Middle East Conflict of 2023-2024

[SilverFallsAndrew]

Just now, SnarkyGoblin said:

You're allowed to have whatever opinion you want, including hate speech.

Define the made up term you just used.

[SnarkyGoblin]

7 minutes ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

Can't imagine what they share in common with Hamas...I won't say it so Snark won't be offended. They are busy being terrified of "Christian Nationalists."

Can't believe you get away with this stuff without even a temp ban.

Balls and strikes, @hawkstwelve.

[SilverFallsAndrew]

1 minute ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

Can't believe you get away with this stuff without even a temp ban.

Balls and strikes, @hawkstwelve.

What are you talking about? You cannot handle people being upset about terrorist slaughtering civilians. It's so wrong! How can you not see what Phil posted and not be consumed with rage towards those perpetrators. 

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by SilverFallsAndrew

[Phil]

22 minutes ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

Have you ever heard of the 20th Century? 

Yes. Unfortunately “never again” turned into “nevermind”.

[SnarkyGoblin]

21 minutes ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

What are you talking about? You cannot handle people being upset about terrorist slaughtering civilians. It's so wrong! How can you not see what Phil posted and not be consumed with rage towards those perpetrators. 

 

You are focusing that rage on the wrong people.

[SnarkyGoblin]

A month into devastating Gaza war, Israel’s endgame is no clearer
https://wapo.st/47r10U9

[roadtonowhere08]

8 hours ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

A month into devastating Gaza war, Israel’s endgame is no clearer
https://wapo.st/47r10U9

I think it is clear what both sides' endgame is:

Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel (Not going to happen but sure trying in Gaza and the West Bank)

Islamic Nutjobs: Destruction of Israel (Not going to happen but sure trying)

Pragmatists: Two state solution (Only realistic solution - sabotaged by both sides thus far)

Normal Palestinians/Israelis: Just to live a peaceful life where religious fundamentalists on both sides don't blow things up (Too much to ask, I know)

[Stormy]

On 11/6/2023 at 10:43 PM, Phil said:

This is the going on at college campuses.

Faculty-sponsored antisemitic hate rallies that ban Jews from even entering the room, let alone speaking.

Nowadays I'ld rather live and feel safer among people with just an 8th grade (or rather home schooled) education than even the lunatic brainwashed leftists Nazi elite Ivy League graduates! 

[Stormy]

On 11/4/2023 at 11:08 AM, Phil said:

Sure but FYI it’s quite graphic. The video was first shared on Palestinian telegram channels (from a part of southern Palestine not yet reached by the IDF).

Everyone here was shot in the head.

https://x.com/lolashnauzer/status/1720702538880532854?s=46&t=656Z973wLtGKaIyhhq_7QQ

I also saw the video yesterday on YT .

 

On 11/2/2023 at 3:06 PM, Iceresistance said:

OH!

Exposed: Hamas’s propaganda team (msn.com)

Yes there's lots of propaganda by Hamas like this screenshot I took from a YT video showing children pretending to be dead, and they forgot the camera was still on when they moved a little.

Also Hamas claims Israel used a white phosphorus bomb when when the photo actually came from the civil war in Syria. 

[Stormy]

On 11/5/2023 at 2:19 PM, Phil said:

There are many clueless leftists like those in the top photo that don't realize those they are rooting for would likely soon kill them if they'd go over there! Maybe we should send some over there to experience reality. 

[SilverFallsAndrew]

This column states what some already know. The chant from Palestinians "From the RIver to the Sea" is an implicit call to genocide. They would have you weep for their dead while they slash up Jewish children. 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/11/08/from-the-river-to-the-sea-is-a-call-for-genocide/

Edited November 8, 2023 by SilverFallsAndrew

[Rubus Leucodermis]

3 hours ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

This column states what some already know. The chant from Palestinians "From the RIver to the Sea" is an implicit call to genocide. They would have you weep for their dead while they slash up Jewish children. 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/11/08/from-the-river-to-the-sea-is-a-call-for-genocide/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel#Today

[Rubus Leucodermis]

As for why the world cares so much about the Israel/Palestine conflict, when other conflicts kill far more people, a certain conservative Canadian YouTuber recently did a good job of summarizing the key reasons:

 

[roadtonowhere08]

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

Originally a political slogan, it has been in use by Palestinian political groups since the 1960s as a call for Palestinian liberation. Initially popularized by the Palestine Liberation Organization upon its founding in 1964 as a "main goal of the movement", the phrase carried official weight within the PLO until the 1988 Algiers Declaration, after which "the objective shifted to establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders."[30][5] That same year saw the founding of Hamas, who integrated the slogan into its official platform, which, in contrast with the PLO's then-recent tacit acceptance of UN Resolution 242, called for the "obliteration of the state of Israel" and the killing of all of its Jewish citizens.[31][32][33][34]

By 1969, according to Professor Robin Kelley of the University of California, Los Angeles, the phrase "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" also represents a desire for "one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel."[18] According to Associate Professor Ron J. Smith of Bucknell University, since Palestinian nationalism envisages a land-based state, while Israeli nationalism envisages an ethnically based state, the use of this phrase is understood differently by Israelis and Palestinians. According to Ron Smith, for Palestinians it refers to the entirety of Mandatory Palestine.[35] In On 15 August 2023 the Dutch court of appeal gave legal protection to "From the river to the sea" on free speech grounds.[36]

The slogan has been used widely in pro-Palestinian protest movements.[37] It has often been chanted at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, usually followed or preceded by the phrase "Palestine will be free".[38][39][40] Interpretations differ amongst supporters of the slogan. Civic figures, activists, and progressive publications have said that it calls for a one-state solution, a single, secular state in all of historic Palestine where people of all religions have equal citizenship.[41] This stands in contrast to the Two-state solution, which envisions a Palestinian state existing alongside a Jewish state.[17][19][42][43] This usage has been described as speaking out for the right of Palestinians "to live freely in the land from the river to the sea", with Palestinian writer Yousef Munayyer describing the phrase as "a rejoinder to the fragmentation of Palestinian land and people by Israeli occupation and discrimination."[44] Others have said it stands for "the equal freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people."[19][20]

Some Islamic militant groups (including Hamas and Islamic Jihad) and Arab leaders (such as Saddam Hussein) came to utilize the slogan when calling for the supplementation of Israel with a unified Palestinian state, sometimes also proposing the removal of all or most of its Jewish population.[45][28][27][22][23][46][5] Hamas, as part of its revised 2017 charter, rejected “any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea", referring to all areas of former Mandatory Palestine and by extent, the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region.[22][47][48][49] Islamic Jihad declared that "from the river to the sea — [Palestine] is an Arab Islamic land that [it] is legally forbidden from abandoning any inch of, and the Israeli presence in Palestine is a null existence, which is forbidden by law to recognize.[15] Islamic supporters have utilized a version stating "Palestine is Islamic from the river to the sea", with certain Islamic scholars declaring that the Mahdi — a redemptive apocalyptic figure central to Islamic eschatology — will declare "Jerusalem is Arab Muslim, and Palestine — all of it, from the river to the sea — is Arab Muslim."[50][51]

A similar slogan was used in a 1977 election platform of the Israeli political party Likud, which stated that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty".[18] Some commentators have referred to Israeli occupation as a policy of Israeli control and oppression of Palestinians "from the river to the sea."[52][53][54]

Also: https://forward.com/opinion/415250/from-the-river-to-the-sea-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

Over the weekend, scholar and social justice activist Marc Lamont Hill apologized for ending
his recent remarks at United Nations by calling for “a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”
His apology came after three days of furious online attacks and criticism from many people
who felt deeply hurt by his remarks.

Critics have pointed to Hamas’s use of this phrase to claim that Hill was either deliberately
parroting a Hamas line that calls for Israel’s elimination, or at the very least ignorantly
repeating a deeply offensive and triggering phrase.

Yet lost in all these discussions is any acknowledgement of what this phrase actually means
— and has meant — to Palestinians of all political stripes and convictions. As a Palestinian
American and a scholar of Palestinian history, I’m concerned by the lack of interest in how
this phrase is understood by the people who invoke it.

It helps to remember the context in which Hill delivered his original remarks. He made them
last Wednesday as part of the Special Meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the
Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in observance of the United Nations
International Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People, which is held during the final days
of November each year.

The date is important. On November 29th, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted
to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. While Jews in Palestine rejoiced,
the country’s Arabs bitterly opposed the partition plan.

The reason was that they saw all of Palestine — from the river to the sea — as one
indivisible homeland. They invoked the story of Solomon and the baby to explain their
stance. Like the real mother in the parable, who begged Solomon to refrain from splitting her
baby in half, Palestinian Arabs couldn’t stand to see their beloved country split in two. And
they saw the Zionists’ eager reception of the plan as an ominous sign that they intended to
conquer the whole of Palestine.

Moreover, the proposed borders of the two states meant that the Jewish state would have
roughly 500,000 Palestinians living in it as a minority. And while the Israeli narrative holds
that those Palestinians would have been welcomed as equals in the new Jewish state, the
clashes between Jews and Arabs in Palestine that followed the UN vote, particularly the
attacks by Zionist militants and the subsequent forcible removal of Palestinians from their
homes and lands in areas allotted to the Jewish state, led Palestinians to conclude
otherwise.

As for those Palestinians who managed to remain on their lands in the new Israeli state, they
were eventually granted citizenship, but it was clearly subordinate to the status of Jewish
Israelis. They were subject to military rule rather than civilian law, which meant they needed permits from the military governor to travel to work and school. They also encountered
widespread prejudice from Israelis who saw them as a benighted, traditional underclass in
need of the state’s benevolent modernization.

And Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, living under Jordanian and Egyptian rule
respectively, faced authoritarian crackdowns that prevented them from being able to fully
express their political views.

In other words, after 1948, Palestinians were not able to live with full freedom and dignity anywhere in their homeland.

That’s how the call for a free Palestine “from the river to the sea” gained traction in the
1960s. It was part of a larger call to see a secular democratic state established in all of
historic Palestine. Palestinians hoped their state would be free from oppression of all sorts,
from Israeli as well as from Arab regimes.

To be sure, a lot of Palestinians thought that in a single democratic state, many Jewish
Israelis would voluntarily leave, like the French settlers in Algeria did when that country
gained its independence from the French. Their belief stemmed from the anti-colonial context
in which the Palestinian liberation movement arose.

That’s why, despite the occasional bout of overheated rhetoric from some leaders, there was
no official Palestinian position calling for the forced removal of Jews from Palestine. This
continued to be their position despite an Israeli media campaign following the 1967 war that
claimed Palestinians wished to “throw Jews into the sea.”

While Palestinians viewed Zionists as akin to colonial settlers, Jews who were willing to live
as equals with the Palestinians were welcome to stay. In his 1974 speech to the UN, Fatah
leader and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat declared, “when we speak of our common hopes for
the Palestine of tomorrow we include in our perspective all Jews now living in Palestine who
choose to live with us there in peace and without discrimination.”

In the 1980s and ‘90s, Fatah and the PLO changed their official stance from calling for a
single state to supporting a two-state solution. Many Palestinians —particularly the refugees
and their descendants — saw them as abandoning the core of their homeland and
acquiescing to colonial theft. They were allowing the proverbial baby to be split.

