But chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) and calls for an intifada (de facto violence against Jews) are anti-semitic. Supporting Hamas, whose goal is to kill as many Jews as possible, or saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks is anti-semitic (Hamas is also bad for Gazans, but that's another story). I can go on and on. People holding these views may hold them not because they hate Jews (for example, I don't think that people removing posters of kidnapped Israelis necessarily hate them), but the result is all the same. There is also obvious anti-semitism unrelated to Israel, like attacking synagogues, drawing stars of David on Jewish houses, etc., but that's not what I'm talking about.

And the most vocal anti-Israelis are naturally the most extreme ones and usually include some of the stuff I mentioned. As a result, people call out anti-semitism, usually not referring to anti-Israeli critics you are talking about.

Now Hamas does play on the string of religion to get to people, and so does Israel (isn't it the promised land after all?).. but the main goal is to free the people from the oppressive occupation!

and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone! if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!

and like Bassem Youssef said, let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank. how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?

Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?

> if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!

But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone, and the earlier we understand it, the better. For the same reasons, the right of return for every descendant won't work. We need to come up with a meaningful two-state solution, but that failed multiple times. So what's left? What solution do you think both sides may agree on, assuming good faith negotiations? Do you think any side is ready to give up West Jerusalem or their right of return stance?

> let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank.

I think the situation in West Bank is much better both for Israelis and Palestinians than the situation in Gaza (even before 7/10), and more importantly, there are ways to improve it.

> how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?

I don't justify the settlement expansion; I think it is a wrong practice. Do you think removing settlements (plus, say, some territory exchange where removal is too complicated) would solve all West Bank problems?

Israel needs to first admit that it's establishment was on the expense of another people that are still suffering until today, without that, it's difficult to move forward, as well as continuing this conversation.

> Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?

Maybe, I don't know what else can it be! the slogan is not calling for killing anyone, FREEDOM = Dignity, Human Rights, I personally just want to be able to go to the beach and travel from an airport nearby.

> But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone....

Why not?

>The right of return for every descendant won't work

Why not?

Strong disagree. History is important, but we need to solve present problems. It is possible to live a good life without returning to grandpa's home from 80 years ago. And while Israel did shitty things in 1948, I don't think Jordan or other Arab countries did better. It's impossible to say, but if the proposed borders were accepted, I'm pretty sure there would be much less suffering from both sides.

> I personally just want to be able to go to the beach and travel from an airport nearby.

But other Palestinians want more. You could get your beach in Camp David, any peace attempts included as much, and the disagreement never was around freedom of movement of Palestinians.

> Why not?

Because that would mean to displace people currently living there. Two wrongs do not make a right. And Jews were minorities in many different countries, and it turned out not that good many times. Specifically, Jews had to flee multiple Arabic countries not that long ago. How can we be sure it won't happen again?

> Strong disagree. History is important, but we need to solve present problems.

I'll go a step further. All history surrounding this must be forgotten, to move forward. There are grievances and counter-grievances, ancestral claims and counter-claims, and conflicting divine proclamations. Those have to all be thrown away, and instead consider only the current situation.

(And guess what, now I can go to Polish Silesia anytime I want! Not that I ever would, because my connection to that place is as tenuous as yours to Israeli land)

South Africa managed to pull it, and end apartheid. Why wouldn't it work for Israel?

Israel should end the apartheid in the west bank, but israel proper (67' borders) is a liberal democracy, there's no reason to give that up.

Reminds me of "Defund the police." Led to people having to constantly explain that they didn't actually mean that police should have zero funds and be abolished. But, except, a lot of people on Twitter countered that they did mean exactly that, and that all cops are bad and they're all racist. :facepalm:

But yes, I agree that detractors will co-opt language. It's an effective tactic.

The phrase was dreamt up by Western Israeli allies to promote an oppressive pipe-dream border arrangement that was not even remotely acceptable by any reasonable standards. Only propagandized westerners even speak of it.

This is done so the Western media can frame Palestinians as uncooperative.

2. Did you ask yourself why people in Gaza fight Israel? it helps to know how much you know about this subject in order to know how to reply to you

The Hamas charter that was used during the last elections in Palestine explicitly calls for the total destruction of Israel. To reach that goal, unrestricted jihad is necessary. Negotiated resolution are considered unacceptable. Hamas won those elections.

Hamas has since revised that charter in 2017; but retained the goal of completely eliminating Israel - it is till a constitutive element of their political beliefs.

> we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone! if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!

You might have a personal interpretation, but make no mistake about the intentions of the elected representatives of the Palestinian population when they chant that.

I can't imagine the average Palestinian person having the headroom to do anything about those 1%.

Does that mean that Israel should implement whatever response they feel like? That is what we are watching play out, and it's an ugly scene.

What if, alternatively, the average Palestinian person was actually in a position to help? What would that look like?

--

What this really seems to boil down to is that no Palestinian person gets a say about what happens in Palestine, except for that violent 1%. That's a pretty obvious motivator for people to join that 1% group. It's also a motivator that might potentially be eliminated without violence. It seems to me like that would be worth a try.

  > Hello there, a Palestinian from the west bank here speaking,

  > let me tell you something, our resistance has nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish state, if my brother stole my house and killed my children i will fight him just the same, and you would too and everyone else (I assume). jewish, muslim, christian, vegan.. doesn't matter.

I should address "stole your house" and "killed your children" separately. The "stealing houses" issue started during the 1948 war - what you call Nakba and I call Independence. The UN partitioned the holy land, and the Arabs were unsatisfied so started conquering land. Their specific intention was to "steal houses" or "steal land" or however else you want to phrase it. Ergo, this things happened though it did not turn out how they intended. Likewise, no fewer Jews than Arabs had their houses stolen. How many Jews remained in the West Bank after the 1948 war? Zero. How many Arabs remained in the new state of Israel? Hundreds of thousands. And do not forget the houses stolen from the Jews of Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Tunis, and other Arab states.

As for the "killed your children" there are so many ways that children both Palestinian and Jewish have been killed. Do you agree with me that Palestinian children are often involved in violence? I'll tell you that the first time I ever saw an Arab with a rifle he was shooting it in one arm (in the air, but towards Israels myself included) and a small child, maybe four or five, in the other. And I've seen enough similar things myself since. I have no doubt that innocent children have been killed - no doubt at all. But I do dispute the idea that the Israeli state is deliberately killing children. I served in the army, and anybody who would ever say anything remotely stupid to the hint of deliberately hurting a civilian was disciplined severely. I'm sure the entire army is not as my small battalion was, but I do believe that my battalion was representative.

  > let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank. how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?

Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.

It's just dirt, there's nothing special about it. Almost all borders are the results of war and conquest throughout history, it's better to accept that and move on.

I'm pro a 2 state solution based on the 67' borders, fighting over some "right of return" to a place you've never been for generations just seems like a waste of life.

And if you even take the very long term view, a 2 state solution could eventually lead to open borders, and an implicit "right of return" (after decades of peace and building trust).

And then you argue for the ‘67 borders: that’s 50 years ago, what makes those the borders we should roll back to when almost no Palestinians of today were alive before then?

I can't comment on all the situations because I have very little familiarity with refugees in africa, but assuming they don't have a state to return to and they can form a new state where they are? Then yes, 100% yes.

The 67' borders are internationally recognized, so I'm saying accept that and move on.

My grandparents lived in eastern Europe before the Holocaust, I'm not crying to return there because I have a new home.

Throughout history humans have been nomadic and moved from place to place. If you take any person and go up along their ancestry line at some point you'd probably encounter some ancestor that was displaced (by another tribe, nation, lord, just some bastard, etc), and yet we don't dwell on that.

I'd like to think I have a somewhat decent understanding of the situation, but flawed and with its own biases of course.

And israel should remove the settlements of course.

Not only did Palestinians were forcibly evicted in 1948 (The Nakba), they're being continuously occupied by an apartheid, racist and terrorist regime.

This is not a matter of conquest my friend. Because look. And bear with me. This might be long. But it's worth it. The Muslims conquered the lands of Jerusalem in 638 AD where the first Islamic Caliphate, Umar Ibn Khattab, besieged the city and the Christians surrendered. He took over without bloodshed. When Umar Ibn Khattab asked them, where are the Jews? He was surprised to hear they were all slaughtered or driven away by the Byzantine Christians sometime around 138-150 AD. He said, bring 20 Jewish families and establish them here. No lands were stolen, nothing was taken, no forced conversions were made. Jews Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then the Christian crusaders came in the 11th century and SLAUGHTERED everyone, Muslims AND Jews. Then, Islamic leader Salahuddin came 150-200 years later and liberated Jerusalem. Again, same thing. No lands were taken, no forced conversions. He even spared the Christians who slaughtered everyone 150 years ago. Then the Ottomons came and ruled over from 14 or 15th century and implemented the Millet system where every religious community had their own government. Again, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then it allll went down hill from 1917 onwards. I won't go into details but it lead to the Nakba in 1948, where British soldiers were commanded to evict Palestinians. 750K Palestinians displaced. Tens of thousands were killed. Women were raped (watch Tarantulla, watch the Jewish soliders ADMIT TO THIS). So mate, there's a massive difference. It's not just a piece of land. It's generations upon generations of families. And their homes being stolen. They're being KICKED off their lands. Generations where they've experienced so many atrocities. Atrocities that are being committed still to this day.

And if you want to understand even an ounce of the terrorism that Israeli soldiers commit against Palestinians in occupied territory, what better way than to listen straight from the mouths of ex-IDF soldiers? Well, good news for you, ex-IDF soliders in early 2000 created an org called "Breaking the silence". Look it up. THere you'll find over 300 video confessions + 200 text confessions of IDF confessing to acts of terrorism. Examples include occupying a home just to watch the World Cup, or to sleep in it while ALL the family sits in one room. Using children as human shields to do their search operations. They literally coined the term "neighborhood procedure" where they use Palestinians to knock on suspected "terrorists" homes to scout them out (Such cowards). You'll come across videos of soldiers confessing to killing an innocent man on the rooftop bc he looked at them weird. Or killing a child 40 min after he threw a molotov. I mean the list goes on and on. All that I described are from the video confessions. No propaganda. No BS. All straight from ex-IDF soldiers. Watch the videos on "Breaking the silence" and then come tell me if they can just "accept and move on". So it's not just about land my friend. It's about occupation, oppression, etc.

Did Israel commit some crimes during 1948? Sure, but it's kinda silly to expect Israel to not use a war that was forced upon them to better their situation, especially when when the Arab nations tried to wipe out Israel.

You can't start a war to wipe someone out, lose that war and later call foul play on such a response.

And again, I think Israel should stop the occupation in the west bank, which is what "breaking the silence" is all about, I'm not trying to protect israel's actions.

And if it's not about land and all about peace and prosperity, what's the issue with a two state solution?

And why didn't you go all the way back to the kingdom of judea in your history lesson?

Well, there have been many proposals for a 2-state solution but at many times, both sides have jeopardized and rejected offers.

Better their situation? Really? At the expense of displacing almost a million people? Come on man, are you hearing yourself? Not only have they displaced them, they've killed tens of thousands of them. On top of that, they've been taking more and more land as the decades have gone by. Not to mention the acts of terrorism they've inflicted on Palestinians in occupied territory.

1948 was a result of a war that Arab nations started? Can you elaborate on that? Why did they start it? Please elucidate me.

Yes I am. Do you think international borders around the world have been the same since the beginning of time? All nations have done the same and have shaped their own border through wars, in this case the war was a defensive one which makes it one of the more righteous ones.

Do you dispute the right to exist of the US or Australia? Why not? If anything jews are actually indigenous to the land.

Are you aware that not all of those 700k were displaced by israel? A large percentage of them fled on their own, and some also listened to the advice from arab nations and left their homes.

> 1948 was a result of a war that Arab nations started? Can you elaborate on that? Why did they start it? Please elucidate me.

Are you claiming that they didn't start it?

