Funny how algorithms work. They make us see the world in binaries and absolutes; of one side being capable of no good and the other side capable of no evil.
I believe you, but it’s important to realize how strong the impulse is to overlook, explain-away, or pretend not to see bad behavior on one’s own side.
If you can’t see bad behavior on both sides when it’s pretty obvious here, I’m not sure it’s worth my time providing specifics. I suspect it’ll just be explained away. “From the River to the Sea,” for example. Just wink nod “that’s not what it means”
> If you can’t see bad behavior on both sides when it’s pretty obvious here
You are making a positive claim that I don't see as obvious. I don't even doubt that there's some calls for genocide, I just doubt it's every pro Palestinian post with more than 20 comments.
> From the River to the Sea
This is actually a good example of a non-genocidal statement being portrayed as one in bad faith. It's true that Hamas adopted this as their official slogan, but ultimately it's meaning goes beyond what Hamas adopts.
Quiet literally, the call is for Palestinians to have a say in government. Or a one state solution. Claiming it means "kill all the Jews" is an extreme stretch. Even in the most extreme views of this, it's a call for the end of the current state of Israel. That does not mean genocide for Jews any more than calling for the end of Hamas is a call to genocide Palestinians.
> Just wink nod “that’s not what it means”
That's the problem, any negative sentiment towards the current state of Israel is portrayed as "this is anti-Semitic". Israel is not jews and jews are not israel. Calling for a system where Palestinians have some say in their own governance is not anti-Semitic.
Further, as you can imagine just because a terrorist organization adopts a phrase does not mean the original or current meaning is what that terrorist organization is implying by it.
So I'll ask again, do you have examples of calls for genocide? Or is this the main one? If you asked 100 people who chant "from the river to the sea" would they all, most, or even many claim they are calling for the death of jews or genocide? I think not. That's a uncharitable view of what that phrase means. [1]
Do you think that when the Jewish voices for peace use the same slogan they are calling for genocide? [2]
I love that you call "from the river to the sea" a creative misinterpretation... then push something that's way more of a creative interpretation of "genocide".
Why is "Amalek" a call to genocide (remove the others from our land) but "from the rivers to the sea" (remove the others form our land) isn't?
Trying to take you at face value, I looked into what Amalek is and tried to find something more unbiased than you seem to be.
"I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.” “Amalek,” in essence, is Hebrew for “existential threat.” Tradition holds that the Amalekites are the undying enemy of the Jews. They appear in Deuteronomy, attacking the rear columns of the Israelites on their escape from Egypt. The rabbis teach that successive generations of Jews have been forced to confront the Amalekites: Nebuchadnezzar, the Crusaders, Torquemada, Hitler and Stalin are all manifestations of Amalek’s malevolent spirit."
So Netty says that hamAss is an existential threat? no shit. hamAss needs to be removed? Definitely. No peace as long as hamAss exists. Can't have peace with terrorists.
But is Netty saying to remove ALL Palestinians? remember... Net (as well as others) have tried to negotiate peace with "Palestinians" and have been denied over the years (since recreation of Israel). So Israel has been willing to negotiate while "Palestine" has only been open to solutions that are "from the river to the sea" (read: Genocide).
Infitada and Sea comments are absolutely, unequivocally and undeniably calls to remove Jews from the area.
I love the parallels from 2009 to today... the "overreaction" (read: disproportionate reaction by Israel to a terrorist action of oct 7th) in response to an "existential threat" caused by terrorists killing innocents, hiding like cowards and using human shields.
But I digress. Don't be expected to be taken seriously in your attack on "genocidal" Israel while downplaying and ignoring genocidal hamAss. The war sucks but was started by terrorists and Israel has the right to defend itself from existential threats. No peace as long as hamAss exists.
Netanyahu’s governments coalition agreement explicitly states that the Jewish people have an exclusive right on all the land” between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
I would interpret it as a stance and balance it against the fact that Israel - including Net - has been willing to negotiate a 2 state solution in the past. Solutions that "Palestine" refused. Which is why we are in the situation we are in today. Because one side has refused all attempts.
Remember... hamAss'oles were founded with a charter that denies Israel's right to exist and has been designated a terrorist organization by... well... the entire world. Oh, they are in charge of Gaza.
And just FYI... your biased article? laughable. Try something less blantatly biased.
"In a 2022 interview, Netanyahu admitted he was offering Palestinians something far short of political equality. "I don't hide that for a minute. I say it openly," he said. Palestinians are just as open that they aren't interested."
Both sides have to be willing to negotiate... and it's clear that Net has to keep the security of Israel in mind and it's also clear that Palestine isn't interested in solutions. remember - not my words. Clear history.
Also in article: Israel has been working on peace in the region without "Palestine". Was working towards peace with surrounding nations. Also was trying to bring "Palestine" prosperity and it was looking good until Oct 7th when terrorists do what terrorists do.
Now we see the consequences. Do terrorist things and get responses.
>I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
From the book of samuel.
Not coincidentally, putting death to women, children and infants is what they are currently doing - in vast numbers. Theyre fairly open about this, too.
It's pretty clear what Netanyahu means and it's pretty clear that Israel supporters in the United States (mostly older and always on the more racist side) endorse this.
Whereas "will be free" is a call for exactly what it is. Freedom.
"vast numbers" if Israel wanted to kill everyone? They're doing a piss poor job of it. The number of bombs they've dropped vs kill counts are less than 1 death per bomb and they could EASILY do a "better" job if their goal was to kill all "women, children, cattle, sheep".
"they're fairly open" they also drop leaflets, tell people to leave and have given more warning than any other country would do given a remote bombing campaign.
They give more warning than the terrorists did on Oct 7th.
"on the more racist side" "aNyThInG I DiSaGrEe WiTh Is RaCiSt" /eyeroll
People like you are why the claims of "racism" and "nazi" mean nothing. When everything is LITERALLY racism then nothing is.
You're clearly unable to have a real conversation. Freedom will not happen for Palestinians until terrorists like hamAss'oles are removed.
It is clear what Israel wants - safety from terrorists - and they, unlike "Palestine" have in the past been willing to work towards a 2 state solution. We are in the situation we are currently in because "Palestine" refused previous offers and instead elected terrorists into power. No freedom is possible until those hamAss'ole terrorists are gone.
