this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
143 points (82.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2470 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
143
Don’t Buy the Right-Wing Disinformation Campaign on “From the River to the Sea” (truthout.org)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 62 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

The phrase originally came from secular Palestinian nationalists in the 1960s calling for a democratic secular state within the boundaries of what was the British Mandate for Palestine, encompassing Israel, the then-Jordanian controlled West Bank and the then-Egyptian administered Gaza Strip — that is, the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The PLO of that era also advocated mass expulsion of Jews and their descendants except those who lived in Palestine before the late 19th century, and even that was ambiguous, so I don't know that "The phrase doesn't have any connotations of ethnic cleansing!" is really correct here.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The 19th century begins in 1801. I think you're likely referencing a later date (probably 1917).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

First Aliyah, starting 1881.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why? Though that's also not before the 19th century.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Why?

That's the commonly accepted date?

Though that’s also not before the 19th century.

Didn't mean to say before the whole 19th century. I'll edit that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I've definitely seen PLO-friendly sources cite 1881 as the start of the invasion.

Ultimately, though, this is just an aside, the main thrust being that ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing regardless of whether the ethnic cleansers want a secular, democratic state (or, indeed, are being ethnically cleansed themselves).

I take the very shocking view that ethnic cleansing is bad, whether pre-emptive or in vengeance.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Seems like often ambiguous topic seem like the things both sides of any argument focus on and dig heels in about.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Certainly true. On one hand, ambiguous topics are a convenient way to discredit one's enemies by ascribing the more extreme position to them. On the other hand, they can just as easily be a dog whistle or motte-and-bailey argument.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

I also wonder if when we talk about foreign and domestic troll farms if those are the topics they push.

Its like the Facebook math questions "8÷2(2×2)=?" Which gets thousands and thousands of engagement and people all arguing not knowing better or they do know better and attempt to explain.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago

Is the right-wing anything but a disinformation campaign at this point? Outside of "fuck em all to death" I'm not sure what (or even if) they have a platform anymore. Seems to just be raw hate.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

There is exactly one state here that does a forced "from the river to the sea" people replacement campaign here, and it is not Palestina.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Adding the subtitle…

This phrase was never about killing Jews. It emerged in the 1960s as a call for equal rights within a democratic state.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The equal rights were 1947 borders set by the UN, which Arab nations rejected and started a war which they lost.

If you look at the map, "from the river to the sea" clearly means the whole area.

The original slogan also was "from the river to the sea Palestine is Islamic/Arab", but that would be far less catchy in the West.

As for equal rights in democratic state, that has to be a joke. Just look at population of Israel where almost 25% is Arabic and compare it to Palestine which is very homogenous.

Nethanyahu is a MF, far right politician that should spend the rest of his life in jail, but let's not pretend the other side are saints. They would would do exactly same (maybe even worse) if they had the means.

There are no good guys on either side of that conflict, just innocent people caught in the middle.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

Just look at population of Israel where almost 25% is Arabic and compare it to Palestine

That's a bit like comparing the proportion of immigrant citizens in the wealthy US with those in its low income neighbour Mexico.

Only, if the US was also occupying most of Mexico and controlled who could enter or leave.

Tl; dr it says a lot more about the situation than it does about the wishes of the population.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The original slogan also was “from the river to the sea Palestine is Islamic/Arab”, but that would be far less catchy in the West.

From where do you get this belief? According to the Wikipedia editors the precise origin is unknown, but a variant matching your claim (except it's from the water to the water) was coexisting with the "sea"/"free" version (both in Arabic) in the 1980s.

As for equal rights in democratic state, that has to be a joke. Just look at population of Israel where almost 25% is Arabic and compare it to Palestine which is very homogenous.

Why would a Jewish person choose to live in a ghetto rather than Israel. They have innate right to citizenship in the modern wealthy country next door. The people living in Palestine are doing so either because they have a deep attachment to the land or because they don't have any other choice, not because it's an attractive place to live. What Israelis have lived there were settlers trying to take land, not integrate into the society. Maybe the Palestinians (which ones?) would implement their own apartheid, but there not being many non-Arabs in Palestine isn't at all an indication of anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

There were many attacks on Palestinian Jews already before Israel came into existence, when Arab nations attacked Israel (that is both Jewish and Arab Israelis), there were attacks against Palestinian Jews, so many or most of them fled, I guess also because the state Israel seemed like a safe haven compared to the horrors of Europe in the centuries before, so Palestinian Jews had many reasons to go to the Israeli areas.