Like that makes it okay? And man, you don't even realize that you don't know what you're talking about. You keep making orthogonal points. Here's what I'm saying, land keeps getting taken. By Israelis. That's an international crime. Quite literally. The UN was established at the time. And guess what. The Israelis were promised a certain percentage of Palestinian land by the British, but they took more. And kept taking more and more with illegal settlements man. Even to this day man. They've kicked Palestinians off in 1948 and they continue to do that. That's what you don't understand and you keep glossing over it as if it's been done. It's happening NOW man.

A large percentage of them fled on their own? I don't know how true that is but that's effectively the same thing as being driven away. What compelled them to do that? You do realize tens of thousands were killed too right...? Like dude, I don't think you even hear yourself. Why wouldn't they leave on their own if they were being killed? And chased away? The British soldiers physically evicted Palestinians. Don't you know that? Why did they also leave on their own? Like don't you think about these things? You can ask the same questions to Jews when Muslims ruled over them. The Jews didn't leave when Muslims ruled over them. So why didn't the Jews leave when Muslims took over Spain? Hmm? Why didn't the Jews leave when Islamic ruler, Salahuddin conquered Jerusalem back in the 13th century? Why did they come back? Why did Umar Ibn Khattab, the first Caliphate of Islam, establish 20 Jewish families in Jerusalem when he conquered Jerusalem and found out the Jews were driven and slaughtered by the Christian? You see where I'm getting at? When Muslims ruled, Jews were protected. They weren't displaced. They kept their own lands. No displacement. And then the colonial British came and **ed everything up. Thanks Britain. Thanks a lot.

I agree about the west bank, I think Israel should remove the settlements.

I don't see what Muslim history in the are has to do with anything. Jews are indigenous to the area, border fights exist, and the current situation exist. Israel was founded and expanded after a few successful defensive wars - you just need to accept that as a fact.

Now we can be pragmatic and try a two state solution or we can continue arguing about history.

Palestinians can fight for what they view as justice for generations and get nowhere except more suffering, or they can decide that the west bank and Gaza are enough. It's their call. I know what I would decide

What is the truth of that? I've seen Israeli advocates make that claim and many repeat it. I've also seen an explainer in legitimate source (maybe the NY Times?) say that it means both Palestinians and Jews should be free. Does anyone have some actual, authoritative information? Something from before October 7th might be good.

> saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks

Who has said that?

The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah ... There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. ... Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967.

Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum. Saying "from the river to the sea" means that all people should be free is akin to saying "arbeit macht frei" is a call for the financial independence of working people.

As for your second question, calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives [2].

[1] https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-is...

However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

And from p.2, where 'Palestine' is defined geographically, which seems to include much or all of Israel (including Israel in a two-state solution). However, a quick search did not turn up Ras Al-Naqurah or Umm Al-Rashrash.

The Land of Palestine:

2. Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.

-------------

Second, though I think it obviously weighs significantly on the question, I'll point out some considerations:

* Hamas doesn't speak for Palestinians generally. What does the Palestinian Authority say? Optimally, we'd need information on the Palestinian public now or before Oct 7, when the issue was less politicized and information more reliable.

* Again, the document is significant, but generally, something in a document doesn't reliably tell us the beliefs of the public. Even scripture won't tell you what people are doing or thinking (even the leaders - compare some of their ideas with scripture).

* It's from 2017; I wonder how old the phrase is.

Anyway, hardly criticism; thanks for contributing. It's not an easy question.

> calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives

Warfare, including as currently conducted by Israel, is not the only means of Israel defending itself. IMHO elliding the two seems like an obviously disingenous attack, and it undermines all supporters of Israel by making their other claims equally suspect.

Ras Al-Naqurah, I think, is Rosh HaNikra [1], the current northern border of Israel. Umm Al-Rashrash is now Eilat [2], the southernmost Israeli city. For me, both were the first google links.

> Optimally, we'd need information on the Palestinian public now or before Oct 7, when the issue was less politicized and information more reliable.

You can check the polls from July 2023 [3]. For example, 50% thought that Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction.

> Again, the document is significant, but generally, something in a document doesn't reliably tell us the beliefs of the public.

Would you use a slogan actively used by some racist organization to call for white supremacy because it also meant something else you believe in?

> Warfare, including as currently conducted by Israel, is not the only means of Israel defending itself.

I don't see how else you can possibly defend yourself from armed people killing your citizens in their homes. Again, this specific call happened while Hamas was still killing Israelis in Israel.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_HaNikra_Crossing [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilat [3] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh...

> Ras Al-Naqurah, I think, is Rosh HaNikra [1], the current northern border of Israel. Umm Al-Rashrash is now Eilat [2], the southernmost Israeli city. For me, both were the first google links.

If that's true (as expected), then IMHO the Hamas document effectively calls for driving Jews out of Israel. I expect that if they got their "formula for national consensus", essentially the two-state solution, they'd still aim for the bigger goal.

> Would you use a slogan actively used by some racist organization to call for white supremacy because it also meant something else you believe in?

Good point; I wouldn't (and I don't say that). Though the slogan could be appropriated by Hamas for that reason. We see that plenty these days and this is an extremely politicized issue.

> I don't see how else you can possibly defend yourself from armed people killing your citizens in their homes. Again, this specific call happened while Hamas was still killing Israelis in Israel.

Again, that doesn't seem genuine. You can't think of any other way? I'm sure the Netanyahu government discussed other ways. Almost everyone in the world can think of other ways.

Focusing on one specific statement (and citing an WSJ opinion piece!) also sounds like a call to outrage, not reason. Don't trust WSJ opinion pieces: They always end the same way, which tells you they will say anything to reach that end. Contrast the NYT op-ed page, which has opinions across the spectrum (with the major exception that the conservatives abandoned Trump). Don't trust any opinion pieces - they are all liars, on all sides, is my strong opinion.

I'm genuinely clueless. Possibly, you mean something different from what I'm talking about. What other ways of defending against ongoing military action (mostly against civilians) are you thinking of?

> Don't trust any opinion pieces - they are all liars, on all sides, is my strong opinion

I've cited it because it is the first link on Google. I can cite statements themselves [1] [2]. And I don't focus on it; I've given an example of prominent people calling for a ceasefire (basically letting the terrorists run away and prepare next attack) very early in conflict.

[1] https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/stateme...

[2] https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1710730202353934338

Fair enough.

> letting the terrorists run away

That seems like finding the most outrageous possible interpretation, and in contradition to most of the statements which condemned the attacks in detail. If Ocasio-Cortez and Omar were posting on HN, you'd be violating HN guidelines.

Their "2017 charter" rather dramatically toned down the language. The original version makes no attempt to be politically correct.

Do you happen to know where to find it? Is there an English translation (not an English version published by them, but a translation by someone reliable)? Often all sides in Israel speak differently in English and local languages, afaik.

I'm not sure the source of the English, if it's an official English version or was translated by a third party.

Among other things, it calls for the "obliteration" of Israel by Islam, asserts that "death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of [the Islamic Resistance's] wishes", and cites noted anti-semitic text "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" among other conspiracy theories. It also says:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but a few observations:

* Dated 1988.

* It is The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, which goes on to say, The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. Is that the same as Hamas? The added page title (which doesn't seem part of the document), Hamas Covenant 1988, clearly says so.

* Just one thing I noticed, skimming it: Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam.

> Hamas [...] an acronym of its official name, the Islamic Resistance Movement

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

"From the river to the sea, palestine will be free" implies a desire to see freedom not genocide.

If you're looking for slogans that genuinely impute racist genocidal intent look no further than the Israeli Prime Minister's references to Amalek.

People who say that they support Israel may not believe this imputed genocidal intent is what they support that in a practical sense it is.

To read it literally (and choose one of many possible literal interpretations), doesn't work in this situation, if it ever works. It's not a statement someone just now made up on the spot in an isolated context; it's a slogan in an extremely politicized situation, with many years of history and meaning upon it.

If you want to play join the dots from slogan to genocidal racism, Netanyahu's references to Amalak is what you are looking for.

QUOTE

The phrase was popularised in the 1960s as part of a wider call for Palestinian liberation creating a democratic state freeing Palestinians from oppression from Israeli as well as from other Arab regimes such as Jordan and Egypt.[6][7] In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah, although this was later expanded.[8][9] Palestinian progressives use it to call for a united democracy over the whole territory.[10] while others say "it's a call for peace and equality after ... decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians."

/QUOTE

Even in the most charitable interpretations about what happens to the Jews living there, it is a call to replace the state of Israel with a completely different state.

Completely different state appears to be roughly the same state, minus apartheid. If it worked in South Africa, why wouldn't it work here?

The article you linked said that blockading Gaza (before the war) is somehow Apartheid, that's just ludicrous on the surface, and is representative of the nonsense they peddle.

If you doubt it ask a few Palestinians what would happen to the Jews living in the area if “Palestine is free”.

It doesn't work beautifully or easily or perfectly, but it keeps a lid on things generally. Our recent abandonment of it is awful, and serves only the warmongers, hateful, and power-hungry - the people who benefit from the absence of things like universal human rights.

As it happens, the Palestinians are slightly outnumbered in the area between the river and the sea, which means that when it crops up in the Hamas charter it's difficult to imagine that democracy is how they would seek to maintain control over the region, even ignoring recent history (And yeah, the same question marks about how exactly they would stay in power applies to all the Palestinian and Israeli groups before them that defined the "river and the sea" as the territories they thought their brethren should assume control of, as they pointedly focused on the idea of historical unity rather than self determination)

I'm sure there are people who sincerely believe in the position that a single state solution with some form of democracy would be best for the region and a moderating influence but I don't think they overlap much with the river sea border slogan people...

> As it happens, the Palestinians are slightly outnumbered in the area between the river and the sea, which means that when it crops up in the Hamas charter it's difficult to imagine that democracy is how they would seek to maintain control over the region

It's long been a basic assumption of experts that Palestinian's higher population growth would result in them having a much larger population in Israel than Jews. That's been a reason and incentive for the two-state solution: Israeli Jews would not want to be a minority in the 'Jewish state'.

The fact that the Israeli right wing has abandoned the two-state solution raises the question of what they intend. Clearly they don't intend being a minority; what other plan do they have?

That may well be the case in future[1], but I don't think Hamas or even the considerably milder supporters of "Palestine will be free" are proposing those river and sea borders on the assumption that it will remain a predominantly Jewish state for a couple of generations. Perhaps not all of them have in mind Hamas' October approach to the demographic imbalance, but I don't think the solution they're imagining involves leadership being chosen by popular vote either.

Israel's right of course, aren't any more democratic in saying essentially the same thing (the slogan seems to have lost currency, but you'll hear them arguing tha Gaza is part of Israel and they're not saying that because they think everyone there should have a vote in the Knesset)

[1] the other problems with such predictions is that both groups have large diasporas but if votes occur along sectarian lines then only one of them controls passports, and perhaps less darkly there is the possibility that relative population growth is outpaced by younger people becoming less interested in historic conflict dynamics (which seems to be the case in Northern Ireland)

I believe we should start with 2 states, and maybe after trust is rebuilt we can look into unionizing them.

It's not Israel's choice or business, effectively. Every Palestinian person has the same right to self-determination as every Israeli/Jewish person. It's also international law about occupied territory seized in war, etc. Israel relies on those rights and laws too.

The ROI is the end of endless warfare, which is Israel's current situation (as is very evident). War is politics by other means; without a political solution, wars continue indefinitely.

> I believe we should start with 2 states, and maybe after trust is rebuilt we can look into unionizing them.

Do you mean a separate Gaza country and West Bank country, along side an Israel country - a three state solution? Again, it's really up to the Palestinians how they want to organize themselves. Who are you to tell them otherwise? Could they tell you what you do in your country?

Agree, that's why i believe in a 2 state solution.

> The ROI is the end of endless warfare

Israel has been prospering more or less, and of course it's a gamble but that's true either way (for example, there could be better and cheaper missile defense tech coming soon, so the risk of war would be lower)

> Do you mean a separate Gaza country and West Bank country, along side an Israel country

Yes, but we can solve that with either an air corridor / connecting road in the beginning and eventually a tunnel - the land mass is fairly small.

Sure it's not ideal, but Gaza + West bank is about a 10x larger land mass than singapore.

> it's really up to the Palestinians how they want to organize themselves

Sure, but i think it's silly to suffer for so long just due some specific piece of land when you already have land.

