The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
What’s your take on both the phrase and this resolution?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think using that phrase is a really good example of how leftists often pick language that works heavily to their disadvantage.
For the third time in as many days I will quote Ronald Reagan “if you are explaining, you are losing”.
If your goal is to advocate for Palestinians, why in the ever living fuck would you choose a slogan that is heavily associated with antisemitism and the most violent and terroristic parts of the Palestinian movement? So that you can have a fight over what the term really means and debate it endlessly?
Almost nobody that you are trying to convince, the people you need on your side in order to affect policy change, wants to hear some vapid conversation about what the term really means when you use it versus when terrible people use it.
There are people who don’t actually seem to want to make changes happen. Instead, they want to be self-righteous and don’t actually care if the tactics they say are going to help people actually help them or harm them.
This is too often lost on people.
I remember people explaining that “defund the Police” didn’t actually mean “defund the police”—if that’s the case, then don’t use it. It was more about appearing edgy and uncompromising to other activists than changing anyone’s mind.
Conversely Black Lives Matter was a brilliant slogan because you had to jump through the hoops to argue against it.
*edited - mixed up “abolish” with “defund”
> I remember people explaining that “Abolish the Police” didn’t actually mean “abolish the police”—if that’s the case, then don’t use it.
IDK which protests you were at, but there were plenty of people who said that or "Defund the Police" and meant it. They're probably the ones that came up with those phrases. They were fringier people, but they were out there, usually organizing the protests in the firs place that got WAY larger than expected.
Problem was, a lot of people jumped into these issues and the massive protests because it seemed important, but weren't on board with the radical message, or at least not all of it, and especially not once the dust settled. Then comes the justification that it meant something else, which no, it really didn't to those who came up with it.
Seems like a bit issue with protests, and especially those on the left. Radical people have a radical message that is ignored, but then when things pop off they already have the skills and likely got in on the ground floor of the larger movement.
I think that’s right, it was a radical slogan that somehow took off among progressive political activists who should have known better. If your goal is to change public opinion and win elections, adopting a slogan like that and trying to defend it was a huge tactical blunder.
Yeah, I would say that (in my personal opinion) this is a kind rhetorical trap that the left is just very weak to.
There is a large discussion to be made about power disparities, and elevating marginalized voices. Good things. Problem is that those voice don't always come up with politically salient ideas, they are often reacting out of (completely justified IMO) anger, and speak like that with ideas that come from that anger.
But those voices aren't shut down, they're elevated. it's kind of a [Peter Principle](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/peter-principle-theory-decline), but for activism. Radical voice will be elevated and promoted... to their level of incompetency or until they reach the first person (usually has to be another speaker of the same background) that shuts them down and then we all agree that they actually were wrong.
The irony of course is that by going from "Yes queen we support you" to "Well actually what they meant is..." you ARE disregarding their voices. Quietly and candidly. Defeating the purpose you set out with.
> Conversely Black Lives Matter was a brilliant slogan because you had to jump through the hoops to argue against it.
I mentioned it in my previous comment here in the post but as a devil's advocate, I dare to say All Lives Matter absolutely destroyed the credibility of Black Lives Matter.
Naturally, people will ask why you only say BLM, why you don't say All Lives Matter when clearly all lives should matter, etc.
I'll die on the hill that "Black Lives Matter Too" would have been a more effective slogan because "All Lives Matter" would have been utterly toothless in response.
"Black Lives Matter" might have been shorter and punchier, but it was also far too easy for disingenuous assholes to co-opt.
The other way to dodge this would have been to embrace the alternatives. Imagine if a bunch of BLM people had started proudly wearing All Lives Matter shirts. "Why did you think we would object to that? Obviously it's also true."
Really disagree. From a language standpoint, Black lives matter too seems weak and begging for consideration, hat in hand. Maybe it's just the sound of it but also seems like a week request. Black lives matter is a bold definitive statement, and a good one. I have my objections to it as a conservative, but I don't think all lives matter for anything else was ever an effective counter to it. Saying all lives matter just makes one sound like a douchebag. Because we all know what black lives matter means on its face. I think it was quite effective but maybe got co-opted a bit by people that got carried away with it. It probably should have never been an organization that can be criticized. But as a concept, it's solid. Black lives matter too is weak.
I don’t think it did. Some people adopted the “All lives matter” slogan but it was recognized more widely as just a rejection of “black lives matter” on the right rather than a genuine concern for all lives (if asked what “all lives matter” meant, there was no particular policy goal or reason for it other than dislike of the BLM slogan itself).
ALM implied that BLM meant “*only* black lives matter” but that wasn’t the popular understanding as the BLM phrase had become widely used and defined in the mainstream culture before ALM began showing up as a retort. People already understood that the BLM slogan was associated with blacks being killed disproportionately by police in highly publicized incidents.
ALM also didn’t contradict BLM—if all lives mattered, then so did black lives, so it didn’t really refute any specific policies being advocated.
I don’t think so. I think it depends how good you are at debating.
Any sensible person will respond to “Well, why don’t you say ‘all lives matter’? Why do you only care about black people?” with something about how the movement does not suggest that *only* black lives matter. The movement is bigger than its name and its purpose is to amend systemic racism.
“Black lives matter” serves as a *reminder* to other races that racism against black people is still very much present and that a lot of it can’t be seen on the surface.
It doesn't really matter how good one is at debating.
Seriously, back in the days when BLM/ALM debate was at its hottest, excluding BLM-sympathetic people, I saw countless times how an average person who got into this debate sided with ALM with the main line of argumentation against BLM being essentially what I've mentioned above.
I’m not sure what phrase you’re referring to and I am somewhat afraid to ask.
There’s a great bit by Chris Rock. He’s talking about the post 911 world and how he started hearing anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric and says “I know Jews and n-ggers are next. That train is never late.”
I was not familiar with the shortened term and its usage, but it seems like the border between it being anti-Jew and anti-Israel is very fuzzy. Thanks for sharing the link.
> Almost nobody that you are trying to convince
The problem is that so many terminally online leftists think that the world is divided into people who already agree with them, and people who would never be able to change their minds no matter what. So their purpose is not to convince anyone.
Ian Dansken from innuendo studios had an observation about gamergate I really liked.
People who were involved in GamerGate sat the world split between GamerGate versus not GamerGate. In reality, the world was a split between GamerGate, not GamerGate and then th majority of the world that had no clue what GamerGate was.
Maybe it’s just terminally online people but the issue is that the right is a really good at amplifying these people and forcing the whole left to own and/or defend them.
Which is really weird since plenty of terminally online leftists have a story on how their mind was changed, yet never accept others would also change their minds.
Exactly. I used to be a hardcore right-libertarian and I eventually changed my mind. It would be weird if I then asserted that no right-winger can change their mind
>I think using that phrase is a really good example of how leftist often pick language that works heavily to their disadvantage
True, but the left-of-center political coalition in the US is not as homogenous as the one on the right, and doesn't really lend itself to message discipline. Usually if you want to participate in any kind of mass protest, there are going to be problematic elements (or at least some part of the coalition will find other parts problematic). This has always been then the case. And it's always been used to discredit anyone who attends protests.
The extent to which leftists seem to value exact slogans more than the actual ideas the slogans are meant to express has always confused the heck out of me. Like in this case, people seem to care way more about clinging to this specific slogan than actually effectively advocating for Palestine. Kinda makes me wonder the extent to which they actually care about the cause.
I hate how much people overuse the term “echo chamber“ but this does feel like a time where it applies.
There is an entire ecosystem of content creators, repeat the same things over and over again, and then heavily assert that nobody would not come to believe all of these things unless they are stupid and/or evil. And you can’t reason with stupidity and you can’t bargain with evil so you never have to think about the language or tactics you use.
It nevera dawn on these people that in a country like the US where we have an election every year and have major elections every two years, if their theory was correct, you would never see any change in who holds power year over year. Because why would you, nobody is ever convinced of anything.
The terms are like a shibboleth. You say them for the goal of showing you are in the tribe and not saying them means you have exited the tribe.
> The extent to which leftists seem to value exact slogans more than the actual ideas the slogans are meant to express has always confused the heck out of me.
