"Also, it is not from the river to the sea, since it is not one continous territory. "
Ah, now I get it. The Israelis have stolen so much land between the West Bank and Gaza that it is no longer possible to create a contiguous Palestinian state between the West Bank and Gaza (excuse me, "from the river to the sea") without murdering all t…
"Also, it is not from the river to the sea, since it is not one continous territory. "
Ah, now I get it. The Israelis have stolen so much land between the West Bank and Gaza that it is no longer possible to create a contiguous Palestinian state between the West Bank and Gaza (excuse me, "from the river to the sea") without murdering all the Jews in between, therefore "from the river to the sea" means "kill all the Jews", QED.
"Stolen" in the course of defending themselves from 3 wars of extermination waged by the surrounding Arab powers.
And that's before we get into the utter absurdity of arguing that "From the river to the sea," which is taken from the Hamas (Hamas!) charter, really just means joining the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a more equitable two state agreement. It does not.
It means a Palestinian state containing the entirety of what is now Israel, (what would happen to the Jews now living there is left as an exercise for the reader). You merely embarrass yourself by pretending otherwise.
Also, please look at a fucking map once in a while. What's happened in the Israeli-occupied territories is a years-long process of careful placement of Israeli settlements so as to make a Palestinian state impossible. Seize all the hills, all the best farm land, squeeze the Palestinians into a smaller and smaller space. Connect your settlements up with highways the Palestinians aren't allowed to use. Yes, "stolen" is the correct word here.
Israel gained control of the land dividing the Gaza Strip from the West Bank during the 1948 war. Whatever complaints you have about settlements, Israel has been in continuous control of the divide between the Palestinian territories for 75 years, and they gained that land in a war they did not start.
It requires serious blinders to call that land stolen.
Sigh. A hundred students are marching across the quad at Harvard. They're chanting "From the River to the Sea." You REALLY think that what they mean by this is "Kill all the Jews"? When did they come by this desire to kill all the Jews? Just in the past couple of weeks, or have they always wanted to kill all the Jews?
Well, most of them mean "I don't actually know anything about anything, but all the people from my Model UN chapter are here and I don't want to seem out of place."
Those who have actually thought it through probably don't want to kill the Jews directly, but they are prepared to accept those deaths as a side effect of achieving their anticolonialist victory (the restoration of Palestinian Arab political control of the whole region between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea).
No one with even a passing familiarity with Hamas or Fatah thinks that Jews would be safe in a Palestinian controlled country.
I think it makes them appalling, morally obtuse garbage people. That doesn't necessarily mean they are antisemites, but it does mean that they and their defenders richly deserve the drubbing they are getting in the court of public opinion.
But I do understand the need to lie, "Students call for genocide" is attention-grabbing, "College students wrong about stuff" is dog-bites-man and won't get a single second of airtime.
They are calling for it because they have cast Israel as a colonizing power in their stupid, simplistic anti colonialist moral framework rather than out of direct anti-Jewish animus, but they are calling for it all the same.
Israel under the control of the Palestinians would result in the immediate murder or displacement of its Jewish population. To call for Israel to be displaced by a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea" is to call for the destruction of the Jewish population of Palestine. That's a call for genocide.
The fact that it is lifted directly from the Hamas charter is merely icing on the cake.
They might as well be chanting "You will not replace us."
It is the rabid racist zionists that currently support genocide that are getting a drubbing the court of public opinion (although it is true the MSM is doing it's darn best to defend their genocidal support).
The expansion of the settlements has been conintuois since the last war Israel fought fifty years ago. Itt would be nice if you didn't staright up lie by saying:
"Stolen" in the course of defending themselves from 3 wars of extermination waged by the surrounding Arab powers."
The discussion here is about whether it is reasonable to expect Israel to give back enough land to join the Gaza strip and the West Bank into a single contiguous Palestinian state.
Israel could give back every single settlement, and there would still be significant separation between the Palestinian territories because Israel seized the land that used to connect them, a northern extension from the Gaza Strip, in the war of 1948. It would be difficult to characterize the Arabs' goal in that conflict as anything other than a war of extermination.
Next time, read more carefully before you accuse someone of dishonesty. You will be less likely to embarrass yourself.
The discussion was your claim that from the river to the sea was a call for genocide. But go ahead and be dishonest. People have already pointed out that it does not require a contigious land mass to meet the term. And I pointed out that even if it did Israel could hand some land to make Palestine as a nation contigious with no genocide necessary. Right now it is Paletsinians experiencing genocide from Israel anyway.
But that is an entirely different question from whether Israel stole that land. They didn't. They seized it as part of a defensive war in which the other side meant to wipe them out. The fact that you would like Israel to make a concession to the Palestinians or even the fact that it is possible for Israel to make that concession are very different questions then whether they are morally obligated to or whether that land is stolen.
It's not surprising that someone who thinks that Israel's current military campaign is even in the same universe as genocide is too stupid to keep track of the point at issue.
Genocide is the deliberate attempt to exterminate a people. Genocide would be going house to house, raping the women and killing everyone your soldiers can get their hands on. Genocide would be what the Hamas charter calls for when it says "from the river to the sea." Genocide is not an urban military campaign with a high casualty count.
It is particularly grotesque to accuse Israel of genocide a mere two months after Hamas finished demonstrating that they were serious when they said they wanted to wipe out all the Jews.
You value words. "We care about civilians" while committing horrendous genocide. I look at actions. I bet if someone bombed your house and killed your family while saying they loved you and someone else (proportionality) killed your dog while saying they want you wiped off the earth, you would have a bigger problem with they one who murdered your family and bombed you entire city into smithereens. But form you couch you get to say that saying you care while committing genocide is all good.
Let's talk actions: Israel is the superior military power in the region. The fact that they have not taken any steps to actually engage in genocide (massacres, depopulation of villages or neighborhood, systematic murder) is definitive proof that they are not committing genocide and don't have any intent to.
Words have meaning. Genocide, in particular, is such a terrible act that it obligates the US to take military action to prevent it. If you are going to use such an inflammatory and consequential term, you have an obligation to use it accurately.
You have failed in that obligation by a wide margin.
I don't care if you want to use another word. Let's call it terrorism. In whihc case it is orders of magnitude greater terrorism than anything odne by any Palestinians ever. Give me a definition of the act of terrorism that applies to hamas but not Israels actions.
And remember "state sponsored terrorism" is internationally recognised as a thing including by our own government.
I'm glad we can agree that genocide was an inappropriate and inaccurate term to use. Please be aware of how abhorrent it is to throw that particular slander (especially at the Jews, given history) and refrain from doing so in the future.
As for terrorism, the simplest difference is that Israeli troops wear a uniform. They also don't commit mass rape, massacre civilians, employ suicide bombers, or hide among their own civilians with command centers in hospitals and rocket launchers in schools.
Please define terrorism. No weasling out. Are you actually claiming that if a "terrorist" puts on a unifrom they are magically not a "terrorist". Start from a definition. It's the only legit thing to do. And I do not accept that genocide is definetly not what is happening. It is an ongoing pre planed devastation that was preicipated by an attack Israel knew was going to happen and intentionally allowed as a pretext. They are so utterly destroying the region the odds that they are going to then try to drive the survivors out are incredibly high. I belive a significant number of the Israeli high command is in the process of commiting genocide. But again, I will accept the term terrorism. Which you can only deny with an actual definition for the term. And if you have no definition that does not apply it would make them by far the the most successful terrorist organisation on the planet.
"Also, it is not from the river to the sea, since it is not one continous territory. "
Ah, now I get it. The Israelis have stolen so much land between the West Bank and Gaza that it is no longer possible to create a contiguous Palestinian state between the West Bank and Gaza (excuse me, "from the river to the sea") without murdering all the Jews in between, therefore "from the river to the sea" means "kill all the Jews", QED.
I have to admit that's a novel argument.
"Stolen" in the course of defending themselves from 3 wars of extermination waged by the surrounding Arab powers.
And that's before we get into the utter absurdity of arguing that "From the river to the sea," which is taken from the Hamas (Hamas!) charter, really just means joining the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a more equitable two state agreement. It does not.
It means a Palestinian state containing the entirety of what is now Israel, (what would happen to the Jews now living there is left as an exercise for the reader). You merely embarrass yourself by pretending otherwise.
Also, please look at a fucking map once in a while. What's happened in the Israeli-occupied territories is a years-long process of careful placement of Israeli settlements so as to make a Palestinian state impossible. Seize all the hills, all the best farm land, squeeze the Palestinians into a smaller and smaller space. Connect your settlements up with highways the Palestinians aren't allowed to use. Yes, "stolen" is the correct word here.
Israel gained control of the land dividing the Gaza Strip from the West Bank during the 1948 war. Whatever complaints you have about settlements, Israel has been in continuous control of the divide between the Palestinian territories for 75 years, and they gained that land in a war they did not start.
It requires serious blinders to call that land stolen.
Sigh. A hundred students are marching across the quad at Harvard. They're chanting "From the River to the Sea." You REALLY think that what they mean by this is "Kill all the Jews"? When did they come by this desire to kill all the Jews? Just in the past couple of weeks, or have they always wanted to kill all the Jews?
Well, most of them mean "I don't actually know anything about anything, but all the people from my Model UN chapter are here and I don't want to seem out of place."
Those who have actually thought it through probably don't want to kill the Jews directly, but they are prepared to accept those deaths as a side effect of achieving their anticolonialist victory (the restoration of Palestinian Arab political control of the whole region between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea).
No one with even a passing familiarity with Hamas or Fatah thinks that Jews would be safe in a Palestinian controlled country.
Wait you think Jews would not be safe if the people they have slughered occupied and denied basic human rights for over fifty years were in charge?
Why on earth would that be?
Well, that's generous of you. Do you think you could pass this on to Elise Stefanik, because she's still thinking they want to kill all the Jews.
Generous?
I think it makes them appalling, morally obtuse garbage people. That doesn't necessarily mean they are antisemites, but it does mean that they and their defenders richly deserve the drubbing they are getting in the court of public opinion.