And like a said, a 2 state solution doesn't have to be the end all, after trust is rebuilt the countries could have an open border and migration policy.

They constantly say (understandably) how unhappy they are, they are attacked, etc. Look at the current situation. They don't seem satisfied at all.

> it's silly to suffer for so long just due some specific piece of land when you already have land.

That's not why, or not the only reason. The story is that Arafat (Palestine) rejected the two-state (IIRC) resolution in the 1990s, possibly for that reason. But these days the Israelis have opposed a two-state solution for many years.

Also, it's easy to dismiss others' claims.

And the argument is novel in international relations: Do we dismiss China's claim to Taiwan on the basis that China already has (far more) land? Ukraine's claim to their east and south? Etc.

Israel actually ranks very high in the happiness index, so they are mostly happy, doesn't mean they don't like to complain about stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2023_re...

> But these days the Israelis have opposed a two-state solution for many years.

Yeah, which makes me sad. But also i believe the younger palestinains have also moved to the right and are less accepting of a two state solution. That's why you need strong leaders on both sides that aren't just pandering to the people, but are willing to go against the public will - and sadly i don't think we will see such leaders in the current generation (and probably not the next one either)

> And the argument is novel in international relations

Not sure it's very novel, israel's recognized international borders are fairly clear, legally there's just dispute over the west bank and some part of the north, but israel proper isn't disputed.

You can draw a very neat line between the number of jews currently permitted to live peacefully in palestine vs the number of muslims living within israel.

its not complicated, confusing, unclear or opaque.

River to the Sea means to end the israeli state, and the end of that does not have a happy ending for any jews living on that land.

The end of Israel as an exclusionary apartheid state does not have to mean the end of Jews living there, in a pluralist state guaranteeing equal access to Christians, Jews and Muslims to their holy sites and shared ancestral homeland.

How do you see implementing that politically? What constituency is there?

> https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...

Then the Times of Israel is on the record with articles accusing Netanyahu of being anti-semitic. I don't think those things you list are anti-semitic - they just happen to be politically bad for Jews right now. There is a difference (an important one) between policies-bad-for-a-group and being motivated by an unreasonable hatred of a group.

Sure. You don't have to have anti-semitic views to say anti-semitic things. The thing doesn't become less anti-semitic if you weren't motivated by hatred. It is also an unobservable difference because I can't say what your motivation is, only what is the meaning of your words and actions. Someone may want to ban black people from attending universities so that white people have more spots, the fact that they are not motivated by unreasonable hatred doesn't magically make the ban not racist.

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/2018-12-13/ty-article-opi...

You mean what's in the Lukud 1977 charter which was reiterated by Netanyahu recently after 10/7?

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront...

To claim that Israels use of this phrase (which explicitly calls for the removal/elimination of Palestinians) is ok while the Palestinian one is not is hypocritical.

When I hear that chant I don't assume that it means 'destroying Jewish country' but rather that the Palestinian nation (i.e. people) should be free between the Jordan and Mediterranean. There is no contradiction in the hypothetical chant "Palestine and Israel shall be free from the river to the sea" if we are talking about nations and not states.

The problem is that neither Israelis nor Palestinians can be free in a state that practices apartheid against them (be that an Israeli or Palestinian state). So you could interpret "Palestine shall be free from the river to the sea" as a call to end apartheid in Israel. Which brings us to the crux of this issue - Israel's determination to remain an ethno-religious apartheid state. The founding of a state where only a certain type of person can be a full citizen is the original sin here in my opinion.

That is the #1 tactic used to build smearing campaigns against people critic of Israel. The difference between being a racist and expressing disgust for what Israel has done in decades to the people of Gaza and the West Bank is so huge that either people using the word "antisemite" in that context are deeply ignorant, or they simply have an agenda. To my knowledge, most journalists and/or politicians aren't that ignorant.

* Bibi's racist amalek "genocide the palestinians" trope.

* Ben gvir when he hangs a portrait of Israeli terrorist Baruch Goldstein up on his wall.

* Isaac Herzog when he calls race mixing a tragedy.

(To give an example of 3 people who obviously represent Israel, all of whom are proudly racist).

  > there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism.

If the people spouting anti-Israel sentiment spouted the same sentiment for the same actions done a dozen times over by other nations, then they would not be anti-Semitic. In fact, I would agree with the vast majority of them. But when they ignore the 300,000 killed in Syria, or the 600,000 killed in Ethiopia, or the situations in Yemen, Mail, Turkey, or even Gaza when Hamas murders hundreds of Palestinians, or in Syria where the regime kills thousands of Palestinians, then it is clear that they are not stewards of "human rights" or "civilians" or even "values". Rather, they are abusing these ideas to promote an anti-Semitic agenda. These people actually need dead Palestinians to further their agenda.

But that’s also a convenient excuse used by people who are actually antisemitic.

Both of these things can be true at once.

The problem happens when nobody is given the benefit of the doubt about being in group 1.

"One could say the same for "the other part": being pro-Israel doesn't mean being a anti-arab racist who wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine, but that's also a convenient excuse used by people who are actually just that".

But it usually does.

They are, while doing this, implicitly or explicitly endorsing Bibi's "exterminate the palestinians" Amalek trope, Ben Gvir hanging a portrait of Baruch Goldstein on his wall (shot up a mosque, considered to be a hero by ~10% of Israelis) and Isaac Herzog calling race-mixing a "tragedy".

(i dont think it's too controversial to suggest that those 3 people essentially represent Israel)

This practice of calling all and sundry racist in defense of a state founded upon an ideology of racial purity is, of course, probably mostly racist projection.

Indeed, it's hard to be a dedicated anti-racist these days without being accused of being an anti semite at some point.

The current Israeli government has espoused their views that Palestinians should not have their own state, that all Arabs are terror supporters who are the enemy of Israel, who should be exterminated or removed. And this was happening regularly long before October 7th. I wonder why some Palestinians don't see Israel as a viable partner in peace or that they feel their only option is to destroy Israel before they are destroyed themselves?

(Imagine the US with Trump in his fifth term of office. Now you have roughly the right picture.)

