Saying an phrase is suddenly genocidal but literally killing men, women and children & removing them from their homeland is not?
Delusional. Cannot believe that Presidents take this guy seriously and won’t interfere at all.
Israel had been claiming all this time it's just defending itself, and a lot of people fell for it. Netanyahu's statement demonstrates that their intent the whole time has been ethnic cleansing.
It's only genocidal when they say it
It’s only genocide if it come from the Gaza region, others it’s just sparkling mass murder.
Very funny.
It is genocidal when either side uses it, since it implies that the other side does not exist. It is a catchy phrase though, which is why both sides use it.
It could also reference to the one state solution
One state solution isnt viable. We cant even get one state in Cyprus, where there is less bad blood, basically 0% chance of anyone killing anyone and no "religious prophecies" about who owns the place.
Belgium is without a government 50% of the time. Yugoslavia is no longer a thing.
One state solutions are hard to work even at the best of times. How do you balance the power? Just through democratic votes? Then the majority can easily suppress the minority. If you give the minority extra benefits(ie veto), then why would the majority even agree to be part of that and give away their power?
I'm not saying that a one state solution is not incredibly difficult but it still make more sense to me. What is a fair separation of land between Israel and Palestine when Israel didn't exists before 1948, is Palestine being demilitarized fair and wouldn't an Palestinian army be an extra security for Israel and Palestine to prevent the rise of extremist groups? All two state solutions failed so why would it work this time?
Belgium is without a government 50% of the time.
Wait...what? How does THAT work?
Well I'll tell ya one thing, there's not going to be a two state solution now. Gaza has zero capacity to govern itself. Only possibility is some other state stepping in. Israel has the best claim as irredentists. And nobody else wants to.
Depends how it's used. I've seen both israeli and palestinian activists say "from the river to the sea we demand equality" further referencing a one state solution
It doesn’t imply that, no. The ONLY people claiming that it implies the other side doesn’t exist are bad-faith actors, and people ignorant of the fact that they got their info from bad faith actors, period. No one on the Palestinian side is saying they want to eradicate the other side, only individuals on the Israeli side have said so thus far, and they say it regularly.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the notion of Palestinian statehood in a news conference on Thursday, claiming it “would endanger the state of Israel.” But he also invoked geographical language that has become a point of bitter contention as Israel’s continued military bombardment of Gaza continues in response to the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, saying that “in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea,” according to an English translation of the speech from Israeli news channel i24News.
Few who have followed the conversation about the deadly conflict in the Middle East these past several months could have missed the provocation in this remark: Israel and Zionists around the world have continually denounced the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” when used by those supporting Palestinian independence, saying it constitutes “eliminationist” or “genocidal” rhetoric aimed at Jewish people.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman in Congress, was censured by the U.S. House in November because of her criticism of Israel — and in part for her defense of this particular phrase, which she described as an “aspirational call” for “peaceful coexistence.” The Republican-led resolution for the serious disciplinary action was backed by 22 of her fellow Democrats.
This interpretation is also favored by critics of student protesters advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza, like Bill Ackman, the hedge fund billionaire instrumental in forcing out Harvard University president Claudine Gay over a perceived failure to deal with antisemitism on campus.
X/Twitter‘s owner, Elon Musk, shortly after facing an unusual rebuke from the White House over his endorsement of an “abhorrent” antisemitic conspiracy theory in November, announced that the slogan would be treated as incitement to “extreme violence” and result in user suspension.
“Irony is dead,” tweeted Mehdi Hasan, the former MSNBC broadcaster whose show was canceled in November, prompting a backlash from fans who believe his criticism of Israel as a Muslim cable news host played a factor in the decision.
The original article contains 683 words, the summary contains 338 words. Saved 51%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Doesn't Israel already control the area from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea?
Saying an phrase is suddenly genocidal but literally killing men, women and children & removing them from their homeland is not?
Delusional. Cannot believe that Presidents take this guy seriously and won’t interfere at all.
Israel had been claiming all this time it's just defending itself, and a lot of people fell for it. Netanyahu's statement demonstrates that their intent the whole time has been ethnic cleansing.
It's only genocidal when they say it
It’s only genocide if it come from the Gaza region, others it’s just sparkling mass murder.
Very funny.
It is genocidal when either side uses it, since it implies that the other side does not exist. It is a catchy phrase though, which is why both sides use it.
It could also reference to the one state solution
One state solution isnt viable. We cant even get one state in Cyprus, where there is less bad blood, basically 0% chance of anyone killing anyone and no "religious prophecies" about who owns the place.
Belgium is without a government 50% of the time. Yugoslavia is no longer a thing.
One state solutions are hard to work even at the best of times. How do you balance the power? Just through democratic votes? Then the majority can easily suppress the minority. If you give the minority extra benefits(ie veto), then why would the majority even agree to be part of that and give away their power?
I'm not saying that a one state solution is not incredibly difficult but it still make more sense to me. What is a fair separation of land between Israel and Palestine when Israel didn't exists before 1948, is Palestine being demilitarized fair and wouldn't an Palestinian army be an extra security for Israel and Palestine to prevent the rise of extremist groups? All two state solutions failed so why would it work this time?
Wait...what? How does THAT work?
Well I'll tell ya one thing, there's not going to be a two state solution now. Gaza has zero capacity to govern itself. Only possibility is some other state stepping in. Israel has the best claim as irredentists. And nobody else wants to.
Depends how it's used. I've seen both israeli and palestinian activists say "from the river to the sea we demand equality" further referencing a one state solution
It doesn’t imply that, no. The ONLY people claiming that it implies the other side doesn’t exist are bad-faith actors, and people ignorant of the fact that they got their info from bad faith actors, period. No one on the Palestinian side is saying they want to eradicate the other side, only individuals on the Israeli side have said so thus far, and they say it regularly.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the notion of Palestinian statehood in a news conference on Thursday, claiming it “would endanger the state of Israel.” But he also invoked geographical language that has become a point of bitter contention as Israel’s continued military bombardment of Gaza continues in response to the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, saying that “in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea,” according to an English translation of the speech from Israeli news channel i24News.
Few who have followed the conversation about the deadly conflict in the Middle East these past several months could have missed the provocation in this remark: Israel and Zionists around the world have continually denounced the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” when used by those supporting Palestinian independence, saying it constitutes “eliminationist” or “genocidal” rhetoric aimed at Jewish people.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman in Congress, was censured by the U.S. House in November because of her criticism of Israel — and in part for her defense of this particular phrase, which she described as an “aspirational call” for “peaceful coexistence.” The Republican-led resolution for the serious disciplinary action was backed by 22 of her fellow Democrats.
This interpretation is also favored by critics of student protesters advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza, like Bill Ackman, the hedge fund billionaire instrumental in forcing out Harvard University president Claudine Gay over a perceived failure to deal with antisemitism on campus.
X/Twitter‘s owner, Elon Musk, shortly after facing an unusual rebuke from the White House over his endorsement of an “abhorrent” antisemitic conspiracy theory in November, announced that the slogan would be treated as incitement to “extreme violence” and result in user suspension.
“Irony is dead,” tweeted Mehdi Hasan, the former MSNBC broadcaster whose show was canceled in November, prompting a backlash from fans who believe his criticism of Israel as a Muslim cable news host played a factor in the decision.
The original article contains 683 words, the summary contains 338 words. Saved 51%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Doesn't Israel already control the area from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea?