Israel vs Palestinians

[NashVol11]

Or we are making simple inferences into the meaning of a statement. If Palestine is "from the river to the sea", that means there is no Israel. Yes, that would end in genocide.

There was no Israel a century ago, was that a genocide of the Jews there?

That chant existed before the Hamas government did and has nothing whatsoever to do with Hamas, but magically became a "call for genocide" starting a few years ago lol

 

[Vol8188]

There was no Israel a century ago, was that a genocide of the Jews there?

That chant existed before the Hamas government did and has nothing whatsoever to do with Hamas, but magically became a "call for genocide" starting a few years ago lol

You believe Palestinian/Israeli relations today are the same as 100 years ago? Palestinians overwhelmingly support radical groups that want genocide. Yes, if they were in charge I believe there would be a genocide.

What's your reason for believing otherwise?

 

[GreyWolf1129]

There’s no point to wasting “internet oxygen” on oxygen thieves. I’ll sit back and wait on the Hamas victory parade.

Slice, you got an extra Snickers bar?

 

[NashVol11]

That chant existed before the Hamas government did and has nothing whatsoever to do with Hamas, but magically became a "call for genocide" starting a few years ago lol

I would avoid this too, as well as this

The Dutch court of appeal has given legal protection to the Palestinian liberation chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, on free speech grounds.

On 15 August, the appeal court – whose rulings are final and cannot be appealed – acquitted Thomas Hofland, a pro-Palestine activist who used the popular chant in a speech he delivered at a Nakba day rally in Amsterdam in May 2021.

In a recent Twitter thread, home secretary Suella Braverman claimed that the slogan was “widely understood as a demand for the destruction of Israel” and “remains a staple of antisemitic discourse”.

This interpretation of the chant has become definitive among Jewish communal organisations and the rightwing media – and has been forcefully rejected by Palestinians and their supporters. They point to the slogan’s origins in the 1960s as part of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s attempt to push for a secular, democratic state in all of historic Palestine.

Today, the phrase is often used to acknowledge the fact that nowhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean sea – not in Gaza, nor the West Bank, nor Israel proper – do Palestinians enjoy full and equal rights with Jewish Israelis.

As to the claim that the slogan expresses a desire for Israel’s “destruction”, the historian of Palestine Maha Nassar has suggested that this eliminationist interpretation may derive from a post-six-day-war Israeli propaganda campaign that asserted that Palestinians wished to “throw Jews into the sea”.

Dutch Court Rules ‘From the River to the Sea’ Protected Speech and Not Antisemitic | Novara Media

The pro-Palestine chant is now officially protected under Dutch law, striking a blow at those who claim it is antisemitic. Rivkah Brown reports.

novaramedia.com

 

[NashVol11]

At this rate we are probably only a day or two away from "'Free Palestine' is a call for genocide!!!"

Probably not long after that, "any support for Palestine whatsoever is a call for Hamas to kill all Jews"

 

[Vol8188]

I would avoid this too, as well as this

Dutch Court Rules ‘From the River to the Sea’ Protected Speech and Not Antisemitic | Novara Media

The pro-Palestine chant is now officially protected under Dutch law, striking a blow at those who claim it is antisemitic. Rivkah Brown reports.

novaramedia.com

What specifically are you accusing me of avoiding? If you use that phrase today you are calling for 1 government ran by Palestinians. Palestinians openly support extremist groups that call for genocide. What specifically would you like addressed that you feel is avoided.

And what you bolded in the middle is an open lie. What right do Israeli Arab's (Palestinians) not have?

 

[NashVol11]

What specifically are you accusing me of avoiding? If you use that phrase today you are calling for 1 government ran by Palestinians. Palestinians openly support extremist groups that call for genocide. What specifically would you like addressed that you feel is avoided.

And what you bolded in the middle is an open lie. What right do Israeli Arab's (Palestinians) not have?

60 year old chant that existed well before Hamas and has nothing to do with Hamas became offensive starting in 2007 because of Hamas, got it. Like I said, not long until any support for Palestine whatsoever becomes "offensive" using the exact same tortured logic.

"You think the citizens should have water? Well then you want Hamas to have water to fuel them to kill all Jews, that's anti-Semitic"

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

There was no Israel a century ago, was that a genocide of the Jews there?

That chant existed before the Hamas government did and has nothing whatsoever to do with Hamas, but magically became a "call for genocide" starting a few years ago lol

This is the Covenant of Hamas from 1988. Please scroll down to Article 8, then look up to the last paragraph of Article 7 and read it.

It specifically says the Moslems (sic) must kill the Jews in "Palestine" and claims this is the word of "Allah."

That's genocide. You can find this text in many places, as you wish.

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

 

[Septic]

You believe Palestinian/Israeli relations today are the same as 100 years ago? Palestinians overwhelmingly support radical groups that want genocide. Yes, if they were in charge I believe there would be a genocide.

What's your reason for believing otherwise?

Palestinians overwhelmingly support the Palestinian Authority over Hamas.

Does Hamas have popular support at home?

Hamas took control of the Gaza strip in 2007, expelling the rival Fatah organization, and since then controlling the area. I couldn't find any evidence of anyone trying to hold elections since then...

politics.stackexchange.com

Lumping all Palestinians into a single terrorist bucket is lazy.

Hamas was unpopular in Gaza before it attacked Israel – surveys showed Gazans cared more about fighting poverty than armed resistance

Politicians have used their assumptions about Gazans to support their policies. But the people in Gaza experience these policies far differently, writes a scholar of Islamism.

theconversation.com

You seem to be trying to oversimplify and generalize what entire group of people support. Like most nutty society's, these majority of Palestinians want peace and supported the cease fire.

 

[Vol8188]

60 year old chant that existed well before Hamas and has nothing to do with Hamas became offensive starting in 2007 because of Hamas, got it. Like I said, not long until any support for Palestine whatsoever becomes "offensive" using the exact same tortured logic

You didn't answer the question. What am I not addressing? Yes, it's an old chant. No, it was not only offensive in 2007, it was offensive in 1960 too.

If Israelis were marching on college campuses and calling for a one state solution called Israel, that would obviously be offensive and you would agree that it was offensive.

 

[n_huffhines]

Did a little brief research on the phrase "from the river to the sea". I don't know much about the subject or the ME so just wanted to try to learn a bit about it.

Pro-Palestinians claim it's about freedom

Pro-Israelis claim it's anti-Semitic

Hamas claims it's about freedom and getting their land back


The problem I see is that Hamas also calls for the extermination of Israelis.


With that being said, It's probably not the best phrase to use if you are simply pro-Palestinian.

Doesn't really seem that complicated to understand.

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion based on the above. Just because Israel claims it's anti-Semitic?

 

[Vol8188]

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion based on the above. Just because Israel claims it's anti-Semitic?

Do you believe a one state solution should be the goal of either side?

 

[KptVFL]

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion based on the above. Just because Israel claims it's anti-Semitic?

Good grief man.

When a terrorist group uses it it's not a stretch to think there might be something to it

 

[n_huffhines]

Palestinians overwhelmingly support the Palestinian Authority over Hamas.

Does Hamas have popular support at home?

Hamas took control of the Gaza strip in 2007, expelling the rival Fatah organization, and since then controlling the area. I couldn't find any evidence of anyone trying to hold elections since then...

politics.stackexchange.com

Lumping all Palestinians into a single terrorist bucket is lazy.

Hamas was unpopular in Gaza before it attacked Israel – surveys showed Gazans cared more about fighting poverty than armed resistance

Politicians have used their assumptions about Gazans to support their policies. But the people in Gaza experience these policies far differently, writes a scholar of Islamism.

theconversation.com

You seem to be trying to oversimplify and generalize what entire group of people support. Like most nutty society's, these majority of Palestinians want peace and supported the cease fire.

Coming from a pro-Israel institute, too. 69% want Hamas to relinquish control. What to do with this information? Change our minds about Palestinians? Nah

 

[TheDeeble]

To be clear, I said this:

"Did you know that Hamas only really went after legitimate military targets until the 29 massacred in a mosque by an Israeli terrorist (Baruch Goldstein) in 1994 (and then 19 more Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in riots). That's pretty much their villain origin story."

And you are sharing civilian bombings Ayyash was involved in after the Mosque massacre. Those all happened in April and the Hebron Massacre was in February.

"We were against targeting civilians ... After the Hebron massacre we determined that it was time to kill Israel's civilians ... we offered to stop if Israel would, but they rejected that offer." - Musa Abu Marzouk

According to Matti Steinberg, former advisor to Shin Bet and one of Israel's leading experts on Hamas, the massacre laid to rest an internal debate within Hamas on the usefulness of indiscriminate violence: "In the Hamas writings there is an explicit prohibition against indiscriminate harm to helpless people. The massacre at the mosque released them from this taboo and introduced a dimension of measure for measure, based on citations from the Koran."

Hamas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In a vacuum, a terrorist should be captured/killed by the government, but none of this is happening in a vacuum. All of it is way more complicated than that simple question. They had a bunch of suicide bombings in 1994 and then they had mostly been quiet in 1995, and then they assassinated Ayyash in 1996, again, after Hamas had promised the PA to cease military operations. So, if you're asking me what Israel should have done? With the benefit of hindsight, knowing what the next 3 decades would hold and what Hamas would become....I'm pretty sure that assassinating Ayyash didn't work out for Israel.

When was this promise for Hamas to cease attacks because Yahya Ayyash wasn't mostly quiet in 1995. He was responsible for several attacks in 1995. He was working with other terrorist groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Islamic jihad and was responsible for an attack just 4 months before he was killed.