We could continue to bundle every criticism of Israel together, or we could confront each criticism directly.

* The anti-Semites are not idiots, mostly; they don't spew anti-Semitism publicly but say what is acceptable, which is to criticize Israel, and obviously anything anti-Israeli helps their cause.

* There's an implication whether people like it or not: Israel defines itself as The Jewish State. Also, many people are unware that Judaism is non-hierarchical overall; there's no pope-equivalent in Israel to which Jewish people have some allegiance (remember the old Papist accusation against Roman Catholics for dual loyalty); though Israel has some special things and history, it has no other role in non-Israeli Jewish people's religion, but people make that association regardless. Also, many are unaware that most Jewish people in the US oppose Netanyahu and the Israeli right, and afaik are sympathetic to the Palestinians. Anti-Semites will benefit from that implication, even though you don't want them to.

* Not everyone will respect that essential division between anti-Israel and anti-Semitic speech, and there's a significant risk that large-scale anti-Semitism could spill over. It was already at the highest levels in recent history (like other prejudices). It's easy to dismiss as as unlikely when you aren't at risk; a small risk of catastrophe is a big issue when it's your life.

People absolutely need to be able to criticize Israel, but I hope they are careful (not silent) and aware that there is no easy answer. You are anti-Israel (in this case, at least) and not anti-Semitic, but you will help the latter to some degree - hopefully a minimized one.

I think the major problem is that we've abandoned and actively attack the former social prohibition against prejudice, stereotypes, intolerance, race/sex/gender/religious discrimination, etc. It used to be verboten, but then we are all familiar with the contemporary reactionary attack on it (however you perceive it, whatever words you use), which seems to have been very successful. A very major loss is that without that high wall between us and the bad guys and bad behavior, without that bright line, there is much more spillover in what we do, and much more risk of them walking right in.

Looking at comments online, i'd argue that around 90%+ when someone uses the word "Zionism" they are just bigots.

If you genuinely want to criticize israel, just critique the country and its actions, the same you would do for any other country, no need to start talking about "Zionists" etc.

Nobody gets confused about what is what:

https://twitter.com/StopAntisemites/

Anti Israeli government: It's not antisemitic.

Anti Israeli people: It's antisemitic.

Criticizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank is not antisemitic. But suggesting that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic as it implies ethnic cleansing.

Both are arguably criticisms of the Israeli government.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

Antisemitism is a word that was coined in the 19th century specifically as anti-Jew.

The fact that Semite today can now refer to non-Jews doesn't mean Antisemitism refers to non-Jews as well.

But anyway that wasn't my actual point anyway and you picked this over the main point. It is still valid, and you are free to pick a name specifically for it. Antiarab, antipalestanian or whatever you want.

The non-Jewish populations are only allowed to exist so long as they provide labor and are second-class citizens under the law.

That kind of stuff doesn't fly in a non-ethnostate.

Do you know what the Jewish populations were in Arab states back in the 1940s? It was about 800,000. It’s only the fact that the state of Israel existed, and gave them somewhere to flee to, that so many managed to escape with their lives.

It is true there were expulsions of palestinians during the 1948 invasion by the Arab armies, which is abhorrent, but this was in the context of a concerted, explicitly declared attempt at mass ethnic cleansing of the Jews. They were literally fighting to exist. Then-Secretary-General of the Arab League Abdul Rahman Azzam, said, "This will be a war of destruction and a great massacre." Other Arab leaders made it clear they intended to kill or expel the entire Jewish population, a policy which they actually carried out in their own countries. So we know this wasn’t just rhetoric, where they could do it, they did.

The Nakba.

Don’t get me wrong, I wish that law didn’t exist. It’s a mistake, but it’s mostly posturing by the Jewish nationalist faction.

The nakba was an appalling catastrophe. It shouldn’t have happened. But then the Arab invasion with the explicit aim of killing and expelling the Jews shouldn’t have happened either. Nor should the expulsion of 800,000 Jews from Arab countries. They were all terrible disasters. The world would be a better place if they hadn’t happened, but they did. Now we live in the world of today.

Are the Arab countries going to let the descendants of their Jewish populations back, and return the property and land confiscated from them? Are they going to grant them citizenship and let them serve in the police, army and judiciary with full democratic rights?

Posted under a throwaway because I am legitimately afraid for my employment for touching this issue.

Here you go, 30 seconds on Google: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/08/middleeast/israel-arab-citize...

Will you stop spreading misinformation now? Or will you start splitting hairs, "Oh it's not due to the law, probably a coincidence haha"?

I quoted the Arab leader that orchestrated the assault in 1948 on that point. I can give more if you like. Here’s the then Prime Minister of Iraq Nuri al-Said: "We will crush the state with our guns and destroy any place in which the Jews seek shelter."

It’s true Jews and Arabs lived side by side for over a thousand years. Those Jewish populations in Arab regions were there in peace for a long time. It’s also true they were forcibly expelled after the Turks and Europeans left. That happened throughout the Arab world.

Why are you making such oversimplified, reductionist statements? Most Jews immigrated. There's so much history and back and forth between what happened. Like how Israel had Operation Ezra and Nehemiah which aimed to bring Jews from Iraq to Israel. And things like how there was rising tensions because of the illegal establishment of Israel and how that caused Jews to be killed in Arab nations like in Libya. And how there was reason to believe Jews were being guided by Zionists to be progressively aggressive. Then Israel helped Jews from Libya leave. Then in Egypt, there were anti-jews riots, but that was stopped by the Egyptian government in 1945. But 20K Egyptian Jews left in the 48' war betwee Israel and Egypt. Then some progressively left amid some more civil conflicts in Egypt. Then finally the largest chunk left when Israel invaded Egypt in '56. In Syria, the president allowed the immigration of Jews legally in 1949. In Yemen, Israel enacted Operation Magic Carpet to bring 44K jews. So I just gave a few examples which add more color to what actually happened rather than simple what you said "forcibly expelled" which is completely and utterly false. Again. Stop spreading bllsht. And back up your claims.

However the idea that this was the main driving force isn't compatible with the actual pattern of emigration. If the pull from Israel was the dominant factor we'd expect to see more or less uniform emigration from Arab countries. We don't, rather emigration was at different times from different places, driven by local conditions and government policies. For example the mass emigration of most Persian jews was very late compared to Arab countries, coinciding with the Iranian revolution in the 1970s.

