Free in both Gaza and the West Bank is the main one. “From the river to the sea excluding a 40 km gap roughly in the middle” just doesn’t have the same ring. There’s also the one-state interpretation, where the Jews are still there but living alongside Palestinians as equals (nice but currently implausible IMO).
Taken without any context, it actually says nothing about Israel at all, or the exact nature of said Palestinian freedom somewhere between those two landmarks. With context it means more, but the context varies considerably depending on whether it’s, say, a peace-loving Jew or Hamas saying it.
I understand that there actually might be some people that mean it in the ways you are explaining.
Since Hamas has adopted it more than 10 years ago, it is at least (!) a dogwhistle by now. The whole phrase is burned for a peaceful message because of this.
I wish there was a way to actually measure what people mean. As far as I can tell, there’s a lot of people just like me who think the Palestinians have gotten an unfair shake, but have nothing against Jews, or in some cases actually are Jews. The actual antisemites are also quietly in the same spaces. I really don’t think hate is the main motivator overall, but I can’t prove it either.
Sadly, that particular chant is probably going to have even more staying power now that it’s under attack.
The key word there would be Jewish. If it’s genocidal to say from the river to the sea Israel will be Arab (which isn’t even what people say in English!) how is it not genocidal to say from the river to the sea Israel will be Jewish? How is that bad faith?
The bad faith is getting rid of Israel, getting rid of Israel/converting them to Islam is how this whole thing started ~1000 years ago or whatever
The pro Palestine argument is coexist
You can look at the US civil rights movement, King’s (and others) anti-violence approach (while the other side was extremely violent) is why it was so successful. The aggressor can’t paint the other side as bad if they don’t commit crimes
That’s far from the only interpretation.
Do you have a link to the original comments? All I can find is the angry blog post accusing him, and it’s partly paywalled.
What is the explanation then?
Free in both Gaza and the West Bank is the main one. “From the river to the sea excluding a 40 km gap roughly in the middle” just doesn’t have the same ring. There’s also the one-state interpretation, where the Jews are still there but living alongside Palestinians as equals (nice but currently implausible IMO).
Taken without any context, it actually says nothing about Israel at all, or the exact nature of said Palestinian freedom somewhere between those two landmarks. With context it means more, but the context varies considerably depending on whether it’s, say, a peace-loving Jew or Hamas saying it.
I understand that there actually might be some people that mean it in the ways you are explaining.
Since Hamas has adopted it more than 10 years ago, it is at least (!) a dogwhistle by now. The whole phrase is burned for a peaceful message because of this.
It’s been a saying in Palestine since Israel happened to them.
You mean the UN partition plan from 1948 that Israel accepted to create Israel?
What’s your point?
I wish there was a way to actually measure what people mean. As far as I can tell, there’s a lot of people just like me who think the Palestinians have gotten an unfair shake, but have nothing against Jews, or in some cases actually are Jews. The actual antisemites are also quietly in the same spaces. I really don’t think hate is the main motivator overall, but I can’t prove it either.
Sadly, that particular chant is probably going to have even more staying power now that it’s under attack.
It means free Palestine.
If it’s a cry for genocide what is it that’s in the Israeli constitution about that same area being an inextricable part of a Jewish state?
Isn’t Israel in the way?
Palestine isn’t a country
It’s be like the Cree claiming all of Canada vs Canada claiming all of Canada
Please argue in good faith, you don’t help us when you take such bad stances
The key word there would be Jewish. If it’s genocidal to say from the river to the sea Israel will be Arab (which isn’t even what people say in English!) how is it not genocidal to say from the river to the sea Israel will be Jewish? How is that bad faith?
Oh no, we want a secular Israel
The bad faith is getting rid of Israel, getting rid of Israel/converting them to Islam is how this whole thing started ~1000 years ago or whatever
The pro Palestine argument is coexist
You can look at the US civil rights movement, King’s (and others) anti-violence approach (while the other side was extremely violent) is why it was so successful. The aggressor can’t paint the other side as bad if they don’t commit crimes
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod