The point is that slogan is considered hateful to some. It’s considered to be calling for terrible things. You probably don’t mean it that way (I hope), but knowing how offensive it is to others, why would you keep using it?
Because the people claiming they find it hateful are doing so performatively in order to restrict just criticism of their favourite country’s genocidal actions. Or are being earnest, but have been tricked into believing it is offensive by the former group. Either way, the outcome is a pro-genocide one.
No, it reinforces the notion that the Jews in Isreal are in existential danger and that leads to their right to defend themselves and that leads to their twisted justification of attacking Palestine civilians.
No because it’s not ‘performative’. They are offended at the call to kill all Jews (how they see the phrase). And then that muddies the water on Israeli ‘defense’. If others are ‘tricked’ into believing that meaning to the phrase, then the phrase has that meaning regardless. And people using it know what it is interpreted as. They only keep using it because they want to convey that meaning while. Like racist assholes saying ‘all lives matter’.
They are offended at the call to kill all Jews (how they see the phrase).
Right but that goes to the second category. There are two groups: the performative ones and the tricked ones. Because the phrase doesn’t mean “kill all Jews”. That’s a lie made up by Israel propaganda to justify the genocide.
“All lives matter” was a phrase deliberately used to undermine the notion that “black lives matter”. That’s not what’s going on here. “From the river to the sea” is the equivalent of black lives matter. It’s the call for freedom against oppression.
It’s not really a stretch tho is it. Chants of ‘death to Israel’, ‘death to America’ are common in the Arab world. Or do those have some nice meaning too?
Different chants made in different countries are not relevant to “from the river to the sea” chanted in Australia. Your comment is a complete non-sequitur.
After overcoming Nazi germany, the west supported the civilians of Germany - it did not wipe it Germany the map. What do you think Hamas would do if it could?
They wiped the german settlers off the map and sent them back to where they came from. That’s the comparison I was going for. All the settlers east of the Oder had to be resettled back in Germany proper. It’s important to realise the similarities, these fascist projects all have a settler-colonialist goal. Lebensraum, manifest destiny, eretz yisrael, rhodesia are all different manifestations of the same monstrosity. Capitalisms need to devour and expand and devour and expand.
And Hamas would probably do the same thing as the ANC did in South Africa. People were clutching their pearls about “white genocide” as well back then (they still are lmfao) but it somehow never came to pass.
The only one sharing hate speech around here is you.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
The point is that slogan is considered hateful to some. It’s considered to be calling for terrible things. You probably don’t mean it that way (I hope), but knowing how offensive it is to others, why would you keep using it?
Because the people claiming they find it hateful are doing so performatively in order to restrict just criticism of their favourite country’s genocidal actions. Or are being earnest, but have been tricked into believing it is offensive by the former group. Either way, the outcome is a pro-genocide one.
Zagorath, succinctly expressed. Thank you.
No, it reinforces the notion that the Jews in Isreal are in existential danger and that leads to their right to defend themselves and that leads to their twisted justification of attacking Palestine civilians.
I’m confused. Your comment starts with “no”, and then basically restates what I said.
No because it’s not ‘performative’. They are offended at the call to kill all Jews (how they see the phrase). And then that muddies the water on Israeli ‘defense’. If others are ‘tricked’ into believing that meaning to the phrase, then the phrase has that meaning regardless. And people using it know what it is interpreted as. They only keep using it because they want to convey that meaning while. Like racist assholes saying ‘all lives matter’.
Right but that goes to the second category. There are two groups: the performative ones and the tricked ones. Because the phrase doesn’t mean “kill all Jews”. That’s a lie made up by Israel propaganda to justify the genocide.
“All lives matter” was a phrase deliberately used to undermine the notion that “black lives matter”. That’s not what’s going on here. “From the river to the sea” is the equivalent of black lives matter. It’s the call for freedom against oppression.
It’s not really a stretch tho is it. Chants of ‘death to Israel’, ‘death to America’ are common in the Arab world. Or do those have some nice meaning too?
Different chants made in different countries are not relevant to “from the river to the sea” chanted in Australia. Your comment is a complete non-sequitur.
Who gives a shit what settlers think?
from the moskva to the oder
Push the nazis back and over
would have been considered hateful by g*rmans during WW2. Death to pissrahell. Death to fascism everywhere.
After overcoming Nazi germany, the west supported the civilians of Germany - it did not wipe it Germany the map. What do you think Hamas would do if it could?
They wiped the german settlers off the map and sent them back to where they came from. That’s the comparison I was going for. All the settlers east of the Oder had to be resettled back in Germany proper. It’s important to realise the similarities, these fascist projects all have a settler-colonialist goal. Lebensraum, manifest destiny, eretz yisrael, rhodesia are all different manifestations of the same monstrosity. Capitalisms need to devour and expand and devour and expand.
And Hamas would probably do the same thing as the ANC did in South Africa. People were clutching their pearls about “white genocide” as well back then (they still are lmfao) but it somehow never came to pass.
There weren’t really Nazi settlers anywhere - it was all military expansion. And where would the Jewish people ‘go back’ to?
cont’d here