> Nothing to do with the nation state law (which to be clear is a stupid mistake), as far as I can tell it’s not even mentioned in the article.

LOL.

A silly mistake, surely, to codify apartheid into law, teehee. And then one thing leads to another, and people somehow end up being discriminated. Completely unrelated, though! Could happen to any of us if we’re not careful!

I am simply pointing out that decrying Israel as an ethno-state while giving Arab countries a free pass on that, or even denying their mass expulsions and appropriation of property happened at all, is absurd.

Second of all, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

It's not whataboutism because I am in no way using Arab countries behaviour to justify, distract or change the subject from anything done by Israel or Jewish extremists, which I have recognised and criticised. I am pointing out obviously false claims, blatant hypocrisy, and arguing that illegal and immoral behaviours on both sides should be condemned.

And if you want to understand even an ounce of the terrorism that Israeli soldiers commit against Palestinians in occupied territory, what better way than to listen straight from the mouths of ex-IDF soldiers? Well, good news for you, ex-IDF soliders in early 2000 created an org called "Breaking the silence". Look it up. THere you'll find over 300 video confessions + 200 text confessions of IDF confessing to acts of terrorism. Examples include occupying a home just to watch the World Cup, or to sleep in it while ALL the family sits in one room. Using children as human shields to do their search operations. They literally coined the term "neighborhood procedure" where they use Palestinians to knock on suspected "terrorists" homes to scout them out (Such cowards). You'll come across videos of soldiers confessing to killing an innocent man on the rooftop bc he looked at them weird. Or killing a child 40 min after he threw a molotov. I mean the list goes on and on. All that I described are from the video confessions. No propaganda. No BS. All straight from ex-IDF soldiers. Watch the videos on "Breaking the silence" and then come tell me Israel is not an apartheid regime.

And wow, the utter lies and falsehood you're spreading. Arab leaders wanted to kill or expel the entire Jewish population? Really? Okay. Listen. Jews, Muslims and Christians co-existed peacefully under Muslims rule for 1300 or so years. And then all of a sudden you're telling me Arab leaders just felt like wanting to genocide Jews? LOL You do realize that Muslims protected the Jews the most right? From being persecuted? There are literally so many Jewish scholars like Dean Phillip Bell who've written books and papers on how the Jews THRIVED under Muslim rule. Not only that, scholars like Dean Phillip Bell actually say that Jews experienced something like the golden age just like Islam did under Islamic rule in Spain. Until the Christian massacred and drove everyone away.

Also, the Muslims conquered the lands of Jerusalem in 638 AD where the first Islamic Caliphate, Umar Ibn Khattab, besieged the city and the Christians surrendered. He took over without bloodshed. When Umar Ibn Khattab asked them, where are the Jews? He was surprised to hear they were all slaughtered or driven away by the Byzantine Christians sometime around 138-150 AD. He said, bring 20 Jewish families and establish them here. No lands were stolen, nothing was taken, no forced conversions were made. Jews Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then the Christian crusaders came in the 11th century and SLAUGHTERED everyone, Muslims AND Jews. Then, Islamic leader Salahuddin came 150-200 years later and liberated Jerusalem. Again, same thing. No lands were taken, no forced conversions. He even spared the Christians who slaughtered everyone 150 years ago. Then the Ottomons came and ruled over from 14 or 15th century and implemented the Millet system where every religious community had their own government. Again, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then it allll went down hill from 1917 onwards. I won't go into details but it lead to the Nakba in 1948, where British soldiers were commanded to evict Palestinians. 750K Palestinians displaced. Tens of thousands were killed. Women were raped (watch Tarantulla, watch the Jewish soliders ADMIT TO THIS).

And then you tell us and the rest of the people that "Oh these Arab leaders man, they wanted to kill the entire Jewish population look how evil they are". BULLSH*T. Such lies. Shame on you. You literally cannot reference any material here where you can confidently say Jews were persecuted by Muslims en masse pre-1917. I bet you 100%.

It would be interesting to try this with jewish citizens of Arab countries, but oh well.

This is precisely an example of the conflation of "anti-Israel" with "anti-semitic." It is entirely possibly for a person to disagree with the geopolitical decisions and military actions that led to the formation of Israel, without harboring ill will against anyone for being Jewish.

Similarly, I don’t understand is how expressing the personal view that all of the people living in the territory of Israel — Jews and non-Jews alike — would be better off living in a secular state, is somehow akin to anti-semitism.

Come on mate, thats possibly the most asinine and distasteful argument I have seen on this site.

> Japan isn't an officially Shinto state

You are just misquoting the comment

The parent was suggesting that there is a jewish religion and a jewish race and that the race is the qualifier not the religion.

Dubious to argue, but if thats the argument then bringing religion back in w.r.t. Japan is wrong and he knew it.

I focused on religion because it's how eligibility for Aliyah is defined. you're Jewish if your mom was Jewish, either because her mom was Jewish or because she converted. there are Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jews. those are all different races/ethnicities. specifically, Mizrahi Jews are ethnically Arab. so I disagree that race is the qualifier.

I also think that many (most?) people would object to France, Ireland, or Japan favoring people who were ethnically or religiously French/Irish/Japanese.

* Edit: I think that people are also objecting to the fact that many Palestinians don't have a place where they can be prosperous and debatably had their land stolen.

We have seen that in the western world that we do not abide the idea of ethnostates, e.g. it is considered bigoted to oppose unlimited migration from refugee countries into Europe or North America. Likewise it is not okay to say "only X race or Y religion can be in government". Why is it okay in the case of Israel?

Jews lived and existed before Israel was established and they were not ethnically cleansed.

I don't really have a dog in this fight and I'm not trying to controversial, I'm genuinely curious because the choice you offer seems like a false dichotomy.

As opposed to what's happening right now - which is ethnic cleansing in both Gaza and the West Bank. Netanyahu wants to "thin out the Gaza population" and is asking for the US and other countries to accept refugees after Israel destroys the place.

