1289
Ignorance or enlightenment?
(startrek.website)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
1289 points (93.9% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
5700 readers
1358 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What DOES from the river to the sea mean?
Edit: thank you all for helping me/us understand more about this.
There's a pretty good Wikipedia article on it
As mentioned, it's the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. It's been used by Palestians since at least the mid 60s in a number of different chants, e.g. "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free/Arab/Islamic" (technically, the latter two are "from the water to the water" because otherwise the Arabic doesn't rhyme).
Hamas's charter says
While Netanyahu's far-right Likud party's 1977 manifesto says
It's historically been somewhat controversial, with Zionists typically saying that it calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and/or the expulsion of Jews from the area. CNN fired a political commentator for saying it ~5 years back, and it's regulated as hate speech in some places in Europe. Most pro Palestinian activists think that's ridiculous, but it's worth being aware of.
I mean the original charter for Hamas also mentioned 'killing the Jews' but I'm sure it was a side point 🤔😅
The current charter specifically makes a point of saying that that's not what they want though. Makes a point out of dragging a distinction between Jewish people (they don't have a problem with) and the Zionist project (which they do have a problem with
I'm pretty sure they took out the genocide part just because it is a bit derivative. They're committed to peaceful protests I agree.
Borders of Palestine. Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
Israeli colonialism? It's not a difficult concept ig you stop trying to deflect any criticism of Israel by calling it antisemitism.
You'd have a great point if they said: Gaza and Westbank will be free, but they're not saying that. They're saying "from the river to the sea". A quick glance at the map will teach you that this includes the entire internationally recognized territory of Israel where about 7 million jews live, who are not colonists.
So what people actually mean when they say that they want that area to be free is that they want it to be free of jews. And that my friend, is a call to genocide, also not a difficult concept.
Okay so you're either a troll or just an idiot. Given you keep trying to make me out to be an antisemite because that's the standard, and frankly only, zionist shill tactic I'm going to with the former.
But just in case you are just an idiot: all of Israel is stolen land, its a country founded by Jewish colonists that unilaterally declared independence. Every single Israeli is a coloniser and Palestinians calling for their stolen land to be given or taken back are no worse than Indians who wanted their freedom from the British.
I never called you an antisemite, and I'd prefer it if you didn't call me names like "troll", "idiot" or "shill" either.
That is a very lopsided reading of the history of how the state of Israel came to be. There is a lot more nuance to that story, and I'd advise you to dig a bit deeper into it so that you can free yourself from the prejudices and dogma that you've become a victim to. /u/theonyltruemupf@feddit.de 's comment below is a good start.
But even if your story were completely true, your argument still ignores the fact that the majority of those 7 million jews who are living there right now are 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation immigrants who had nothing to do with that story other than being born in Israel. Any "from the river to the sea" solution will have to involve forcibly getting rid of them. There is no way to do that without committing genocide against those people.
Just because you inferred it rather than outright saying it, does not mean the accusation didn't happen. Which is another tactic commonly used by trolls, so I'm now pretty sure you're just being a dickhead for your own entertainment and don't actually give a shit about this situation. Further proof of this is the classic: "what you said is wrong. I'm not going to tell how its wrong or whT the 'right' version is, just go do more research, lol" and I'm willing to bet I've read more accounts of the history of this conflict from both sides involved and external 3rd parties than you have.
And that's classic colonialist apologism, "well they had kids here so the land belongs to them now." Like should we consider the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There will have been thousands of Russians born in occupied Crimea by now. Does that mean that land belongs to Russia? Is invading a country completely acceptable as long as you hold on to it long enough for someone to have a kid?
But yes, decolonisation does require the removal of the colonising party. If they can't return to their country of origin or their parents/grandparents country of origin, then they will need to legally immigrate/become citizens of Palestine. Its the same thing that's happened in literally every case of decolonisation, leave or integrate into the new free state. It's just given how Israel has treated the Palestinians I can't imagine many Jews would want to be part of Palestine and face those consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine?wprov=sfla1
It's really no use for anyone to view this conflict as black and white as you seem to do.
What is your point? It being a purchase makes them not settlers or not colonial?
So the Americans weren't settlers because they purchased louisiana and Alaska?
Or to continue my India comparison, the British East India Company weren't colonialists because they purchased land in India?
Is that really the implication you want to make here?
Since you want to draw comparisons: would you support a terrorist organization that tries to dissolve the USA and kill or drive away all people with European or African heritage? Surely all those killed deserve that, don't they? Their ancestors made mistakes you see.
I don't support hamas though so your point is moot.
I would and do support American Indians fighting for their rights against colonists America however.
...I learned it from this comment section too. Had no idea.
A call to genocide basically.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/1699528989-berlin-criminalizes-slogan-from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-will-be-free
That's a questionable headline considering it was police interpreting an existing law (no courts or legislator has weighed in on the incident in the article). Read a better source here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/10/germany-gaza-protests-crackdown
That's what the police does. They enforce the law as they understand it.
You're right that it hasn't been tested in court, but that only happens when someone challenges it in court.
It's also important to note that Germany does not have absolute free speech, there are several anti-hate-speech and anti-nazi laws that limit that right, and the police can and does enforce that frequently.
My issue was with the headline and the article not making anything clear. You're not repeating the headline in your argument so I think we're done here.
Lazy troll is lazy