Comment by EvgeniyZh
2 years ago
Criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semitic, and many Israelis and Jews are critical of the Israeli government and its actions (even more than usual during the ongoing political crisis). Many of the critics I see lack nuance (basically, "rooting for the underdog"), but that's a different problem. The problem is complicated, and there is no simple solution (some kind of two-state may work after many years).
But chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) and calls for an intifada (de facto violence against Jews) are anti-semitic. Supporting Hamas, whose goal is to kill as many Jews as possible, or saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks is anti-semitic (Hamas is also bad for Gazans, but that's another story). I can go on and on. People holding these views may hold them not because they hate Jews (for example, I don't think that people removing posters of kidnapped Israelis necessarily hate them), but the result is all the same. There is also obvious anti-semitism unrelated to Israel, like attacking synagogues, drawing stars of David on Jewish houses, etc., but that's not what I'm talking about.
And the most vocal anti-Israelis are naturally the most extreme ones and usually include some of the stuff I mentioned. As a result, people call out anti-semitism, usually not referring to anti-Israeli critics you are talking about.
Hello there, a Palestinian from the west bank here speaking, let me tell you something, our resistance has nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish state, if my brother stole my house and killed my children i will fight him just the same, and you would too and everyone else (I assume). jewish, muslim, christian, vegan.. doesn't matter.
Now Hamas does play on the string of religion to get to people, and so does Israel (isn't it the promised land after all?).. but the main goal is to free the people from the oppressive occupation!
and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone! if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!
and like Bassem Youssef said, let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank. how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?
> and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone
Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?
> if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!
But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone, and the earlier we understand it, the better. For the same reasons, the right of return for every descendant won't work. We need to come up with a meaningful two-state solution, but that failed multiple times. So what's left? What solution do you think both sides may agree on, assuming good faith negotiations? Do you think any side is ready to give up West Jerusalem or their right of return stance?
> let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank.
I think the situation in West Bank is much better both for Israelis and Palestinians than the situation in Gaza (even before 7/10), and more importantly, there are ways to improve it.
> how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?
I don't justify the settlement expansion; I think it is a wrong practice. Do you think removing settlements (plus, say, some territory exchange where removal is too complicated) would solve all West Bank problems?
In order to be able to live together we need to learn our history, and of course being Palestinian myself i am biased, but I think the Israelis in particular need to learn their history, have you watched the documentary Tantura btw? you can find it here https://archive.org/details/tantura_2022.
Israel needs to first admit that it's establishment was on the expense of another people that are still suffering until today, without that, it's difficult to move forward, as well as continuing this conversation.
> Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?
Maybe, I don't know what else can it be! the slogan is not calling for killing anyone, FREEDOM = Dignity, Human Rights, I personally just want to be able to go to the beach and travel from an airport nearby.
> But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone....
Why not?
>The right of return for every descendant won't work
Why not?
3 replies →
> But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone, and the earlier we understand it, the better.
South Africa managed to pull it, and end apartheid. Why wouldn't it work for Israel?
1 reply →
> Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?
Reminds me of "Defund the police." Led to people having to constantly explain that they didn't actually mean that police should have zero funds and be abolished. But, except, a lot of people on Twitter countered that they did mean exactly that, and that all cops are bad and they're all racist. :facepalm:
2 replies →
>Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?
They're not responsible for what supporters of Israel infer from this phrase.
>But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone
Those who are unsatisfied with not living within a racist ethnostate would be welcome to leave and doubtless many would.
Many South Africans packed their bags and left after apartheid.
>We need to come up with a meaningful two-state solution, but that failed multiple times. So what's left? What solution do you think both sides may agree on, assuming good faith negotiations?
The two state solution failed many times because of a lack of good faith on Israel's side. They supported the creation of Hamas as an Islamist bulwark against the PA precisely to stymie a two state solution.
The only thing that would get them to negotiate in good faith is losing American support. That is key.
