This is like saying “I don’t see how the phrase “white power” alone can be considered a call to kill black people?” 🤣
It is a call to destroy/eliminate Israel. Don’t try to pretend it’s not.
I’m failing to see how the phrase “from the river to the sea”, alone, can be considered a call to destroy Israel, let alone unequivocally genocidal. It seems like there’s a lot of top-down reasoning required to arrive at either conclusion. I don’t think there is genocidal intent on the deployment of those words on that woman’s top. I think you assume too much. Israeli leaders use unmistakably genocidal language. And then they also commit genocide. You don’t get to both sides this issue with a very tenuous argument that this popular slogan is a call to genocide.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
crapwittyname@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
No, it isn’t like that. Because “white power” is used exclusively by extremists, whereby “from the river to the sea” is not. Do you see the difference there?
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 weeks ago
whereby “from the river to the sea” is not.
It is though. They might not think they’re extremists, but they are.
crapwittyname@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
People who are demanding an end to apartheid are extremists, you say. So apartheid, genocide, ethnonationalism, mowing the lawn, etc etc, are the norm, then? You’re raving mad.
JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
The phrase was created with the explicit intent to destroy Israel. We can equivocate about the intent to destroy Israel as being genocidal, but as I explain, Palestinian activists consider it genocidal intent when Israeli politicians talk of destroying Palestine, so I use their own standard. It may be that people who use this phrase do not intend destruction of Israel, but they are using a phrase which was created explicitly to call for the destruction of Israel. I don’t accept that there is any good faith way to claim the term has been “reclaimed.” If I say “heil Hitler,” and follow it up with “but no genocide or any of the bad stuff Hitler did,” it doesn’t erase the first part of my sentence. In fact, the second part is antithetical to the first.
crapwittyname@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
And the phrase “bless you” was created with the intent to banish demons out of your nose, but we still say it.
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, is what they chant. Calling that genocidal is Orwellian mate. Get a grip.
JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Bad example. The intent was good and it remains good.
Many do not. Many drop the second part entirely. For example, the t-shirt on the girl in this very video that we are discussing. Either way, adding a nice phrase to the end of a genocidal phrase doesn’t make the genocide part less bad.
toad@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Accusation reversal. “The genocidees would be genociders if the role were reversed” aka “they deserved it”.
How does it feel being a genocide apologist?
crapwittyname@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
It’s not a bad example, and I credit you with the intelligence to understand the principle the example is driving at, which you are choosing to ignore, that is: meanings change.
Do you really believe that girl made that t-shirt with genocidal intent? Do you think she wants Israelis wiped out?
toad@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Yea Israel is genociding the palestinians, not the other way around. Quit being a negationist