With Fatah seen as selling out, Hamas picked up the call for a free Palestine “from the river
to the sea.” It sought to burnish its own anti-colonial bona fides at the expense of Fatah. And
although many people point to Hamas’s 1988 charter as evidence of its hostility to Jews, in
fact the group long ago distanced itself from that initial document, seeking a more explicit
anti-colonial stance. Moreover, its 2017 revised charter makes even clearer that its conflict is
with Zionism, not with Jews.

And notwithstanding the extreme rhetoric of some leaders on both sides, a recent joint poll
shows that only a small minority of Palestinians see “expulsion” as a solution to the conflict –
15% — which is incidentally the same percentage of Israelis who view this as the only
solution.

What Palestinians do want is equal rights. They want to be able work hard to achieve their
dreams without being discriminated against. They want to be able to live where they choose
without being told they can’t because of their ethnicity or religion. They want to be able to
choose the leaders who control their lives.

In other words, they want freedom. And they want that freedom throughout their historic
homeland, not just on the 22% that comprise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This desire for freedom is what Marc Lamont Hill was invoking when he called for “a free
Palestine from the river to the sea.” His remarks were intended to center Palestinians’
aspirations, not disparage Israelis’. This has been lost on his critics, which speaks to a larger
problem.

Dismissing or ignoring what this phrase means to the Palestinians is yet another means by
which to silence Palestinian perspectives. Citing only Hamas leaders’ use of the phrase,
while disregarding the liberationist context in which other Palestinians understand it, shows a
disturbing level of ignorance about Palestinians’ views at best, and a deliberate attempt to
smear their legitimate aspirations at worst.

Most troubling for me, the belief that a “free Palestine” would necessarily lead to the mass
annihilation of Jewish Israelis is rooted in deeply racist and Islamophobic assumptions about
who the Palestinians are and what they want.

Rather than just lecture Palestinians and their supporters about how certain phrases make
them feel, supporters of Israel should get more curious about what Palestinians themselves
want. There isn’t a single answer (there never is), but assuming you already know is no way
to work towards a just and lasting peace. 

Things are never as simple as some like would like to believe/say.  Like always.

[Phil]

18 minutes ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

Originally a political slogan, it has been in use by Palestinian political groups since the 1960s as a call for Palestinian liberation. Initially popularized by the Palestine Liberation Organization upon its founding in 1964 as a "main goal of the movement", the phrase carried official weight within the PLO until the 1988 Algiers Declaration, after which "the objective shifted to establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders."[30][5] That same year saw the founding of Hamas, who integrated the slogan into its official platform, which, in contrast with the PLO's then-recent tacit acceptance of UN Resolution 242, called for the "obliteration of the state of Israel" and the killing of all of its Jewish citizens.[31][32][33][34]

By 1969, according to Professor Robin Kelley of the University of California, Los Angeles, the phrase "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" also represents a desire for "one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel."[18] According to Associate Professor Ron J. Smith of Bucknell University, since Palestinian nationalism envisages a land-based state, while Israeli nationalism envisages an ethnically based state, the use of this phrase is understood differently by Israelis and Palestinians. According to Ron Smith, for Palestinians it refers to the entirety of Mandatory Palestine.[35] In On 15 August 2023 the Dutch court of appeal gave legal protection to "From the river to the sea" on free speech grounds.[36]

The slogan has been used widely in pro-Palestinian protest movements.[37] It has often been chanted at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, usually followed or preceded by the phrase "Palestine will be free".[38][39][40] Interpretations differ amongst supporters of the slogan. Civic figures, activists, and progressive publications have said that it calls for a one-state solution, a single, secular state in all of historic Palestine where people of all religions have equal citizenship.[41] This stands in contrast to the Two-state solution, which envisions a Palestinian state existing alongside a Jewish state.[17][19][42][43] This usage has been described as speaking out for the right of Palestinians "to live freely in the land from the river to the sea", with Palestinian writer Yousef Munayyer describing the phrase as "a rejoinder to the fragmentation of Palestinian land and people by Israeli occupation and discrimination."[44] Others have said it stands for "the equal freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people."[19][20]

Some Islamic militant groups (including Hamas and Islamic Jihad) and Arab leaders (such as Saddam Hussein) came to utilize the slogan when calling for the supplementation of Israel with a unified Palestinian state, sometimes also proposing the removal of all or most of its Jewish population.[45][28][27][22][23][46][5] Hamas, as part of its revised 2017 charter, rejected “any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea", referring to all areas of former Mandatory Palestine and by extent, the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region.[22][47][48][49] Islamic Jihad declared that "from the river to the sea — [Palestine] is an Arab Islamic land that [it] is legally forbidden from abandoning any inch of, and the Israeli presence in Palestine is a null existence, which is forbidden by law to recognize.[15] Islamic supporters have utilized a version stating "Palestine is Islamic from the river to the sea", with certain Islamic scholars declaring that the Mahdi — a redemptive apocalyptic figure central to Islamic eschatology — will declare "Jerusalem is Arab Muslim, and Palestine — all of it, from the river to the sea — is Arab Muslim."[50][51]

A similar slogan was used in a 1977 election platform of the Israeli political party Likud, which stated that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty".[18] Some commentators have referred to Israeli occupation as a policy of Israeli control and oppression of Palestinians "from the river to the sea."[52][53][54]

Also: https://forward.com/opinion/415250/from-the-river-to-the-sea-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

Over the weekend, scholar and social justice activist Marc Lamont Hill apologized for ending
his recent remarks at United Nations by calling for “a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”
His apology came after three days of furious online attacks and criticism from many people
who felt deeply hurt by his remarks.

Critics have pointed to Hamas’s use of this phrase to claim that Hill was either deliberately
parroting a Hamas line that calls for Israel’s elimination, or at the very least ignorantly
repeating a deeply offensive and triggering phrase.

