"From the River to the Sea"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A common slogan in the Palestinian freedom movement is "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Some people call this a call for genocide.

Is the phrase "From the River to the Sea" a call to genocide? Please vote.

Spoiler: Click after voting

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.

According to another translation, Netanyahu said that Israel “must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River” — which effectively means the same thing.

Netanyahu Says 'From the River to the Sea,' a Phrase Zionists Claim is Genocidal

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel must control area 'from the river to the sea,' invoking pro-Palestine slogan Zionists call genocidal.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[LuisDantas]

It is fair to ask this question in this thread...

Spoiler

However, are you aware of how that phrase became well-known, @9-10ths_Penguin ?

From the river to the sea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A question for those who voted "yes":

How many had in mind the Palestinian use of the term?

How many of you had in mind the use in the spoiler?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is fair to ask this question in this thread...

Spoiler

However, are you aware of how that phrase became well-known, @9-10ths_Penguin ?

From the river to the sea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes. I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to, though.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I didn't vote, because I think whether it is genocidal depends on the intentions of the person using it. Some people use it to mean, "There will be a Palestinian state extending from the river to the sea" as a proposal for a one-state solution inclusive of all inhabitants of the region (Israel-Palestine), while others use it to support genocide or ethnic cleansing—and yes, that includes Netanyahu himself.

I'm almost certain the two above uses don't cover all possible meanings of the phrase, though. Personally, I don't use it because of the ambiguity; my position is firmly in support of a two-state solution.

 

[libre]

A call to islamization.

A knee jerk response like this prompts me to wonder if you actually read the OP.

Spoiler: spoiler

The poll is referring to the slogan as used by Netanyahu / far-right zionists and not Islamists.

 

[Estro Felino]

A knee jerk response like this prompts me to wonder if you actually read the OP.

The poll is referring to the slogan as used by Netanyahu / far-right zionists and not Islamists.

He told me to reply and to vote before clicking on the spoiler.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A knee jerk response like this prompts me to wonder if you actually read the OP.

The poll is referring to the slogan as used by Netanyahu / far-right zionists and not Islamists.

Shh! Don't give away the spoiler!

What I was hoping to get at once a few people have voted:

A question for everyone: if you initially thought that the phrase was a call to genocide when Palestinians use it, do you still consider it a call to genocide when Netanyahu uses it, or does Netanyahu get a free pass?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He told me to reply and to vote before clicking on the spoiler.

Now that you've presumably checked the spoiler, has your opinion changed?

 

[LuisDantas]

A question for those who voted "yes":

I was aware of the use in Palestinian chants, which I consider genocidal in intent - even if I am willing to believe that it is also used in naiveté.

I think it is only fair to assume that the spoiler-covered usage is no more humane, considering the circunstances preceding it.

 

[libre]

Shh! Don't give away the spoiler!

What I was hoping to get at once a few people have voted:

A question for everyone: if you initially thought that the phrase was a call to genocide when Palestinians use it, do you still consider it a call to genocide when Netanyahu uses it, or does Netanyahu get a free pass?

Fair enough.
I assume anyone who scrolls past the OP has clicked the spoiler, but I have spoiled my response.
I did respond after reading the spoiler, didn't realize we were supposed to reply first.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was aware of the use in Palestinian chants, which I consider genocidal in intent - even if I am willing to believe that it is also used in naiveté.

What made you think it was genocidal in intent?

 

[libre]

I didn't vote, because I think whether it is genocidal depends on the intentions of the person using it. Some people use it to mean, "There will be a Palestinian state extending from the river to the sea" as a proposal for a one-state solution inclusive of all inhabitants of the region (Israel-Palestine), while others use it to support genocide or ethnic cleansing—and yes, that includes Netanyahu himself.

I agree with this.
Not genocidal in-itself but in practice can connotate genocidal intent when paired with additional context.

 

[LuisDantas]

What made you think it was genocidal in intent?

A combination of factors.

* That was the interpretation of a commentator that I respect. His name is not likely to mean anything for a Canadian / North American public, but he is Pedro Doria from Canal Meio.

* I was aware of the 1948 conflict.

* I have come to mistrust the discernment and even the ability to exercise self-interest of muslim majority populations. Sadly, that is the reality.

* Nationalist chants are not generally very lucid nor very humanistic.

* I have lived through the times of the 1980s conflict between Iran and Iraq. Life is cheap for those who want to please Allah, unfortunately.

* In recent years I read and thought a lot about Muslim culture and values, both ancient and contemporary. There is a lot indeed of evidence that genocidal intent towards Israelis is not widely questioned and it may in fact require considerable courage to avoid professing it in public.

 

[flowerpower]

Both.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A common slogan in the Palestinian freedom movement is "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Some people call this a call for genocide.

Is the phrase "From the River to the Sea" a call to genocide? Please vote.

Spoiler: Click after voting

Netanyahu Says 'From the River to the Sea,' a Phrase Zionists Claim is Genocidal

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel must control area 'from the river to the sea,' invoking pro-Palestine slogan Zionists call genocidal.

www.rollingstone.com

<yawn>

As you (should) know, it is used by different political entities to suggest markedly different outcomes.​

Muddying the waters is rarely helpful. I find the pseudo-poll to be more disingenuous than clever.​

</yawn>

 

[Shaul]

The poll is not possible to answer if the context isn't given. It is sometimes used in a context that means the destruction of the State of Israel and extermination of the Jews who live there.

 

[Stevicus]

A common slogan in the Palestinian freedom movement is "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Some people call this a call for genocide.

Is the phrase "From the River to the Sea" a call to genocide? Please vote.

Spoiler: Click after voting

Netanyahu Says 'From the River to the Sea,' a Phrase Zionists Claim is Genocidal

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel must control area 'from the river to the sea,' invoking pro-Palestine slogan Zionists call genocidal.

www.rollingstone.com

Sometimes language can be masked or coded in such a way as to sound good on the surface, but may have something more insidious in the subtext. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it's just one of the drawbacks of living in a world where politicians and pundits don't say what they mean and don't mean what they say.

"Free" is also a word which can be viewed differently. It can mean independent and sovereign, as in free from foreign imperial rule.

Or it can mean that the citizens within the society have personal freedom and civil liberties, such as the standards for "free" as defined by Freedom House. I would say that this also entails a commitment to adhere to the basic principles of human rights as defined by international convention. This means they'd have to have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other basic rights and freedoms which governments claiming to be free are expected to honor. Without a doubt, genocide would be absolutely out of the question - if they actually mean what they say when they say "free."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Free" is also a word which can be viewed differently. It can mean independent and sovereign, as in free from foreign imperial rule.

Or it can mean that the citizens within the society have personal freedom and civil liberties, such as the standards for "free" as defined by Freedom House. I would say that this also entails a commitment to adhere to the basic principles of human rights as defined by international convention. This means they'd have to have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other basic rights and freedoms which governments claiming to be free are expected to honor. Without a doubt, genocide would be absolutely out of the question - if they actually mean what they say when they say "free."

Seeing how they're subject to apartheid-type conditions under Israeli occupation, I'd imagine that there's a fair bit of crossover or equivocation: being free from Israeli occupation would mean increased personal freedoms.

 

[LuisDantas]

Seeing how they're subject to apartheid-type conditions under Israeli occupation, I'd imagine that there's a fair bit of crossover or equivocation: being free from Israeli occupation would mean increased personal freedoms.

It is a bit more complicated than that. One could argue, for instance, that there is no Israel occupation. If there were, the conditions that make the activities of groups such as Hamas possible would not exist.