But I do understand the need to lie, "Students call for genocide" is attention-grabbing, "College students wrong about stuff" is dog-bites-man and won't get a single second of airtime.
They are calling for genocide.
They are calling for it because they have cast Israel as a colonizing power in their stupid, simplistic anti colonialist moral framework rather than out of direct anti-Jewish animus, but they are calling for it all the same.
Israel under the control of the Palestinians would result in the immediate murder or displacement of its Jewish population. To call for Israel to be displaced by a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea" is to call for the destruction of the Jewish population of Palestine. That's a call for genocide.
The fact that it is lifted directly from the Hamas charter is merely icing on the cake.
They might as well be chanting "You will not replace us."
"That doesn't necessarily mean they are antisemites..."
Again, thanks for your generosity. Please tell Elise she should stop lying about these students.
It is the rabid racist zionists that currently support genocide that are getting a drubbing the court of public opinion (although it is true the MSM is doing it's darn best to defend their genocidal support).
The expansion of the settlements has been conintuois since the last war Israel fought fifty years ago. Itt would be nice if you didn't staright up lie by saying:
"Stolen" in the course of defending themselves from 3 wars of extermination waged by the surrounding Arab powers."
The discussion here is about whether it is reasonable to expect Israel to give back enough land to join the Gaza strip and the West Bank into a single contiguous Palestinian state.
Israel could give back every single settlement, and there would still be significant separation between the Palestinian territories because Israel seized the land that used to connect them, a northern extension from the Gaza Strip, in the war of 1948. It would be difficult to characterize the Arabs' goal in that conflict as anything other than a war of extermination.
Next time, read more carefully before you accuse someone of dishonesty. You will be less likely to embarrass yourself.
The discussion was your claim that from the river to the sea was a call for genocide. But go ahead and be dishonest. People have already pointed out that it does not require a contigious land mass to meet the term. And I pointed out that even if it did Israel could hand some land to make Palestine as a nation contigious with no genocide necessary. Right now it is Paletsinians experiencing genocide from Israel anyway.
But that is an entirely different question from whether Israel stole that land. They didn't. They seized it as part of a defensive war in which the other side meant to wipe them out. The fact that you would like Israel to make a concession to the Palestinians or even the fact that it is possible for Israel to make that concession are very different questions then whether they are morally obligated to or whether that land is stolen.
It's not surprising that someone who thinks that Israel's current military campaign is even in the same universe as genocide is too stupid to keep track of the point at issue.
Genocide is the deliberate attempt to exterminate a people. Genocide would be going house to house, raping the women and killing everyone your soldiers can get their hands on. Genocide would be what the Hamas charter calls for when it says "from the river to the sea." Genocide is not an urban military campaign with a high casualty count.
It is particularly grotesque to accuse Israel of genocide a mere two months after Hamas finished demonstrating that they were serious when they said they wanted to wipe out all the Jews.
You value words. "We care about civilians" while committing horrendous genocide. I look at actions. I bet if someone bombed your house and killed your family while saying they loved you and someone else (proportionality) killed your dog while saying they want you wiped off the earth, you would have a bigger problem with they one who murdered your family and bombed you entire city into smithereens. But form you couch you get to say that saying you care while committing genocide is all good.
Let's talk actions: Israel is the superior military power in the region. The fact that they have not taken any steps to actually engage in genocide (massacres, depopulation of villages or neighborhood, systematic murder) is definitive proof that they are not committing genocide and don't have any intent to.
Words have meaning. Genocide, in particular, is such a terrible act that it obligates the US to take military action to prevent it. If you are going to use such an inflammatory and consequential term, you have an obligation to use it accurately.
You have failed in that obligation by a wide margin.
I don't care if you want to use another word. Let's call it terrorism. In whihc case it is orders of magnitude greater terrorism than anything odne by any Palestinians ever. Give me a definition of the act of terrorism that applies to hamas but not Israels actions.
And remember "state sponsored terrorism" is internationally recognised as a thing including by our own government.
I'm glad we can agree that genocide was an inappropriate and inaccurate term to use. Please be aware of how abhorrent it is to throw that particular slander (especially at the Jews, given history) and refrain from doing so in the future.
As for terrorism, the simplest difference is that Israeli troops wear a uniform. They also don't commit mass rape, massacre civilians, employ suicide bombers, or hide among their own civilians with command centers in hospitals and rocket launchers in schools.
Please define terrorism. No weasling out. Are you actually claiming that if a "terrorist" puts on a unifrom they are magically not a "terrorist". Start from a definition. It's the only legit thing to do. And I do not accept that genocide is definetly not what is happening. It is an ongoing pre planed devastation that was preicipated by an attack Israel knew was going to happen and intentionally allowed as a pretext. They are so utterly destroying the region the odds that they are going to then try to drive the survivors out are incredibly high. I belive a significant number of the Israeli high command is in the process of commiting genocide. But again, I will accept the term terrorism. Which you can only deny with an actual definition for the term. And if you have no definition that does not apply it would make them by far the the most successful terrorist organisation on the planet.