Hamas attacks Israel.

[SteveH]

Why are you right, and why are they wrong?

See addition to my post above yours. What's threatening about calling for freedom for the oppressed?

[Nearly Sane]

See addition to my post above yours. What's threatening about calling for freedom for the oppressed?

That's you saying your perception is right because it matches your perception. The phrase has a long and varied history. It's use by Hamas, never mind when Likud used it,  would I suggest in the current climate mean that a blanket claim of it just being about it just being about fluffy bunnies is disingenuous.

[SteveH]

That's you saying your perception is right because it matches your perception. The phrase has a long and varied history. It's use by Hamas, never mind when Likud used it,  would I suggest in the current climate mean that a blanket claim of it just being about it just being about fluffy bunnies is disingenuous.

No, it's me saying my perception is right because it matches the actual words.

[Nearly Sane]

No, it's me saying my perception is right because it matches the actual words.

The actual words being discussed are 'From the river to the see' - I would suggest that those are pretty open to interpretation.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

[SteveH]

What's open to interpretation about that? The river is the Jordan, the sea is the Mediterranean, and the land between is Israel and the illegally-occupied territories.

[Nearly Sane]

What's open to interpretation about that? The river is the Jordan, the sea is the Mediterranean, and the land between is Israel and the illegally-occupied territories.

Well, you interpreted it as 'Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all' which seems an impressive leap to me.

[jeremyp]

I think that that's the perception by some. I don't think it can be stated as a fact that that is its meaning. It certainly wasn't the intention of Church and those using it, though I think they were at least stupid not to understand the complexities of the situation.

Of course that's its meaning.

Obviously, I don't think that Charlotte Church believed it, but then a lot of people really don't understand the realities of Middle Eastern politics.

[jeremyp]

Absolute nonsense yourself. Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all would be a good thing, and has nothing too do with genocide. There is no mention or implication of killing or displacing Jewish Israelis.

Israel is already a secular democratic state with equal rights for all of its citizens. The Palestinians who live in Israel have the same rights as everybody else.

Hamas wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. That's what "from the river to the sea" means.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course that's its meaning.

Obviously, I don't think that Charlotte Church believed it, but then a lot of people really don't understand the realities of Middle Eastern politics.

I don't think they do but if that's its sole meaning why did Likud use it?

[Nearly Sane]

Israel is already a secular democratic state with equal rights for all of its citizens. The Palestinians who live in Israel have the same rights as everybody else.

Hamas wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. That's what "from the river to the sea" means.

And yet the phrase predates Hamas's usage of it.

[SteveH]

Israel is already a secular democratic state with equal rights for all of its citizens. The Palestinians who live in Israel have the same rights as everybody else.

Tell that to the refugees and the victims of house demolitions.

Hamas wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. That's what "from the river to the sea" means.

It means what it says. Hamas do not have exclusive interpretatory rights.

[Nearly Sane]

Tell that to the refugees and the victims of house demolitions.It means what it says. Hamas do not have exclusive interpretatory rights.

So it's just you with the interpretatory rights?

[SteveH]

So it's just you with the interpretatory rights?

Don't be silly. Interpretation is open to anyone, as long as they interpret what's actually there, and don't invent meanings that are not justified by the words.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't be silly. Interpretation is open to anyone, as long as they interpret what's actually there, and don't invent meanings that are not justified by the words.

Like 'Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all'?

[SteveH]

Like 'Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all'?

That would be a valid route to Palestinian freedom. Jeremyp's "Islamic theocracy" wouldn't. not least because a significant minority of Palestinians are Christians, but also because no-one is free under a theocracy.

[Nearly Sane]

That would be a valid route to Palestinian freedom. Jeremyp's "Islamic theocracy" wouldn't. not least because a significant minority of Palestinians are Christians, but also because no-one is free under a theocracy.

But not it seems to me an interpretation of the phrase 'From the river to the sea' unless you allow that other interpretations such as those who perceive it as a threat because of Hamas's use of it are as valid . And surely it's Hamas's Islamic theocracy rather than jeremyp's?

[SteveH]

But not it seems to me an interpretation of the phrase 'From the river to the sea' unless you allow that other interpretations such as those who perceive it as a threat because of Hamas's use of it are as valid . And surely it's Hamas's Islamic theocracy rather than jeremyp's?