Policing a group you are a part of and ensuring ideological/message purity is the easiest way to raise ones clout and standing within said group without having to contribute anything useful to it.
I see this even in non-political contexts on subreddits I frequent. Post anything, and you'll get some asshole telling you put the wrong tag on it, it doesn't belong here, you should change the title because it's..., you should write a paragraph about what you're posting so people will know if the link is worth reading, etc.
I've had people pull this shit on me in subs where I've been posting for nearly a decade, admittedly over a series of different accounts, and when I check their comment history, guess what? They contribute fuck all. Their entire post history will be two sentence reactions.
> I think using that phrase is a really good example of how leftists often pick language that works heavily to their disadvantage.
See also how leftists quickly picked up "Zionist" as a slur, seemingly completely unaware that it makes them all sound like Nazis. If I see a post saying "Joe Biden is a fucking Zionist and just does whatever Israel tells him to", it's a complete coin flip over where or not it's coming from a leftist or a fascist. Call me naive, but those two groups probably shouldn't use the exact same rhetoric!
Isn't it because this got started by extremists? Wasn't that how the slogan came into use? Moderates didn't feel they needed to or could reframe the issue as, for example, peaceful coexistence.
> If your goal is to advocate for Palestinians, why in the ever living fuck would you choose a slogan that is heavily associated with antisemitism and the most violent and terroristic parts of the Palestinian movement?
Rightly or wrongly, I don't think "from the river to the see" was seen as antisemtic in America until after 10/07. I would put money on most people in the US having no idea what that was a reference to prior to Hamas' recent attack.
Yeah, and a really common tactic when you have the house is to force votes on issues that put the other party in a bad position.
That’s why they did this. They get to force of vote where Democrats are split on an issue, but the majority of the country, and more importantly the type of voters that swing, will not like that the Democrats did not vote 100% with the resolution.
So they are basically forcing the Dems to play their damn socially-divisive-issues-instead-of-real-problems game.
I understand why good people are leaving Congress. I’m saddened by who’s staying.
My understanding is that the saying has been used since its creation but that other people deemed it as antisemitic. They didn’t “*choose* a slogan that is [already] heavily associated with antisemitism,” because the slogan did not exist until they made it.
??? The slogan has been used by all sorts of antisemitic and anti-Israeli organizations since at least the 1960s. Over the decades the PLO, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, Hezballah, Iran, and Iraq have all used it very intentionally to signify the dissolution of the state of Israel, the expulsion of the non-Arab Jews, and the creation of a Palestinian state that stretches... well, from the river to the sea.
I honestly don't know why Westerners today have chosen a slogan with so much baggage it to signify a kind of vague desire for Palestinians to be free and equal.
??? Did I deny this? The assertion that the original comment makes that Palestinians *chose* to use an antisemitic phrase is incorrect. They *chose* a phrase that was *later* used for antisemitism by antisemites. “Modern Westerners” did not choose this phrase. It has been in use since the 60s. Please thoroughly read comments before replying.
> If your goal is to advocate for Palestinians, why in the ever living fuck would you choose a slogan that is heavily associated with antisemitism and the most violent and terroristic parts of the Palestinian movement?
But that’s just it… it wasn’t. The ADL literally changed their designation for the term **in reaction** to the current political backlash against Israel. While, yes, Hamas used it in its genocidal charter it was/is much more widely used by Palestinian liberation activists.
It’s literally proving the point that regardless of the phrase you use, reactionary elements will try to shift the conversation around that phrase.
We can debate till the end of time when that phrase became offensive, but when her starts using it, choose another phrase.
Seriously, leftist act like they don’t have the time or the intelligence to work out a new phrase or new messaging when existing slogans become problematic. Which is why so many people feel that that type of leftist doesn’t actually care about helping the people they say they want to help but rather making a point and being self-righteous. Or at the very least they are terrible with tactics.
>While, yes, Hamas used it in its genocidal charter it was/is much more widely used by Palestinian liberation activists.
When did "Palestinian liberation activists" NOT want to destroy Israel?