>I think the situation in West Bank is much better both for Israelis and Palestinians than the situation in Gaza
They are oppressed and murdered at a far lower tempo. If youve ever seen the way Israelis in, say, Hebron treat Palestinians (i.e. like subhuman scum) you wouldnt ever say that they had it good.
1 reply →
A so-called "2 state solution" is an oxymoron. A state, by definition, has a sovereign monopoly on violence. Your 2 states already exist and they are inevitably at war.
5 replies →
And how many Jews live in any of the neighboring Muslim ruled countries? As you say "if my brother ... killed my children I will fight him just the same". The very reason for the wall between Israel and Gaza is because people from Gaza have repeatedly sent terrorists to kill people in Israel. Before Oct 7th (and continuing up to this day) they continually launch rockets that would have killed tens of thousands of Israelis were it not for the Iron Dome.
1. What i know is that before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, many Arab jews lived peacefully in neighbouring Arab countries (Yemen, Iraq and Palestine). after the war many of them moved to Israel and probably because it wasn't an easy living anymore, but never had their been antisemitism in the arab world any close to that in Europe! (but i'm not very well educated on this part so correct me if you know better)
2. Did you ask yourself why people in Gaza fight Israel? it helps to know how much you know about this subject in order to know how to reply to you
I feel like you are not actually responding to any of the content of what he actually wrote. His point was that his anger is not tied to religion.
> but the main goal is to free the people from the oppressive occupation!
The Hamas charter that was used during the last elections in Palestine explicitly calls for the total destruction of Israel. To reach that goal, unrestricted jihad is necessary. Negotiated resolution are considered unacceptable. Hamas won those elections.
Hamas has since revised that charter in 2017; but retained the goal of completely eliminating Israel - it is till a constitutive element of their political beliefs.
> we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone! if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!
You might have a personal interpretation, but make no mistake about the intentions of the elected representatives of the Palestinian population when they chant that.
I'm not an expert on this but from watching the odd documentary I get the impression that 90%+ of Palestinians think similar to yourself but a minority, maybe 1% are into the hardline islam must defeat the jews type position which Hamas seems to adopt. And then while the others try to live somewhat peacefully the minority unfortunately do October 7 massacre type things which then of course causes retaliation. I'm not sure how this ends unless they drop that?
> I'm not sure how this ends unless they drop that?
I can't imagine the average Palestinian person having the headroom to do anything about those 1%.
Does that mean that Israel should implement whatever response they feel like? That is what we are watching play out, and it's an ugly scene.
What if, alternatively, the average Palestinian person was actually in a position to help? What would that look like?
--
What this really seems to boil down to is that no Palestinian person gets a say about what happens in Palestine, except for that violent 1%. That's a pretty obvious motivator for people to join that 1% group. It's also a motivator that might potentially be eliminated without violence. It seems to me like that would be worth a try.
Israeli here, and I'm glad to see you here.
Makes sense. I happen to agree with you.
I should address "stole your house" and "killed your children" separately. The "stealing houses" issue started during the 1948 war - what you call Nakba and I call Independence. The UN partitioned the holy land, and the Arabs were unsatisfied so started conquering land. Their specific intention was to "steal houses" or "steal land" or however else you want to phrase it. Ergo, this things happened though it did not turn out how they intended. Likewise, no fewer Jews than Arabs had their houses stolen. How many Jews remained in the West Bank after the 1948 war? Zero. How many Arabs remained in the new state of Israel? Hundreds of thousands. And do not forget the houses stolen from the Jews of Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Tunis, and other Arab states.
As for the "killed your children" there are so many ways that children both Palestinian and Jewish have been killed. Do you agree with me that Palestinian children are often involved in violence? I'll tell you that the first time I ever saw an Arab with a rifle he was shooting it in one arm (in the air, but towards Israels myself included) and a small child, maybe four or five, in the other. And I've seen enough similar things myself since. I have no doubt that innocent children have been killed - no doubt at all. But I do dispute the idea that the Israeli state is deliberately killing children. I served in the army, and anybody who would ever say anything remotely stupid to the hint of deliberately hurting a civilian was disciplined severely. I'm sure the entire army is not as my small battalion was, but I do believe that my battalion was representative.