There's nothing threatening about the basic phrase. Claiming to feel threatened or offended by some harmless political slogan is a tiresome political trick as old as the hills.

[Nearly Sane]

There's nothing threatening about the basic phrase. Claiming to feel threatened or offended by some harmless political slogan is a tiresome political trick as old as the hills.

If it is used by Hamas to threaten, in what sense is it a harmless political slogan? Dismissing peopke's concerns about political slogans when they are threatening is also as old as the hills. And by calling it harmless you're just begging the question.

[SteveH]

"He also defended protesters using the chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" on marches.

Critics of the chant, including Israel and most Jewish groups, argue it implicitly calls for the destruction of Israel.

This interpretation is disputed by some pro-Palestinian activists who say that most people chanting it are calling for an end to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza, not the destruction of Israel itself.

Jewish Conservative MP Andrew Percy said the phrase, which was projected onto Parliament last week while a Gaza ceasefire debate was taking place in the Commons, was a "genocidal call".

Mr Jamal said his organisation had not projected the slogan on to Parliament but he defended the right of protesters to use it, "despite the rhetoric being used to demonise it".

He said it had "been used by the majority of Palestinians for decades" and "it speaks to the nature of how the rights of the Palestinian people are deprived".

He added: "It in no way calls for the abrogation of anybody else's rights.""

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68425667

[Nearly Sane]

'Is a Gaza ceasefire deal in sight?' - let's hope so


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68429768

[Dicky Underpants]

There's nothing threatening about the basic phrase. Claiming to feel threatened or offended by some harmless political slogan is a tiresome political trick as old as the hills.

I've heard at least one German nationalist (living here) say that the old opening of their anthem "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" has continually been misinterpreted, and simply means that Germany should be first in a German's thoughts, not that they should laud it over other countries and set about invading them again. Well, that was what he first told me. A few year's later, I really probed his thoughts, and it turns out he is a rabid racist and Nazi. I'm very glad that the modern German regimes have long since excised this verse from the anthem.

[Aruntraveller]

I've heard at least one German nationalist (living here) say that the old opening of their anthem "Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles" has continually been misinterpreted, and simply means that Germany should simply be first in a German's thoughts, not that they should laud it over other countries and set about invading them again. Well, that was what he first told me. A few year's later, I really probed his thoughts, and it turns out he is a rabid racist and Nazi. I'm very glad that the modern German regimes have long since excised this verse from the anthem.

As so often it is the emotional resonance of the phrase rather than the words themselves. This probably goes a long way to explain some Jewish people's reaction to the phrase when used by Palestinians. This is not a comment on the rights and wrongs of the dreadful state of affairs, just more about the use of language and its effects on people.

[Nearly Sane]

Joe Biden confuses Gaza with Ukraine in airdrop announcement- Hmmm....

https://www.theguardian.com/wo8rld/2024/mar/02/joe-biden-confuses-gaza-with-ukraine-in-airdrop-announcement

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Israel is already a secular democratic state with equal rights for all of its citizens. The Palestinians who live in Israel have the same rights as everybody else.

Not according to Israel and its Supreme Court, which confirms that it was founded as a Jewish democratic state. Israel enshrined in law that “the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People.” Israel seems to have aligned its constitution with the constitutional values of Pakistan, Sri Lanka and other ethno-religious nationalist states. https://www.lawandisrael.org/library/topical/israel-law/selected-world-constitutions/

It does not respect the rights of minorities and actively discriminates against non-Jewish minorities. Israeli citizens having the vote does not mean its non-Jewish citizens have the same rights as its Jewish citizens.


Therefore there is nothing intrinsically antisemitic about wanting to dismantle and free the land from the river to the sea and its people from this kind of state discrimination against minorities.

Hamas wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. That's what "from the river to the sea" means.

Even if that is the meaning of the phrase according to some members of Hamas, no one has ownership of the phrase "from the river to the sea". Other people can use it as they see fit.

[SteveH]

Hamas wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. That's what "from the river to the sea" means.

That may be what Hamas means, but it isn't necessarily what the phrase means, as the Accountant says above. You are committing the intentional fallacy - the assumption that what the author intended is determinative of meaning. In fact, texts mean what they say, which may be very different from what the author intended.
https://literariness.org/2016/03/17/intentional-fallacy/