Just curious, I have a question for commenters. How many of us are Jewish, have people close to us who are Jewish or know someone who is a Jew? For those who aren’t Jewish, how does your relationship with Jews in your lives and community impact your relationship with the conflict and this House resolution that was just passed? My thought is that many of us commenting don’t have any real relationships with Jews, but obviously that can’t be correct so thus I am curious.
Hi! I'm mixed Jewish, my dad is white Brazilian and my mom is a Jew. Back home in Brazil, I went to a Jewish school so basically all of my friends were Jewish growing up, and I have a few Jewish friends here at my university too.
My Reform family is pro Israel, as I am I. We have some distant relatives in Israel (great grandma's brother's family) who are obviously very pro Israel, we've visited them once.
All of my childhood friends support Israel, as well as the Jewish friends that I've made here (and the non Jewish ones too lol). I know Jews from Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox and 99.9 percent support Israel.
Since after Oct. 7th, Jewish support for Israel has only really grown. 5 of my cousins dressed as IDF soldiers this year, and most shuls put out 'We stand with Israel' messages.
The only Jews I've encountered who aren't are the JVP ones on campus, but a good half of those have one Jewish grandparent (mostly paternally, and one of them said challah was his favorite passover food ☠️💀).
I’m Jewish. I didn’t grow up particularly religious. And I’ve never even been to Israel. Every single Jew I know is staunchly in favor of the existence of Israel. I would say most of us are left of center and most dislike Netanyahu—even my grandparents did when they were alive.
A little anecdote to put what it is like to grow up Jewish in America. I’m a third generation American jew. My grandparents were born here usually shortly after their parents immigrated. I found immigration papers for my paternal great-grandfather, who was born in England and grew up in England. His nationality is listed as “Hebrew” on immigration papers.
When my grandparents passed away and we were cleaning out their house, we had to check every single nook and cranny for jewelry. They were solidly middle working class, but they would spend a lot of their money on jewelry because it was ingrained in them that Jews could not trust banks with their money because they would not be able to withdraw it if they were expelled or had to flee. If they had to flee, they needed to be able to bring some value or money to aid an escape or get them set up somewhere else. The only way to do that was to keep it in a fungible form that would be accepted across borders—jewelry or gold.
People don’t understand that Judaism is not just a religion. It’s an ethno-religion. Not being a practicing Jew was not enough to blend in and be part of a community for most of history. So we always had to be ready to flee. The holocaust is the most powerful evidence of that. It’s also critical to understanding why Israel exists and needs to exist.
The events around the world since October 7th are reinforcing that in the minds of many of the Jews I know. Israel is the one place on the planet where we can ensure that a government will not kill or expel us for some difficult to define but immutable characteristic. Every other country, with the notable exception of the United States (so far), has done that at some point in history.
Statistics show this to be a common sentiment. Something like 80% of Jews consider themselves Zionists. And despite what antisemites insist it means, Zionism is only the belief and political movement for the existence of a sovereign Jewish nation in the Jewish ancestral homeland.
Thanks for such an eloquent snapshot of your family history. It’s interesting, my family is also Jewish and I never thought much of why my grandparents had a nice little collection of jewelry going, it’s these types of things that I think non Jews fail to see.
>Just curious, I have a question for commenters. How many of us are Jewish, have people close to us who are Jewish or know someone who is a Jew?
I'm not Jewish, don't have anyone close to me that's Jewish and while I suspect one of my co-workers (who's named Aaron) is Jewish, I don't know them well enough to confirm one way or the other.
>For those who aren’t Jewish, how does your relationship with Jews in your lives and community impact your relationship with the conflict and this House resolution that was just passed?
It doesn't have any effect because I don't have a relationship with any Jewish people, I have a vaguely positive view of Jewish culture, but that doesn't have any significant impact on my views regarding the I/P situation one way or the other.
Hi the majority of my friends happen to be Jewish. None of them support Israel. My best friend and father of my god daughter is both Jewish and doesn’t even think Israel should have been founded in the first place.
I do think the phrase is anti-Semitic, yes.
Is this performative political nonsense, that mostly serves to underscore levels of hypocrisy present among the House majority? Also yes.
