It means there won’t be any Israelis left between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Hamas’s stated purpose for existing is to vanquish not only the state of Israel, but all Israelis and more broadly all Jews. That’s overtly genocidal.
And before you call me a zionist, I don’t support the Israeli government. What it’s doing to Palestinians is atrocious. But I’m capable of discerning between Israelis and the the Israeli government, just like I’m capable of discerning between Palestinians and Hamas.
Israelis and Palestinians alike deserve peace, justice, security, autonomy, and self-determinism, just like every other human being in the world deserves these things.
The Israeli government and Hamas, on the other hand, are both genocidal organizations and need to be replaced with something more civilized.
The history of harassment, Palestine, and israel is largely irrelevant.
If a law prescribes (proscribes?) specific phrases regadless of intent and context, they should be chosen very, very carefully.
Im not an expert, but i think other states require a context like “intended to incite hatred”.
By prescribing this particular phrase, even if you are correct, it allows harassment to portray Palestine as ignored and persecuted - the very intention of terrorism.
Should people be allowed to use nazi slogans at protests? What about racist slogans?
I understand it’s dicey to draw a line somewhere, but do you really believe hate speech should be protected as political speech? It’s a slippery slope either way, the trick is to find the point of balance.
And repeating a phrase which initial intent is to call for the eradication of an entire ethnic group is, in my opinion, on the side of the line that should be considered hate speech, promoting violence, and shouldn’t be protected.
The history of the conflict is indeed relevant. And the proscription of the phrase isn’t being done “regardless of intent and context.”
(By the way, ‘proscribe’ means to condemn something; ‘prescribe’ means doctor’s orders)
I’m not following the logic of your last paragraph.
Holding a flag of a state committing genocide and is the one who is currently trying to exterminate Palestinians on the ground is what should be compared to nazi slogans
That’s a bit of a strawman. Who’s holding an Israeli flag here?
Genocide is atrocious, whether committed by the IDF or Hamas. Hamas’s stated purpose is a complete ethnic cleansing of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
I can say “genocide is wrong” and apply that to both sides, without favoring one over the other. The fact that you can’t is part of the problem.
Aussieiuszko@aussie.zone 3 days ago
No it doesn’t. It means the land won’t be owned by Israel.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 days ago
And what do you think the plan is for all the Israeli civilians who are currently living there?
Do you expect a Hamas-led government to treat them with basic dignity and respect for human rights?
mrdown@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Do you realize that the majority of people agree that the palestinian autority will be who rule palestine for a white, PA recognize israel and abandonned armed resistance . You just hide behind hamas war crimes to justify occupation
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
The Palestinian Authority who have no de facto power and whom Hamas despised almost as much as they despise Israel?
You think what Hamas means when they say “From the river to the sea” is that the Palestinian Authority will run a civil government with universal respect for human rights?
I’m not “hiding behind hamas war crimes,” you’re writing off hamas war crimes and trying to hide them behind a veneer of the Palestinian Authority’s nominal claim to power.