Yet lost in all these discussions is any acknowledgement of what this phrase actually means
— and has meant — to Palestinians of all political stripes and convictions. As a Palestinian
American and a scholar of Palestinian history, I’m concerned by the lack of interest in how
this phrase is understood by the people who invoke it.

It helps to remember the context in which Hill delivered his original remarks. He made them
last Wednesday as part of the Special Meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the
Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in observance of the United Nations
International Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People, which is held during the final days
of November each year.

The date is important. On November 29th, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted
to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. While Jews in Palestine rejoiced,
the country’s Arabs bitterly opposed the partition plan.

The reason was that they saw all of Palestine — from the river to the sea — as one
indivisible homeland. They invoked the story of Solomon and the baby to explain their
stance. Like the real mother in the parable, who begged Solomon to refrain from splitting her
baby in half, Palestinian Arabs couldn’t stand to see their beloved country split in two. And
they saw the Zionists’ eager reception of the plan as an ominous sign that they intended to
conquer the whole of Palestine.

Moreover, the proposed borders of the two states meant that the Jewish state would have
roughly 500,000 Palestinians living in it as a minority. And while the Israeli narrative holds
that those Palestinians would have been welcomed as equals in the new Jewish state, the
clashes between Jews and Arabs in Palestine that followed the UN vote, particularly the
attacks by Zionist militants and the subsequent forcible removal of Palestinians from their
homes and lands in areas allotted to the Jewish state, led Palestinians to conclude
otherwise.

As for those Palestinians who managed to remain on their lands in the new Israeli state, they
were eventually granted citizenship, but it was clearly subordinate to the status of Jewish
Israelis. They were subject to military rule rather than civilian law, which meant they needed permits from the military governor to travel to work and school. They also encountered
widespread prejudice from Israelis who saw them as a benighted, traditional underclass in
need of the state’s benevolent modernization.

And Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, living under Jordanian and Egyptian rule
respectively, faced authoritarian crackdowns that prevented them from being able to fully
express their political views.

In other words, after 1948, Palestinians were not able to live with full freedom and dignity anywhere in their homeland.

That’s how the call for a free Palestine “from the river to the sea” gained traction in the
1960s. It was part of a larger call to see a secular democratic state established in all of
historic Palestine. Palestinians hoped their state would be free from oppression of all sorts,
from Israeli as well as from Arab regimes.

To be sure, a lot of Palestinians thought that in a single democratic state, many Jewish
Israelis would voluntarily leave, like the French settlers in Algeria did when that country
gained its independence from the French. Their belief stemmed from the anti-colonial context
in which the Palestinian liberation movement arose.

That’s why, despite the occasional bout of overheated rhetoric from some leaders, there was
no official Palestinian position calling for the forced removal of Jews from Palestine. This
continued to be their position despite an Israeli media campaign following the 1967 war that
claimed Palestinians wished to “throw Jews into the sea.”

While Palestinians viewed Zionists as akin to colonial settlers, Jews who were willing to live
as equals with the Palestinians were welcome to stay. In his 1974 speech to the UN, Fatah
leader and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat declared, “when we speak of our common hopes for
the Palestine of tomorrow we include in our perspective all Jews now living in Palestine who
choose to live with us there in peace and without discrimination.”

In the 1980s and ‘90s, Fatah and the PLO changed their official stance from calling for a
single state to supporting a two-state solution. Many Palestinians —particularly the refugees
and their descendants — saw them as abandoning the core of their homeland and
acquiescing to colonial theft. They were allowing the proverbial baby to be split.

With Fatah seen as selling out, Hamas picked up the call for a free Palestine “from the river
to the sea.” It sought to burnish its own anti-colonial bona fides at the expense of Fatah. And
although many people point to Hamas’s 1988 charter as evidence of its hostility to Jews, in
fact the group long ago distanced itself from that initial document, seeking a more explicit
anti-colonial stance. Moreover, its 2017 revised charter makes even clearer that its conflict is
with Zionism, not with Jews.

And notwithstanding the extreme rhetoric of some leaders on both sides, a recent joint poll
shows that only a small minority of Palestinians see “expulsion” as a solution to the conflict –
15% — which is incidentally the same percentage of Israelis who view this as the only
solution.

What Palestinians do want is equal rights. They want to be able work hard to achieve their
dreams without being discriminated against. They want to be able to live where they choose
without being told they can’t because of their ethnicity or religion. They want to be able to
choose the leaders who control their lives.

In other words, they want freedom. And they want that freedom throughout their historic
homeland, not just on the 22% that comprise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This desire for freedom is what Marc Lamont Hill was invoking when he called for “a free
Palestine from the river to the sea.” His remarks were intended to center Palestinians’
aspirations, not disparage Israelis’. This has been lost on his critics, which speaks to a larger
problem.

Dismissing or ignoring what this phrase means to the Palestinians is yet another means by
which to silence Palestinian perspectives. Citing only Hamas leaders’ use of the phrase,
while disregarding the liberationist context in which other Palestinians understand it, shows a
disturbing level of ignorance about Palestinians’ views at best, and a deliberate attempt to
smear their legitimate aspirations at worst.

Most troubling for me, the belief that a “free Palestine” would necessarily lead to the mass
annihilation of Jewish Israelis is rooted in deeply racist and Islamophobic assumptions about
who the Palestinians are and what they want.

Rather than just lecture Palestinians and their supporters about how certain phrases make
them feel, supporters of Israel should get more curious about what Palestinians themselves
want. There isn’t a single answer (there never is), but assuming you already know is no way
to work towards a just and lasting peace. 

Things are never as simple as some like would like to believe/say.  Like always.

This is why Wikipedia isn’t allowed as a source for high school term papers, let alone the translation of a phrase concocted by religious zealots with ulterior motives.

