of a lie. Arabs in Israel are integrated, have representation in the Knesset and full legal, electoral and all other rights. Talking about "apartheid" is nonsense, which is obvious to anybody who knows what this word means and what legal policies actually exist in Israel.
      - Aerbil313 3y ago
        If this[1] is not apartheid, then nothing is. Separate parks with locked doors for children of different religion, the key given to Jewish moms. 1: Raw video by The Guardian, not even much commentary, see with your own eyes: https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx
        smsm42 3y ago
        This is not apartheid, and something is, but not this. I don't know what exactly happened with those people - though by the fact that they call Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem "settlers" I can know I can't trust a word that they are saying, and the source - which is the horrendously biased against Israel Guardian - even if everything that they say were true (which I very much suspect isn't), it looks like a property dispute, very likely based on the habit of certain parts of the population (not only Arabic, but often also) to build things first and apply for permits never. This is not always prosecuted, but sometimes it is. Sometimes it leads to very nasty disputes. Never has anything to do with "apartheid", which is lack of rights based on race (or, I allow it, ethnicity). Again, Arabs in Israel enjoy exactly the same rights, so the claim of "apartheid" is pure libel. That doesn't change an iota even if you find some instance of somebody being unjustly treated by somebody else or the legal system (again, I have zero reason to believe The Guardian in this particular case, but even if it did, it would have nothing to do with supposed "apartheid"). Also I note if you watch the film carefully, the Arabs do not just demand the property. They demand the Jews to leave Jerusalem (1:26). Israel is just fine with Arabs living in Jerusalem (even if some may claim they are not fairly treated). Arabs are not fine with Jews living in Jerusalem. And we just witnessed on October 7th what they do to Jews they're not fine with, when they can. In Jerusalem, they can't. But they still would like to. I don't think when they are deprived of this capacity, it's called "apartheid" - it's not what that word was supposed to mean.
mongol 3y ago
No not neccessarily. There are many examples of peoples who have wished their lands to become liberated from current rulers. I am for example thinking of Finland or the Baltics. It wasn't hateful of them to wish for that, and I never heard anyone even express that idea. There are ways to express hate, but this is not one of them.
- baobabKoodaa 3y ago
  The difference between Finland liberating from Russian rule vs Palestina liberating from Israel rule (geographically the whole of Israel "from the river to the sea") is that there weren't a huge amount of Russians living in Finland when Finland was liberated. But for Palestine there is. What is your solution to the "jewish problem", and is it a final solution? Please do elaborate how your genocide does not violate those content rules and guidelines.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    A brief perusal of Finnish history will show you a series of mass deportations and concentration camps by both sides.
    - baobabKoodaa 3y ago
      Hmmh, I'm actually not familiar with that part of history.
- Zetobal 3y ago
  What do you mean it was not hateful? War is not hateful?
  - mongol 3y ago
    It is about as hateful as zionism is hateful. It is an expression for the desire of land in this region.
throwaway17421 3y ago
[flagged]
terminous 3y ago
On its own, "from the river to the sea" is just a description of a geographic area. It is equivalent to a bounded GIS grid. It is not a complete sentence. There is no verb. I wish for a future where there is peace and love, with no violence, from the river to the sea. I wish for a future where all people, from the river to the sea, have full human rights under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I wish for a future where all people, from the river to the sea, are enthusiastic users of GNU/Linux and the worst conflicts are debates over text editors. If someone uses "from the river to the sea" in a sentence where they call for genocide, then what would make that sentence wrong is the verb phrase calling for genocide.
Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]
tmnvix 3y ago
No hateful intention needed if the statement is interpreted as not wanting the state of Israel to exist without implying that the people governed by that state should also not exist (it's not even a contradiction to also hold the opinion that those people have a right to exist exactly where they currently do). To my mind that is actually a reasonable opinion to have given the objectively harmful behaviour of the Israeli state (not that I am willing to get on board with it).
creatonez 3y ago
Governments are not people groups -- harmful governments can and have been deposed of without violence against its people.

drawkward 3y ago

It isnt hateful in isolation. It could be hateful, it could also just represent a statement of solidarity with Palestinians or support for a two state solution.

itsoktocry 3y ago

>I don't see why "From the river to the see" would be hateful in isolation. It's crazy to me the a lot of the same crowd saying, "I don't see how this is hateful" are the same people who told us that the "Okay" symbol meant "white power" and was literal violence.