Just to make you aware, despite all the resistance to Israelis building homes in the West Bank, it is in fact not only legal under international law, but actually encouraged by Ottoman law which nobody today has the authority to change. This is pretty much a copy-paste of a previous comment of mine. League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the West Bank today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so.
Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.
Many Israelis seem to live in an alternate world with alternate histories and alternate facts. Read Ilan Pappé to break out of that bubble.
1 reply →
Is it really worth fighting over a piece of land for generations?
It's just dirt, there's nothing special about it. Almost all borders are the results of war and conquest throughout history, it's better to accept that and move on.
It's their home and they have nowhere else to go. Wouldn't you want to preserve your community, culture and homeland?
11 replies →
Sure, move on to where? do what? I'm curious, how much do you know about the situation here?
1 reply →
Where do you suggest they go?
1 reply →
I don't think you even understand the gravity of the situation.
Not only did Palestinians were forcibly evicted in 1948 (The Nakba), they're being continuously occupied by an apartheid, racist and terrorist regime.
This is not a matter of conquest my friend. Because look. And bear with me. This might be long. But it's worth it. The Muslims conquered the lands of Jerusalem in 638 AD where the first Islamic Caliphate, Umar Ibn Khattab, besieged the city and the Christians surrendered. He took over without bloodshed. When Umar Ibn Khattab asked them, where are the Jews? He was surprised to hear they were all slaughtered or driven away by the Byzantine Christians sometime around 138-150 AD. He said, bring 20 Jewish families and establish them here. No lands were stolen, nothing was taken, no forced conversions were made. Jews Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then the Christian crusaders came in the 11th century and SLAUGHTERED everyone, Muslims AND Jews. Then, Islamic leader Salahuddin came 150-200 years later and liberated Jerusalem. Again, same thing. No lands were taken, no forced conversions. He even spared the Christians who slaughtered everyone 150 years ago. Then the Ottomons came and ruled over from 14 or 15th century and implemented the Millet system where every religious community had their own government. Again, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then it allll went down hill from 1917 onwards. I won't go into details but it lead to the Nakba in 1948, where British soldiers were commanded to evict Palestinians. 750K Palestinians displaced. Tens of thousands were killed. Women were raped (watch Tarantulla, watch the Jewish soliders ADMIT TO THIS). So mate, there's a massive difference. It's not just a piece of land. It's generations upon generations of families. And their homes being stolen. They're being KICKED off their lands. Generations where they've experienced so many atrocities. Atrocities that are being committed still to this day.
And if you want to understand even an ounce of the terrorism that Israeli soldiers commit against Palestinians in occupied territory, what better way than to listen straight from the mouths of ex-IDF soldiers? Well, good news for you, ex-IDF soliders in early 2000 created an org called "Breaking the silence". Look it up. THere you'll find over 300 video confessions + 200 text confessions of IDF confessing to acts of terrorism. Examples include occupying a home just to watch the World Cup, or to sleep in it while ALL the family sits in one room. Using children as human shields to do their search operations. They literally coined the term "neighborhood procedure" where they use Palestinians to knock on suspected "terrorists" homes to scout them out (Such cowards). You'll come across videos of soldiers confessing to killing an innocent man on the rooftop bc he looked at them weird. Or killing a child 40 min after he threw a molotov. I mean the list goes on and on. All that I described are from the video confessions. No propaganda. No BS. All straight from ex-IDF soldiers. Watch the videos on "Breaking the silence" and then come tell me if they can just "accept and move on". So it's not just about land my friend. It's about occupation, oppression, etc.
11 replies →
> chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country)
What is the truth of that? I've seen Israeli advocates make that claim and many repeat it. I've also seen an explainer in legitimate source (maybe the NY Times?) say that it means both Palestinians and Jews should be free. Does anyone have some actual, authoritative information? Something from before October 7th might be good.
> saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks
Who has said that?
For example, 2017 Hamas charter [1], page 6:
The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah ... There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. ... Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967.
Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum. Saying "from the river to the sea" means that all people should be free is akin to saying "arbeit macht frei" is a call for the financial independence of working people.
As for your second question, calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives [2].
[1] https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-is...
Thank you for some actual evidence. First, to add some detail from reading it, first the cut off part:
However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
And from p.2, where 'Palestine' is defined geographically, which seems to include much or all of Israel (including Israel in a two-state solution). However, a quick search did not turn up Ras Al-Naqurah or Umm Al-Rashrash.
The Land of Palestine:
2. Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.
-------------
Second, though I think it obviously weighs significantly on the question, I'll point out some considerations:
* Hamas doesn't speak for Palestinians generally. What does the Palestinian Authority say? Optimally, we'd need information on the Palestinian public now or before Oct 7, when the issue was less politicized and information more reliable.
* Again, the document is significant, but generally, something in a document doesn't reliably tell us the beliefs of the public. Even scripture won't tell you what people are doing or thinking (even the leaders - compare some of their ideas with scripture).
* It's from 2017; I wonder how old the phrase is.
Anyway, hardly criticism; thanks for contributing. It's not an easy question.
> calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives
Warfare, including as currently conducted by Israel, is not the only means of Israel defending itself. IMHO elliding the two seems like an obviously disingenous attack, and it undermines all supporters of Israel by making their other claims equally suspect.
4 replies →
>Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum. Saying "from the river to the sea" means that all people should be free is akin to saying "arbeit macht frei" is a call for the financial independence of working people.
Their "2017 charter" rather dramatically toned down the language. The original version makes no attempt to be politically correct.
6 replies →
>Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum.
"From the river to the sea, palestine will be free" implies a desire to see freedom not genocide.
If you're looking for slogans that genuinely impute racist genocidal intent look no further than the Israeli Prime Minister's references to Amalek.
People who say that they support Israel may not believe this imputed genocidal intent is what they support that in a practical sense it is.
6 replies →
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
QUOTE
The phrase was popularised in the 1960s as part of a wider call for Palestinian liberation creating a democratic state freeing Palestinians from oppression from Israeli as well as from other Arab regimes such as Jordan and Egypt.[6][7] In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah, although this was later expanded.[8][9] Palestinian progressives use it to call for a united democracy over the whole territory.[10] while others say "it's a call for peace and equality after ... decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians."
/QUOTE
Even in the most charitable interpretations about what happens to the Jews living there, it is a call to replace the state of Israel with a completely different state.
> Even in the most charitable interpretations about what happens to the Jews living there, it is a call to replace the state of Israel with a completely different state.
Completely different state appears to be roughly the same state, minus apartheid. If it worked in South Africa, why wouldn't it work here?
3 replies →
From the river to the sea is the entirety of Israel plus Gaza/west bank of landmass. Then calling Palestine shall be free is a call to end the state of Israel. hopefully Oct 7th should demonstrate what that means, which is indiscriminately killing of all Israeli civilians.
If you doubt it ask a few Palestinians what would happen to the Jews living in the area if “Palestine is free”.
That repeats the claim - I'm aware of it from the GGP comment and of course from other public discussion. What I'm looking for is evidence of the claim from reliable sources.
Why do you think groups like Hamas, PIJ, and their supporters say it? Hamas literally use the words "from the river jordan in the east to the Mediterranean" in their charter while calling for the destruction of Israel. Reading that that statement as anything other than calling for the destruction of Israel is mental gymnastics. When far right nationalists tell you what they want to do take their word for it.
My (current, possibly misinformed) understanding is that "from the river to the sea" refers to a Palestinian state that stretches from the west bank to Gaza. Under the current reality, I don't see how this would be accomplished without a mass genocide of (Jewish) Israelis.
I'm open to the suggestion that (some?) people chanting this hope for this to be accomplished without violence, but speakers at such events have also glorified the actions of Hamas on October 7th.