[Phil]

Americans should know all about words/phrases with deliberate racist undertones. Words such as “boy”, “welfare queen”, “alien”, etc, all innocuous by definition yet often used in a subliminally-racist/degradative context.

That so many people either don’t know (or outright deny) the antisemitic undertones of the phrase “from the river to the sea” is unfathomable. One only needs to dig a little into the inception of the phrase to see this.

It was originally a call for an Arab ethnostate from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. And this was *explicit*, not subliminal. Heck, Hamas leaders happily admit to this!

Can we please not make excuses for terrorist scum with genocidal intentions? Why is this so difficult?

[Phil]

Not going to post the video here. Yes, it’s as bad as you think.

The fact so many are supporting these demonic barbarians puts into context how genocides such as the holocaust began.

[Iceresistance]

ARE YOU SERIOUS!?

Spurs winger Manor Solomon suspended from Instagram after pro-Israel posts (msn.com)

[roadtonowhere08]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

Not going to post the video here. Yes, it’s as bad as you think.

The fact so many are supporting these demonic barbarians puts into context how genocides such as the holocaust began.

We get it, Phil.  Not a single soul on this board supports Hamas or what they are doing.  You are preaching to the choir.

Dial down the visceral posts about Hamas.  I have yet to see you say anything negative about what Israel is doing.  I have family from the area.  You aren't going to lecture me.  Stop trying.

Either at least attempt to be objective, or I cannot be bothered to take you seriously, much less engage in conversation.

[Iceresistance]

A forever war with Israel? Well, you asked for it

 

Hamas reveals its plan for a 'permanent war with Israel' (msn.com)

[Phil]

2 hours ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

We get it, Phil.  Not a single soul on this board supports Hamas or what they are doing.  You are preaching to the choir.

Dial down the visceral posts about Hamas.  I have yet to see you say anything negative about what Israel is doing.  I have family from the area.  You aren't going to lecture me.  Stop trying.

Either at least attempt to be objective, or I cannot be bothered to take you seriously, much less engage in conversation.

I fully support Israel’s plan to wipe out Hamas. My heart shatters for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, but the onus should be on Hamas to unconditionally surrender and release the hostages.

Over 2 million German civilians died in WWII. Should the allied countries have acquiesced to a ceasefire? You don’t get to rape, dismember, and murder 1000+ innocent civilians, use your own people as shields, then cry for a ceasefire as if you’re the victim.

War is messy and inhumane. But sometimes it’s unavoidable. As soon as Hamas surrenders, the shelling will stop.

[Iceresistance]

21 minutes ago, Phil said:

I fully support Israel’s plan to wipe out Hamas. My heart shatters for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, but the onus should be on Hamas to unconditionally surrender and release the hostages.

Over 2 million German civilians died in WWII. Should the allied countries have acquiesced to a ceasefire? You don’t get to rape, dismember, and murder 1000+ innocent civilians, use your own people as shields, then cry for a ceasefire as if you’re the victim.

War is messy and inhumane. But sometimes it’s unavoidable. As soon as Hamas surrenders, the shelling will stop.

Also, have you noticed that the leaders of Palestine are very greedy and are Billionaires?

And I hope that Israel makes the lives of the Palestinians better after the war, Israel clearly shows they don't want to intentionally harm the Palestinian civilians. (Civilian casualties are unavoidable in any war.)

[roadtonowhere08]

20 minutes ago, Phil said:

I fully support Israel’s plan to wipe out Hamas. My heart shatters for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, but the onus should be on Hamas to unconditionally surrender and release the hostages.

Over 2 million German civilians died in WWII. Should the allied countries have acquiesced to a ceasefire? You don’t get to rape, dismember, and murder 1000+ innocent civilians, use your own people as shields, then cry for a ceasefire as if you’re the victim.

War is messy and inhumane. But sometimes it’s unavoidable. As soon as Hamas surrenders, the shelling will stop.

You really are incapable of seeing the multiple dimensions of this conflict, aren't you?

Israel = Victim Allies

Palestinians = Aggressor Axis

Reductive reasoning at its finest.  Do you have anything original to say or shall I continue to ignore you?

[Phil]

10 minutes ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

You really are incapable of seeing the multiple dimensions of this conflict, aren't you?

Israel = Victim Allies

Palestinians = Aggressor Axis

Reductive reasoning at its finest.  Do you have anything original to say or shall I continue to ignore you?

If that’s the message you derived from my post then I question your reading comprehension.

The Israel/Palestine conundrum does indeed have multiple dimensions. This particular Hamas/Israel conflict, on the other hand, is one-dimensional.

We all want a 2-state solution that provides dignity and autonomy to both states. However, there is zero chance that can happen with Hamas in power. Until then, nothing will change for the better. Pretty simple.

[roadtonowhere08]

11 minutes ago, Phil said:

If that’s the message you derived from my post then I question your reading comprehension.

The Israel/Palestine conundrum does indeed have multiple dimensions. This particular Hamas/Israel conflict, on the other hand, is one-dimensional.

We all want a 2-state solution that provides dignity and autonomy to both states. However, there is zero chance that can happen with Hamas in power. Until then, nothing will change for the better. Pretty simple.

No, my comprehension is just fine.  I question yours.

You came in last Friday, guns blazing, raging about the Palestinians and how there is no "Palestine", there is no occupation of Palestinian land, and it being all an "anti-Semitic sham".

I disagreed and got called pro Hamas and an anti-Semite.   

Now you seem to forget all that and only want to focus on the post Oct. 7, where we all mostly agree with you, except that nothing about this current conflict is one dimensional.  Morality-wise?  Those members of Hamas are burning in Hell already - right next to any other piece of garbage who willingly kills innocents (Hamas, Hezbollah, IDF, U.S. forces, whatever).  Everything before and after that event are as complicated as ever - like it always was and always will be when both sides have at least some merit to their claims and viewpoints.