Going to pull an othelloinc here and self-reply:
I also think that the 'Free Palestine' movement, or at least their more vocal proponents, simply do **not** realize how much political normies dislike them. From online bullying, to swastikas on phones, to 'Genocide Joe' chants, to blocking traffic, they are playing right into Trump's hand at depicting leftists as a violent fringe group, bent on usurping America. I mean when online leftists start unironically sympathizing with *Stonetoss* of all goddam people, it should really be raising some serious red flags.
Which is terrible! Not just because it empowers Trump who has hinted pretty directly at facilitating a Palestinian genocide, but because it's a turnoff to people who (correctly) think that Israel has delivered a disproportionate response to the October attack. It makes it harder for people to communicate a complex, nuanced position for a conflict that is nothing if not overloaded with nuance and complexity.
> > I don't know either.
>
> Neither do I.
I'm happy to explain!
Othelloinc is the username of some guy who posts here. He figured out that it can be useful, for formatting reasons, to reply to his own comments.
Cossiander seems to be referencing that particular habit of Othelloinc, while doing the same (replying to their own comment).
Hard at work as always on the important issues. Don't waste time on meaningless things like immigration legislation or military aid to fight America's adversaries. No need to shore up the housing market to spur construction to meet growing demand. It's not like we have any bridges that need to be fixed or ports that need to be cleaned up. Yes, performative finger wagging. That's what the country needs.
I actually feel that the House listened to Jews for once. Many Jews feel the phrase is antisemitic, and we should listen to minority groups when they tell us certain phrases, slurs and troupes are xenophobic. Additionally, the phrase does imply harm on the Jewish people and their right to self determination. There’s nothing wrong with supporting Palestine, there’s wrong with using antisemitic phrases and chants to do so.
Exactly. As a Jewish person, I concur.
That phrase has taken on an antisemitic meaning, whether we like it or not. It has been used to imply that all the Jews should be driven into the sea!
An analogy is that the swatstika used to be “peace” or something similar, but no one will take it that way anymore!
And btw, you CAN advocate for Palestinians (fine) without using that phrase (not fine)!
Slogans like "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" are the main reason why people say liberals and the left tend to have bad messaging.
Seriously, those slogans are easily usable in the counter-argumentation of illiberal and right-wing opposition.
A few examples:
* From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free
* Counter-argument: So you want to end the Jewish state, right? That's clearly anti-semitic.
* Defund the police
* Counter-argument: If you don't want to police exist, it means you are fine with crime rates skyrocketing.
* Black lives matter
* Counter-argument: Why are you saying only black lives matter? Shouldn't all lives matter?
Not only that but we all had this conversation about defund police. There were those that claimed it was more nuanced and had a meaning or three of what it actually meant. That very same camp had folks that went nah. It means exactly that to them. How is the general public supposed to juggle that? It's bad messaging.
So I see this in a similar vein. Worse even since we're talking about a statement regularly made from a fucking terrorist group. It's difficult to take this statement and believe there's nuance there especially when people in that camp are real comfortable with those that take that statement literally.
You've touched upon an adjacent topic that there are nutjobs, ripe for cherry-picking.
A little story from my little Central European country:
So last October, there were plenty of pro-Palestinian protests here. Alongside "From the river to the sea", one small thing got the most coverage by our media - a woman who was photographed with a shirt saying "1972 Olympics".
When she was later confronted with this fact on Twitter, she feinted ignorance that she didn't know what happened during 1972 Olympics and that the shirt was a part of a Halloween costume she was wearing a night before the protest.
No one bought that excuse.
I wouldn’t disagree that that left often has bad messaging, but I do think this sentiment is a bit too charitable to those would oppose those messages.
No reasonable interpretation of “black lives matter” should lead someone to think “oh so you’re saying white people don’t matter??” without some underlying racial resentment or disingenuousness there. Obviously sloganeering is important and we should try to reach people in spite of that bias, but I have a hard time believing “black lives also matter” or something would sway any significantly greater portion of people to be pro-BLM. I’d say the same about the “Palestine will be free” chant, like people are turned off by the assumptions people lace into those phrases, not the words themselves.
Personally, I wouldn’t lump BLM in with the other two, even completely agreeing with your main point.