For what it's worth, I don't support the actions of Israel, or the occupation of West bank and Gaza. I support a free Palestine in the sense that West Bank / Gaza should be left alone. There's a good chance that without the blockade, those territories would better arm themselves and it would result in a war which would impact Israel much more significantly as West Bank + Gaza would likely move to reclaim Israeli land. But at this point I don't see an alternative without Israel continuing its egregious human rights violations and genocide of the Palestinian people.
Kind of a shit situation all around.
There is a well-established solution to conflict, called democracy. People fight it out in ballots and legislatures; they resolve differences by the universal rules (apply to everyone) in indepedent tribunals (courts; they all are guaranteed human rights.
It doesn't work beautifully or easily or perfectly, but it keeps a lid on things generally. Our recent abandonment of it is awful, and serves only the warmongers, hateful, and power-hungry - the people who benefit from the absence of things like universal human rights.
12 replies →
I am going to answer this as honestly as possible, but this is a personal interpretation (like everything in this hn thread), it doesn’t refer to a free Palestinian state as much as it does to the people. When Israel is inherently setup as a country for Jewish people, that does indeed call for the abolition of the state of Israel as is, but to me that is like saying fighting against apartheid in South Africa was calling for a genocide of whites. It could have been if they would have fought for the need of having an apartheid state, but it wasn’t necessary.
[flagged]
River to the Sea has clear meaning regarding the establishment of palestine and the eradication of israel.
You can draw a very neat line between the number of jews currently permitted to live peacefully in palestine vs the number of muslims living within israel.
its not complicated, confusing, unclear or opaque.
River to the Sea means to end the israeli state, and the end of that does not have a happy ending for any jews living on that land.
I understand the claim about that interpretation. Repeating it doesn't help; we got it. If you know of evidence that that's the understanding among Palestinians, that would be great.
2 replies →
Jews, Muslims and Christians have lived in that region relatively peacefully for a long time.
The end of Israel as an exclusionary apartheid state does not have to mean the end of Jews living there, in a pluralist state guaranteeing equal access to Christians, Jews and Muslims to their holy sites and shared ancestral homeland.
2 replies →
> Supporting Hamas ... is anti-semitic
> https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
Then the Times of Israel is on the record with articles accusing Netanyahu of being anti-semitic. I don't think those things you list are anti-semitic - they just happen to be politically bad for Jews right now. There is a difference (an important one) between policies-bad-for-a-group and being motivated by an unreasonable hatred of a group.
> There is a difference (an important one) between policies-bad-for-a-group and being motivated by an unreasonable hatred of a group.
Sure. You don't have to have anti-semitic views to say anti-semitic things. The thing doesn't become less anti-semitic if you weren't motivated by hatred. It is also an unobservable difference because I can't say what your motivation is, only what is the meaning of your words and actions. Someone may want to ban black people from attending universities so that white people have more spots, the fact that they are not motivated by unreasonable hatred doesn't magically make the ban not racist.
I'm perfectly fine saying supporting Hamas is antisemitic and that Netanyahu has said and done plenty of antisemitic things, including Holocaust revisionism.
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/2018-12-13/ty-article-opi...
> But chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country)
You mean what's in the Lukud 1977 charter which was reiterated by Netanyahu recently after 10/7?
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront...
To claim that Israels use of this phrase (which explicitly calls for the removal/elimination of Palestinians) is ok while the Palestinian one is not is hypocritical.
> chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country)
When I hear that chant I don't assume that it means 'destroying Jewish country' but rather that the Palestinian nation (i.e. people) should be free between the Jordan and Mediterranean. There is no contradiction in the hypothetical chant "Palestine and Israel shall be free from the river to the sea" if we are talking about nations and not states.
The problem is that neither Israelis nor Palestinians can be free in a state that practices apartheid against them (be that an Israeli or Palestinian state). So you could interpret "Palestine shall be free from the river to the sea" as a call to end apartheid in Israel. Which brings us to the crux of this issue - Israel's determination to remain an ethno-religious apartheid state. The founding of a state where only a certain type of person can be a full citizen is the original sin here in my opinion.