My stance is about as objective as it can be.  You don't have to agree, but I'm not going to debate you.  You've shown me your hand as I've to you.  I'm not wasting my time with any of that.

So with all that in mind what are you trying to accomplish? 

[Phil]

10 minutes ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

No, my comprehension is just fine.  I question yours.

You came in last Friday, guns blazing, raging about the Palestinians and how there is no "Palestine", there is no occupation of Palestinian land, and it being all an "anti-Semitic sham".

I disagreed and got called pro Hamas and an anti-Semite.   

Now you seem to forget all that and only want to focus on the post Oct. 7, where we all mostly agree with you, except that nothing about this current conflict is one dimensional.  Morality-wise?  Those members of Hamas are burning in Hell already - right next to any other piece of garbage who willingly kills innocents (Hamas, Hezbollah, IDF, U.S. forces, whatever).  Everything before and after that event are as complicated as ever - like it always was and always will be when both sides have at least some merit to their claims and viewpoints.

My stance is about as objective as it can be.  You don't have to agree, but I'm not going to debate you.  You've shown me your hand as I've to you.  I'm not wasting my time with any of that.

So with all that in mind what are you trying to accomplish? 

Yet you haven’t explained what you think I’m getting wrong. Honestly, what do you think this conflict is really about? Frankly I think we both know the answer, but I haven’t seen you or any of other pro-Palestine people address it beyond the goofy decolonization stuff.

[roadtonowhere08]

48 minutes ago, Phil said:

Yet you haven’t explained what you think I’m getting wrong. Honestly, what do you think this conflict is really about? Frankly I think we both know the answer, but I haven’t seen you or any of other pro-Palestine people address it beyond the goofy decolonization stuff.

Of course I have.  You do not like the answer.  I do not agree with your initial post.  You do not agree with my subsequent replies.

What else is there to say?

 

[Rubus Leucodermis]

Arthur Goldreich on the parallels between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa:

Quote

Goldreich speaks of the "bantustanism we see through a policy of occupation and separation", the "abhorrent" racism in Israeli society all the way up to cabinet ministers who advocate the forced removal of Arabs, and "the brutality and inhumanity of what is imposed on the people of the occupied territories of Palestine".

"Don't you find it horrendous that this people and this state, which only came into existence because of the defeat of fascism and nazism in Europe, and in the conflict six million Jews paid with their lives for no other reason than that they were Jews, is it not abhorrent that in this place there are people who can say these things and do these things?" he asks.

Who was Arthur Goldreich, you ask? Some links:

https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/arthur-goldreich

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/06/southafrica.israel

[SnarkyGoblin]

19 hours ago, Phil said:

This is why Wikipedia isn’t allowed as a source for high school term papers, let alone the translation of a phrase concocted by religious zealots with ulterior motives.

And some random user on Twitter is???? 

C'mon man...at least practice what you preach some of the time. 

Like a lot of stuff, I'm sure there's a middle ground of truth.

As for Tlaib, she should have known that saying that would have made people upset.   She deserves to be censured if for nothing else being a troll.  We don't need that right now.

[Iceresistance]

Wait, WHAT!?

Free Lance Reporters Paid by CNN, NYT Raise Ethical Questions After Coverage of Hamas Attack (msn.com)

[Rubus Leucodermis]

2 hours ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

As for Tlaib, she should have known that saying that would have made people upset.   She deserves to be censured if for nothing else being a troll.  We don't need that right now.

“From the river to the sea” is indeed a stupid slogan to use. In a world where the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has a logo like this:

And Hamas has a logo like this:

It is best to avoid such baggage and use less loaded slogans.

Then again, both sides do it. Saying there is no such thing there as a Palestinian people, and then arguing by implication any notion of a state of Palestine is an invalid concept, a common rhetorical tactic of the Zionist right, is basically the Zionist analogue of “from the river to the sea.” It’s worse, actually, because there really is no ambiguity in it: it quite clearly consigns the other to the status of a non-entity.

I wonder what the chances of censuring a congresscritter who does the latter would be. Probably somewhere between slim and none. And therein lies part of the problem.

[roadtonowhere08]

9 hours ago, Rubus Leucodermis said:

Arthur Goldreich on the parallels between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa:

Who was Arthur Goldreich, you ask? Some links:

https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/arthur-goldreich

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/06/southafrica.israel

Ironic, eh?

[SilverFallsAndrew]

23 hours ago, Phil said:

Not going to post the video here. Yes, it’s as bad as you think.

The fact so many are supporting these demonic barbarians puts into context how genocides such as the holocaust began.

This is very common in the Muslim world. The fundamentalist Muslims really hate dogs. 

[SilverFallsAndrew]

19 hours ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

You really are incapable of seeing the multiple dimensions of this conflict, aren't you?

Israel = Victim Allies

Palestinians = Aggressor Axis

Reductive reasoning at its finest.  Do you have anything original to say or shall I continue to ignore you?

And...

[SilverFallsAndrew]

Things got out of hand.

https://www.newsweek.com/gal-gadot-hamas-israel-attack-screening-mass-brawl-video-1842163

[roadtonowhere08]

Biden administration privately warned by American diplomats of growing fury against US in Arab world

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/politics/biden-diplomats-warn-middle-east-fury

See anything stark on this map?

Regardless of one's personal feelings toward the region, it is hard to argue against the fact that the world is larger than the U.S. and Western Europe, and our policies toward Israel and the region are not shared by many.