One is speech, and the other is action - one is being argued about, while the other is actively happening with 20k+ deaths.

Does it really implies it, or just the end of apartheid?

You've got it backwards. The only way for Israel to exist as an ethnostate is through an ethnic cleansing. That's not specific to Israel; that's inherent to the concept of an ethnostate.

The assumption that Israel can only exist as an ethnostate is itself a political assertion - it's the hallmark of right-wing Zionism.

I don't understand that logic. Would you mind explaining?

Do you live in North America? I identify this perspective with Americans and Canadians and not, say, Norwegians.

1. ethnostate: a country that values/prioritizes residents being of a particular ethnicity defined in law and either forbids people of other ethnicities from living there or discourages them by denying them equal rights

2. ethnic cleansing: (EU definition) Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group

Perhaps you are saying that legal discrimination doesn't count as intimidation and therefore denying rights based on ethnicity is not ethnic cleansing? (I would disagree). Or are you using different definitions altogether?

When you dig into the history of the region, as an interesting topic in its own right, without reference to any current conflict, without motivation to prove any particular side right or wrong, just letting history tell its own story, some patterns emerge. I'll give you the Cliff Notes the way it seems to me, a non-Jew American, culturally leftists. If I'm wrong I'll hear a calm, considered, good-faith-well-sourced-not-weird fact I may not be aware of.

To answer your question, when Israel started, the new state invited its Arab neighbors to participate and this invitation was sincere. This fact is elided quite a lot, but it's true and I can show you receipts. This directly relates to your point. As you might imagine, Zionist Jews were really not interested in fighting. Many Arabs agreed to participate in the new state, stayed, were peaceful and their descendents are full Israeli citizens today. There was no intention for an "ethno-state" by point 2 of your definition at this time, but there was a Zionist desire to defend themselves. The borders of the new democratic state did demographically put Jews in charge, but there wasn't a desire to expel Arabs. I know, hard to fathom, but it's true.

Nevertheless, Arabs were expelled. From the Zionist perspective, they weren't expelled because they were Arabs, but because they participated in a genocidal war with the stated intention to expell and kill Jews.

Where did that intention come from? Surely the Zionists did something to deserve that hate? Stole land?

After really looking at it, from my Western, American perspective, they did no more than Jews did when they immigrated to my own country: start businesses, purchase land, prosper to the envy of some of their neighbors. If you can demonstrate that Zionists literally stole land, lmk. However, instead of emigrating to the Lower East Side, which was rough but still more or less had the rule of law, Zionists immigrated to a lawless backwater of the dying Ottoman Empire where they were were the target of explicitly genocidal attacks by Muslim Arabs. These attacks spilled over to historically Jewish villages, such as Hebron.

So, when I hear "Zionists stole land" I hear "Micks stole our jobs" and not "Boers violently displaced native tribes from fertile farmland". It's a better analogy for what actually happened.

Today, Israel controls lands, the West Bank and Gaza, populated by the descendents of the people who tried to ethnically cleanse them on first go. No one else wants that land and its people. Not Egypt, not Jordan, not Lebanon. Now it's on Israel to try to deal with this.

I assume you can’t bring yourself to agree or disagree with the definitions I gave and decided to talk around it instead.

If you have objections, please see if they are addressed in the response above.

You're describing the reason that some Jews say they support the creation of an ethnostate. That's still an ethnostate, and treating Israel as synonymous with a Jewish ethnostate is the defining right-wing characteristic of Zionism.

It's important to note that what you're describing is not representative of the general opinion of Jews, either globally or in Israel. Many Jewish Holocaust survivors and their descendants oppose the creation of an ethnostate through ethnic cleansing.

And it's odd to worry about what's "right wing" while Hamas wants the creation of a new caliphate that constantly chants about how they'd like to remove all the Jews from the area between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea. mirroring the ethnic cleansing done by many nearby Islamic states in the recent past.

But it is true that the average Israeli does not want to ethnically cleanse anyone, because if they did want that, Israel could have simply destroyed all of Palestine a long time ago.

> Two decades on, Israel has sounded alarms over the growing number of gunmen in Jenin and their stockpiling of munitions. Israel says the camp is a hub for planning and preparing militant attacks as well as a safe haven for fighters funded by Hamas or the Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad group.

> Israel also says more than 50 shooting attacks have been carried out by Jenin-area militants since the beginning of 2023 and that almost half the population is affiliated either with Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/why-is-israel-atta...

I've seen very few serious declarations that Israel has no right to exist. I have seen even fewer genuine existential threats to it in the past 2 or 3 decades, and that's not to discount how big of a deal or how sad an event Hamas's attack was.

But I have seen a lot of pro-Israel voices, e.g. at recent Congressional PR-stunt hearings, aggressively question anyone who doesn't bow in deference to their narrative whether they agree Israel has a right to exist. That whole line of tactic is a massive distraction from the question those voices don't want asked, either of themselves or anyone else, which is "do you think Israel has the right to do what it is currently doing to the Palestinians?"

The modern israeli's are not semites. Those that settled after WW2 were eastern european converts, khazars, with no genetic ties to the middle east. Those that are not ashkenazi are migrants from the surrounding countries, who largely did not move to the area until after the occupation of palestine.

The term "anti-semite" was invented to reinforce the lie that the ruling class of israel have some ancestral claim to the land. Using it is playing into that propaganda.

The modern attempt to make it refer to Arabs and other Semitic-language speakers is itself an anti-Semitic attempt to rob the term of meaning. Nice try, though.

  > But conflating anti-Israeli views with anti-Semitic views does a disservice to Jews and Palestinians alike.

If the people spouting anti-Israel sentiment spouted the same sentiment for the same actions done a dozen times over by other nations, then they would not be anti-Semitic. In fact, I would agree with the vast majority of them. But when they ignore the 300,000 killed in Syria, or the 600,000 killed in Ethiopia, or the situations in Yemen, Mail, Turkey, or even Gaza when Hamas murders hundreds of Palestinians, or in Syria where the regime kills thousands of Palestinians, then it is clear that they are not stewards of "human rights" or "civilians" or even "values". Rather, they are abusing these ideas to promote an anti-Semitic agenda. These people actually need dead Palestinians to further their agenda.