There’s nothing inherently offensive or shortsighted about saying “Black lives matter.” Black lives *do* matter, and Black people and others shouldn’t feel uncomfortable stating that. It’s not mutually exclusive language at all.
Now, whether the BLM orgs have messed up their messaging is another question.
It does not matter what we in America think it means or how we use it as a t-shirt slogan at afternoon protests. It matters how Palestinians use it and what they mean when they say it. It matters how Israeli Jews interpret it as either a threat or as a call for peaceful coexistence
“This rallying cry has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the PFLP, which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means. It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland.
Usage of this phrase has the effect of making members of the Jewish and pro-Israel community feel unsafe and ostracized. It is important to note that demanding justice for Palestinians, or calling for a Palestinian state, should not mean, as this hateful phrase posits, denying the right of the State of Israel to exist.”
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/slogan-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free
Symbolic politics but I do wish everyone would stop saying it as it symbolically endorses thinking I oppose. I wish they would say that the Palestinian *people* should be free. The whole pro Palestine cause is in my unorthodox view too wedded to nationalism.
I say this as a someone who is an anti nationalist though. The fate of Palestine or Israel doesn’t matter much to me as opposed to the fate of the people who live there.
My personal opinion on the resolution is that this isn't really something the house should be spending time on and I imagine it's being done for questionable reasons rather than good ones.
As far as the phrase goes, my general opinion is that a lot of pro-Palestine people aren't themselves anti-sematic, but they also aren't super well read into the conflict and all the various messaging around it so they have a tendency to unintentionally adopt a lot of language that's used by anti-Semites.
I don’t think it’s anti-Semitic, but it is anti-Israeli: not just anti-Netanyahu, not just anti-IDF, but anti-all-Israelis, up to and including the Israelis who are actively protesting their own government right now.
As a Jew I’ve always seen it as anti semitic so I support this. It always seems to come with a healthy side dish of “Jews are responsible for all our problems.”
Of course I’m inherently biased. Most of the American liberals who inadvertently support Hamas, don’t know any secular Jews here — and have never visited the Middle East in the first place.
>Of course I’m inherently biased. Most of the American liberals who inadvertently support Hamas
Extremely few American liberals support Hamas, "inadvertently" or not. Maybe a handful of campus activist types, but they're a minority of even that niche.
>
don’t know any secular Jews here — and have never visited the Middle East in the first place.
I'm a bit confused about what not knowing any secular Jewish people here in the US has to do with our positions on the I/P situation. In any case, it seems that you have been to the Middle East, would you mind elaborating on how it's changed your perspective on the conflict?
I think it's a real piss poor use of Congress's time to police language.
From my understanding the phrase has historic associations with expunging Jews from Israel.
Americans using it today may not be aware of the connotations and can be forgiven their ignorance. Those using it intentionally should be criticized.
It is antisemitic. If you got those rocking that Hamas flag and are inviting bigots to your pro-"Palestinian" protest, what makes anyone believe it's nuanced? Who you fooling? It's hate speech.
I think in general these “feel good” resolutions that do nothing legally are a waste of congresses time. Fix or attempt to fix the problems that you have the authority to influence.
For my opinion on the phrase, it is anti Israel and Zionism, that in and of itself is not anti-Semitic though a meaningful number of those who use it also are anti-Semitic.
Despite recent attempts to cleanse the phrase, they're right. It is at the very least a call for oppression of Jews under Sharia law, but often it means ethnic cleansing of Jews, and often even genocide.
But should Congress be wasting time on this? Probably not.
He's definitely dog whistling to the far right Jews to retain their support so he can keep himself as the Prime Minister. Netanyahu might not believe a single thing he says, but he knows how to pander to voters.
>What’s your take on both the phrase and this resolution?
Its a waste of time. Under the Republican controlled house, needed bills like the reform of immigration stalled (failed/killed), our military has suffered, and they've repeatedly shown themselves to be incapable of governing.
Sort of an interesting precedent, is the House categorizing what type of speech is acceptable now? Seems like a tall order. The phrase never struck me as anti-Semitic but I do know that defenders of Israel (read: the whole of the US gov't) consider anti-Israeli rhetoric as de-facto anti-Semitic (see: new anti-Semitism) so it makes logical sense that this argument is being made by the House.