The growing unrest in the U.S. and Europe is not going away.  People can frame it by shouting until they are blue in the face that it's all anti-Semitism, but they are delusional.  Yes, there are plenty of people who hate Jews for whatever reason, but the vast majority of the protesters do not.  Perhaps, just maybe, more people are educating themselves more on the situation and are voicing their opinions.  The internet and social media has made it possible to see pretty much everything, not just what those at the top want everyone to see.  Good news, bad news, honest reporting, lying propaganda..... all sides now have access to our collective attention for better or worse.  It's hard to keep it all straight, but it's there for all to see.  China is going to find this out big time sooner or later.

[Rubus Leucodermis]

6 hours ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Biden administration privately warned by American diplomats of growing fury against US in Arab world

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/politics/biden-diplomats-warn-middle-east-fury

See anything stark on this map?

Regardless of one's personal feelings toward the region, it is hard to argue against the fact that the world is larger than the U.S. and Western Europe, and our policies toward Israel and the region are not shared by many.

The growing unrest in the U.S. and Europe is not going away.  People can frame it by shouting until they are blue in the face that it's all anti-Semitism, but they are delusional.  Yes, there are plenty of people who hate Jews for whatever reason, but the vast majority of the protesters do not.  Perhaps, just maybe, more people are educating themselves more on the situation and are voicing their opinions.  The internet and social media has made it possible to see pretty much everything, not just what those at the top want everyone to see.  Good news, bad news, honest reporting, lying propaganda..... all sides now have access to our collective attention for better or worse.  It's hard to keep it all straight, but it's there for all to see.  China is going to find this out big time sooner or later.

Obviously, the green areas are badly out of touch with mainstream thought. /sarc

[Iceresistance]

Israel has agreed to a daily pause of 4 hours to allow civilians to escape dangerous areas.

 

Israel agrees to maintain daily pauses in fighting in northern Gaza, U.S. says (msn.com)

[Anti Marine Layer]

On 11/8/2023 at 9:48 AM, roadtonowhere08 said:

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

Originally a political slogan, it has been in use by Palestinian political groups since the 1960s as a call for Palestinian liberation. Initially popularized by the Palestine Liberation Organization upon its founding in 1964 as a "main goal of the movement", the phrase carried official weight within the PLO until the 1988 Algiers Declaration, after which "the objective shifted to establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders."[30][5] That same year saw the founding of Hamas, who integrated the slogan into its official platform, which, in contrast with the PLO's then-recent tacit acceptance of UN Resolution 242, called for the "obliteration of the state of Israel" and the killing of all of its Jewish citizens.[31][32][33][34]

By 1969, according to Professor Robin Kelley of the University of California, Los Angeles, the phrase "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" also represents a desire for "one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel."[18] According to Associate Professor Ron J. Smith of Bucknell University, since Palestinian nationalism envisages a land-based state, while Israeli nationalism envisages an ethnically based state, the use of this phrase is understood differently by Israelis and Palestinians. According to Ron Smith, for Palestinians it refers to the entirety of Mandatory Palestine.[35] In On 15 August 2023 the Dutch court of appeal gave legal protection to "From the river to the sea" on free speech grounds.[36]

The slogan has been used widely in pro-Palestinian protest movements.[37] It has often been chanted at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, usually followed or preceded by the phrase "Palestine will be free".[38][39][40] Interpretations differ amongst supporters of the slogan. Civic figures, activists, and progressive publications have said that it calls for a one-state solution, a single, secular state in all of historic Palestine where people of all religions have equal citizenship.[41] This stands in contrast to the Two-state solution, which envisions a Palestinian state existing alongside a Jewish state.[17][19][42][43] This usage has been described as speaking out for the right of Palestinians "to live freely in the land from the river to the sea", with Palestinian writer Yousef Munayyer describing the phrase as "a rejoinder to the fragmentation of Palestinian land and people by Israeli occupation and discrimination."[44] Others have said it stands for "the equal freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people."[19][20]

Some Islamic militant groups (including Hamas and Islamic Jihad) and Arab leaders (such as Saddam Hussein) came to utilize the slogan when calling for the supplementation of Israel with a unified Palestinian state, sometimes also proposing the removal of all or most of its Jewish population.[45][28][27][22][23][46][5] Hamas, as part of its revised 2017 charter, rejected “any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea", referring to all areas of former Mandatory Palestine and by extent, the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region.[22][47][48][49] Islamic Jihad declared that "from the river to the sea — [Palestine] is an Arab Islamic land that [it] is legally forbidden from abandoning any inch of, and the Israeli presence in Palestine is a null existence, which is forbidden by law to recognize.[15] Islamic supporters have utilized a version stating "Palestine is Islamic from the river to the sea", with certain Islamic scholars declaring that the Mahdi — a redemptive apocalyptic figure central to Islamic eschatology — will declare "Jerusalem is Arab Muslim, and Palestine — all of it, from the river to the sea — is Arab Muslim."[50][51]

A similar slogan was used in a 1977 election platform of the Israeli political party Likud, which stated that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty".[18] Some commentators have referred to Israeli occupation as a policy of Israeli control and oppression of Palestinians "from the river to the sea."[52][53][54]

Also: https://forward.com/opinion/415250/from-the-river-to-the-sea-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

Over the weekend, scholar and social justice activist Marc Lamont Hill apologized for ending
his recent remarks at United Nations by calling for “a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”
His apology came after three days of furious online attacks and criticism from many people
who felt deeply hurt by his remarks.

Critics have pointed to Hamas’s use of this phrase to claim that Hill was either deliberately
parroting a Hamas line that calls for Israel’s elimination, or at the very least ignorantly
repeating a deeply offensive and triggering phrase.

Yet lost in all these discussions is any acknowledgement of what this phrase actually means
— and has meant — to Palestinians of all political stripes and convictions. As a Palestinian
American and a scholar of Palestinian history, I’m concerned by the lack of interest in how
this phrase is understood by the people who invoke it.