Ramat Eshkol bus bombing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ramat Gan bus bombing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kfar Darom bus attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Beit Lid suicide bombing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Israel has been targeted for decades before Hamas. Taking him out wasn't some war crime. Whether they kill Ayyash or let him continue to plan terrorist attacks against civilians only reinforces my original point that if Israel were to cease all military operations today that muslim extremist groups would continue to target and kill Jews. They have made it their mission. Kill jews and eliminate Israel. That's not something based on what Israel does tomorrow. New terrorists are going to continue to be created regardless of what Israel does militarily.

Israel's goal isn't to exterminate muslims and take over the Middle East. In imaginationland if muslim extremists and countries stopped killing jews and acknowleged Israel's right to exist, Israel would have no reason to conduct military attacks. The war would end. Much like if Russia would stop attacking Ukraine.

 

[n_huffhines]

When was this promise for Hamas to cease attacks because Yahya Ayyash wasn't mostly quiet in 1995. He was responsible for several attacks in 1995. He was working with other terrorist groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Islamic jihad and was responsible for an attack just 4 months before he was killed.

Ramat Eshkol bus bombing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ramat Gan bus bombing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kfar Darom bus attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Beit Lid suicide bombing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Israel has been targeted for decades before Hamas. Taking him out wasn't some war crime. Whether they kill Ayyash or let him continue to plan terrorist attacks against civilians only reinforces my original point that if Israel were to cease all military operations today that muslim extremist groups would continue to target and kill Jews. They have made it their mission. Kill jews and eliminate Israel. That's not something based on what Israel does tomorrow. New terrorists are going to continue to be created regardless of what Israel does militarily.

Israel's goal isn't to exterminate muslims and take over the Middle East. In imaginationland if muslim extremists and countries stopped killing jews and acknowleged Israel's right to exist, Israel would have no reason to conduct military attacks. The war would end. Much like if Russia would stop attacking Ukraine.

In December, a month before his assassination.

You're having trouble being genuine in this conversation. Of course it wasn't a "war crime" to kill Ayyash, and I know you know that I didn't say that, so why phrase it like that? I said that it hasn't worked out in Israel's favor. They helped make Hamas what it is today. You can run from that idea and try to distract from that point by saying it wasn't a war crime, but what I'm saying is that it didn't work out for Israel, clearly.

 

[n_huffhines]

Good grief man.

When a terrorist group uses it it's not a stretch to think there might be something to it

Non-sequitur. Terrorist groups also say "God be with you."

 

[TheDeeble]

In December, a month before his assassination.

You're having trouble being genuine in this conversation. Of course it wasn't a "war crime" to kill Ayyash, and I know you know that I didn't say that, so why phrase it like that? I said that it hasn't worked out in Israel's favor. They helped make Hamas what it is today. You can run from that idea and try to distract from that point by saying it wasn't a war crime, but what I'm saying is that it didn't work out for Israel, clearly.

I responded to your post 8885 which said

If Israel wants a better world, I think they gotta be very careful about creating more future terrorists. I think avoiding war crimes is in their best interest, but I also admit they are in a very difficult situation, regardless of how much they're responsible for their position.

And then you responded that killing Yahya Ayyash created tons more terrorists.

Did you know that a year later, Hamas promised the PA to cease military operations, and then one of their top dogs was assassinated by Shin Bet? 100k people marched at his funeral, mother****ing 11% of Gaza's population. A generation of future terrorists inspired right there.

Israel didn't commit a war crime there. Baruch Goldstein killing palestinians wasn't an Israel govt action. It wasn't sanctioned by the Israeli govt. Nobody has said anyone is blameless. I've only said if Israel stopped all military operations today, muslim extremists and other Middle Eastern countries would continue to kill Jews and work for the elimination of Israel. The opposite is not true.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Saying "from the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free" equals calling for Holocaust part II because they want Hamas to be in charge of the region blah blah blah is such a reach

It’s interesting how you avoid follow up questions.

 

[Orangeslice13]

There’s no point to wasting “internet oxygen” on oxygen thieves. I’ll sit back and wait on the Hamas victory parade.

Slice, you got an extra Snickers bar?

I like the 3 musketeers better

 

[n_huffhines]

I responded to your post 8885 which said

And then you responded that killing Yahya Ayyash created tons more terrorists.


Israel didn't commit a war crime there. Baruch Goldstein killing palestinians wasn't an Israel govt action. It wasn't sanctioned by the Israeli govt.

Clearly, the first post wasn't about Baruch or Ayyash, JFC. I was talking in the present tense. Such a fkn waste of time.

 

[volfanhill]

Macron proposes international coalition against Hamas

* * *

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Don't waste Huffy's time now you bishes! lol

 

[volfanhill]

 

[TheDeeble]

Clearly, the first post wasn't about Baruch or Ayyash, JFC. I was talking in the present tense. Such a fkn waste of time.

You were talking in the present tense but chose to make the entire response about things that happened in 1993-1996?

Ok.