"From the River to the Sea"

[Stevicus]

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.

If they were free from Israeli occupation, would that mean that Gaza would go back to Egyptian control, the West Bank to Jordan, and the Golan Heights to Syria? Would it mean complete independence and sovereignty for those territories? In any case, it wouldn't be from the river to the sea, since those territories are geographically separated from each other. They would have no direct access from the river to the sea.

 

[LuisDantas]

If they were free from Israeli occupation, would that mean that Gaza would go back to Egyptian control, the West Bank to Jordan, and the Golan Heights to Syria? Would it mean complete independence and sovereignty for those territories? In any case, it wouldn't be from the river to the sea, since those territories are geographically separated from each other. They would have no direct access from the river to the sea.

Do we know to which extent the people in those territories would even want that hypothetical cession of territory to Egypt, Jordan and Syria?

I have a very strong hunch that it would be far from the end of the story. At the very least, there would be a difficult and potentially prolonged period of attempts at establishing responsibilities and duties.

Would those all three countries want to deal with the expenses of annexing the new territory? Would the people living there accept the new nationalities?

There is probably quite some nuance there.

 

[sun rise]

The phrase in isolation which is how I voted says nothing about exterminating all the people there - genocide. Hamas uses it to mean genocide. Israeli use does not mean genocide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

I had both because I was aware of the recent usage of it by Israelis. Regardless of who says it, it is racism.

 

[LuisDantas]

I had both because I was aware of the recent usage of it by Israelis. Regardless of who says it, it is racism.

May I ask how is it racism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

May I ask how is it racism?

Both sides seem to want to rid the area of those not of their tribe. And the implication is that if they do not leave voluntarily that there are other options.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't usually think of that kind of drive as racism, but if you say so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't usually think of that kind of drive as racism, but if you say so.

Perhaps I should have said "genocide". Racism is a rather fuzzy subject these days.

 

[Stevicus]

Do we know to which extent the people in those territories would even want that hypothetical cession of territory to Egypt, Jordan and Syria?

I have a very strong hunch that it would be far from the end of the story. At the very least, there would be a difficult and potentially prolonged period of attempts at establishing responsibilities and duties.

Would those all three countries want to deal with the expenses of annexing the new territory? Would the people living there accept the new nationalities?

There is probably quite some nuance there.

Yes, it is a complicated situation, and regardless of what path they choose to take, there will be no quick fix or easy solution that will satisfy all sides. But a key phrase often used is "occupied territories," but I would wonder just what ending the occupation would actually look like. The phrase "river to the sea" would suggest that they want the entire territory, but that's not going to happen. This is a war that's been going on for as long as I can remember. They've had peace talks from time to time, and they talk about wanting peace in the Middle East. But it never seems to happen for the long term. Is there no end in sight?

One thing that I've also noticed about some of these situations, at least when setting aside the causes and motivations of either side. Looking at it from a more objective geopolitical standpoint, some of these attacks seem rather impulsive, myopic, and even somewhat ill-conceived and self-destructive. If this is a military operation led by a general (or some equivalent rank), then is the Hamas general competent enough to win? And if they can't win, then they either have to surrender, negotiate, or find some other way to fight. In the final analysis, it doesn't really matter whose cause is right or wrong; if you're in a no-win situation, you're in the crapper.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, it is a complicated situation, and regardless of what path they choose to take, there will be no quick fix or easy solution that will satisfy all sides. But a key phrase often used is "occupied territories," but I would wonder just what ending the occupation would actually look like. The phrase "river to the sea" would suggest that they want the entire territory, but that's not going to happen. This is a war that's been going on for as long as I can remember. They've had peace talks from time to time, and they talk about wanting peace in the Middle East. But it never seems to happen for the long term. Is there no end in sight?

I think that it is dangerous to assume that people in both sides (but mostly among the Palestinians) are even psychologically prepared to actually have a peace situation. Considering how young the Gaza residents are, I don't think that it is even an exageration to say that very few of them are even acquaintanced with life without armed hostilities towards Israel. For all I know, they may be clueless on how to even adjust their social circles for such an unfamiliar situation. People become used to all kinds of situations, even tragic ones.

One thing that I've also noticed about some of these situations, at least when setting aside the causes and motivations of either side. Looking at it from a more objective geopolitical standpoint, some of these attacks seem rather impulsive, myopic, and even somewhat ill-conceived and self-destructive. If this is a military operation led by a general (or some equivalent rank), then is the Hamas general competent enough to win? And if they can't win, then they either have to surrender, negotiate, or find some other way to fight. In the final analysis, it doesn't really matter whose cause is right or wrong; if you're in a no-win situation, you're in the crapper.

What is victory even like from the Palestinian side? Perhaps for most of them it is living a probably short life while engaging in passionate talks about how proud they are of their refusal to submit to Israel.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I had both because I was aware of the recent usage of it by Israelis. Regardless of who says it, it is racism.

The Israeli usage of it, or of other phrases with an equivalent meaning, is far from recent. For example:

In 1977, the concept appeared in an election manifesto of the Israeli political party Likud, which stated that “between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty.”[22][23]

The phrase has also been used by Israeli politicians. The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."[12][13][14]

From the river to the sea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stevicus]

I think that it is dangerous to assume that people in both sides (but mostly among the Palestinians) are even psychologically prepared to actually have a peace situation. Considering how young the Gaza residents are, I don't think that it is even an exageration to say that very few of them are even acquaintanced with life without armed hostilities towards Israel. For all I know, they may be clueless on how to even adjust their social circles for such an unfamiliar situation. People become used to all kinds of situations, even tragic ones.

That's a good point.

What is victory even like from the Palestinian side? Perhaps for most of them it is living a probably short life while engaging in passionate talks about how proud they are of their refusal to submit to Israel.

I don't think they have any chance for victory - not on their terms anyway. Even if they did achieve victory and had an independent state from the river to the sea, how long could they last before they would fall under the hegemony of some other power?

 

[LuisDantas]

That's a good point.



I don't think they have any chance for victory - not on their terms anyway. Even if they did achieve victory and had an independent state from the river to the sea, how long could they last before they would fall under the hegemony of some other power?

My fear is that they may have decided that this spectable of blood and hatred counts as a victory for their purposes.

 

[Bthoth]

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

yes the wording is the spoiler as you turned it to equate to palestinians started it. when in fact, it came from the zionist, just like Jewish STATE in LEVANT (JSIL) became and ISIL (islamic state in levant). But very few comprehend the original terrorist of the region are IRGUN, not HAMAS and that the oppressed are barely able to tie their own shoes let alone start the 'from the river to the sea' ideology.