It helps to remember the context in which Hill delivered his original remarks. He made them
last Wednesday as part of the Special Meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the
Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in observance of the United Nations
International Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People, which is held during the final days
of November each year.

The date is important. On November 29th, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted
to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. While Jews in Palestine rejoiced,
the country’s Arabs bitterly opposed the partition plan.

The reason was that they saw all of Palestine — from the river to the sea — as one
indivisible homeland. They invoked the story of Solomon and the baby to explain their
stance. Like the real mother in the parable, who begged Solomon to refrain from splitting her
baby in half, Palestinian Arabs couldn’t stand to see their beloved country split in two. And
they saw the Zionists’ eager reception of the plan as an ominous sign that they intended to
conquer the whole of Palestine.

Moreover, the proposed borders of the two states meant that the Jewish state would have
roughly 500,000 Palestinians living in it as a minority. And while the Israeli narrative holds
that those Palestinians would have been welcomed as equals in the new Jewish state, the
clashes between Jews and Arabs in Palestine that followed the UN vote, particularly the
attacks by Zionist militants and the subsequent forcible removal of Palestinians from their
homes and lands in areas allotted to the Jewish state, led Palestinians to conclude
otherwise.

As for those Palestinians who managed to remain on their lands in the new Israeli state, they
were eventually granted citizenship, but it was clearly subordinate to the status of Jewish
Israelis. They were subject to military rule rather than civilian law, which meant they needed permits from the military governor to travel to work and school. They also encountered
widespread prejudice from Israelis who saw them as a benighted, traditional underclass in
need of the state’s benevolent modernization.

And Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, living under Jordanian and Egyptian rule
respectively, faced authoritarian crackdowns that prevented them from being able to fully
express their political views.

In other words, after 1948, Palestinians were not able to live with full freedom and dignity anywhere in their homeland.

That’s how the call for a free Palestine “from the river to the sea” gained traction in the
1960s. It was part of a larger call to see a secular democratic state established in all of
historic Palestine. Palestinians hoped their state would be free from oppression of all sorts,
from Israeli as well as from Arab regimes.

To be sure, a lot of Palestinians thought that in a single democratic state, many Jewish
Israelis would voluntarily leave, like the French settlers in Algeria did when that country
gained its independence from the French. Their belief stemmed from the anti-colonial context
in which the Palestinian liberation movement arose.

That’s why, despite the occasional bout of overheated rhetoric from some leaders, there was
no official Palestinian position calling for the forced removal of Jews from Palestine. This
continued to be their position despite an Israeli media campaign following the 1967 war that
claimed Palestinians wished to “throw Jews into the sea.”

While Palestinians viewed Zionists as akin to colonial settlers, Jews who were willing to live
as equals with the Palestinians were welcome to stay. In his 1974 speech to the UN, Fatah
leader and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat declared, “when we speak of our common hopes for
the Palestine of tomorrow we include in our perspective all Jews now living in Palestine who
choose to live with us there in peace and without discrimination.”

In the 1980s and ‘90s, Fatah and the PLO changed their official stance from calling for a
single state to supporting a two-state solution. Many Palestinians —particularly the refugees
and their descendants — saw them as abandoning the core of their homeland and
acquiescing to colonial theft. They were allowing the proverbial baby to be split.

With Fatah seen as selling out, Hamas picked up the call for a free Palestine “from the river
to the sea.” It sought to burnish its own anti-colonial bona fides at the expense of Fatah. And
although many people point to Hamas’s 1988 charter as evidence of its hostility to Jews, in
fact the group long ago distanced itself from that initial document, seeking a more explicit
anti-colonial stance. Moreover, its 2017 revised charter makes even clearer that its conflict is
with Zionism, not with Jews.

And notwithstanding the extreme rhetoric of some leaders on both sides, a recent joint poll
shows that only a small minority of Palestinians see “expulsion” as a solution to the conflict –
15% — which is incidentally the same percentage of Israelis who view this as the only
solution.

What Palestinians do want is equal rights. They want to be able work hard to achieve their
dreams without being discriminated against. They want to be able to live where they choose
without being told they can’t because of their ethnicity or religion. They want to be able to
choose the leaders who control their lives.

In other words, they want freedom. And they want that freedom throughout their historic
homeland, not just on the 22% that comprise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This desire for freedom is what Marc Lamont Hill was invoking when he called for “a free
Palestine from the river to the sea.” His remarks were intended to center Palestinians’
aspirations, not disparage Israelis’. This has been lost on his critics, which speaks to a larger
problem.

Dismissing or ignoring what this phrase means to the Palestinians is yet another means by
which to silence Palestinian perspectives. Citing only Hamas leaders’ use of the phrase,
while disregarding the liberationist context in which other Palestinians understand it, shows a
disturbing level of ignorance about Palestinians’ views at best, and a deliberate attempt to
smear their legitimate aspirations at worst.

Most troubling for me, the belief that a “free Palestine” would necessarily lead to the mass
annihilation of Jewish Israelis is rooted in deeply racist and Islamophobic assumptions about
who the Palestinians are and what they want.

Rather than just lecture Palestinians and their supporters about how certain phrases make
them feel, supporters of Israel should get more curious about what Palestinians themselves
want. There isn’t a single answer (there never is), but assuming you already know is no way
to work towards a just and lasting peace. 

Things are never as simple as some like would like to believe/say.  Like always.

Wow, big copy and paste, like my Marxist posts. 

[Iceresistance]

I mean, anything to reduce civilian casualties and maybe to increase trust between Israel and Palestine would work.

Elon Musk says Israel should try to thwart Hamas with 'conspicuous acts of kindness' in Gaza (msn.com)