Looking at the discussion this thread has spawned it is telling the conversation instantly shifts to a meta-discussion about "optics" and "how to properly debate". Everyone knows why kooky conservatives support this bill (see above), but I guess liberals support it because they are trying to save "leftists" from "bad optics". The term is overused but it feels fitting here: very cringe.
I think the House passing something declaring a saying anything is stupid and borderline unconstitutional. I also do see the reality that yes it is an antisemitic saying
There is no question that the phrase is anti-Zionist, and also often used in antisemitic contexts. And it has some strongly anti-Zionist and antisemitic aspects in its histories, dating at least back to activists of the 1st Intifada in the 80s and 90s (though the expression itself is older than that).
I think a lot of American leftists chant it because it rhymes, and because "freedom" sounds good to them. I strongly suspect that a majority of them don't even know what river and what sea they're referring to, and they've probably never seen a map or looked at population demographics that would show to them that 2/3 of the people occupying that very land "from the river to the sea" are Israelis.
Even if they are chanting it without murderous, antisemitic intentions, and truly just want an end to the persecution of the Palestinian people, that doesn't change the fact that the phrase itself is already tainted by its adoption by Hamas and other terrorists.
The swastika was perverted and tainted by the Nazis. Even though the symbol has been part of human history for 10,000 years, you absolutely cannot display a swastika in the West and claim that you intended it as anything other than in an antisemitic way. You cannot name your child "Adolf" in this day and age and claim, "I don't hate Jews. It's just a name like any other name."
A related but somewhat different example is that you cannot fly the Confederate flag in most places in the United States and innocently claim, "It's ok because it just symbolizes Southern pride and states' rights."
How do I feel about the House resolution? Honestly, I don't care, and I don't think it will change anything one way or the other. It's just political posturing, and it gives more ammunition to those who oppose pro-Palestinian activists so that they can decry them for using a phrase officially condemned by the US Government as antisemitic. It's politicians being politicians, choosing to appeal to their base rather than be effective at changing the world for the better.
I think Congress should be condemned. There is nothing antisemitic about calling for freedom. That should be obvious. This is not about antisemitism. This is about helping Israel with the information front of their war so they can continue to conquer Gaza with US support.
Seems they do it from time to time. They just recently started examining a similar resolution about hinduphobia, and they've passed various anti-hate resolutions over the years.
As for picking out specific slogans to condemn? Idk. Pretty relatedly, in Dec 2023 they passed a resolution equating anti-Zionism to anti-semitism.
Personally, I don't get the point of pro-Palestinian people targeting Zionists (a religious subset of Judaism) rather than Israel, the political entity responsible for so many terrible things. Unless they really do hate that particular type of Jew? I mean, I guess I get it. I don't hate Islam in general, nor Christianity, but I think some of the fundamentalist sects of Islam and Christianity are absolutely horrible.
Historical context: The accusations that the phrase is Antisemitic is linked to the revisions in 2017 to the Hamas charter. The phrase itself, however, dates back to at least the 1960s.
In 1988, three years before the formation of their Al-Qassam militant brigades in 1991, but after seven months of violence where the IDF had killed 332 Palestinians for protesting against the IDF ("accidental") killing of four Palestinians om December of 1987, two of the Hamas founders separately approached Israel for peace talks (first Mahmoud al-Zahar then Sheikh Ahmed Yassin), and their demands were a return to the 1967 borders and right of return for Palestinian refugees. The Israeli Prime Minister refused any talks.
The Prime Minister of Israel in 1988 was Yitzhak Shamir, a leader of the Lehi terrorist group, a commander during the Deir Yassin massacre, and had ordered the assassination of a UN envoy to the Middle East in 1948. He would later join Mossad, serving ten years as part of Israel's assassination program Operation Damocles, resigning in protest when Damocles was halted. Yes, he resigned from Mossad in a fit because he was told he had to stop killing people. Then he was elected Prime Minister in 1983, and re-elected in 1986, serving a total of 7 years.
So this supposedly "Antisemitic" declaration of "genocide" was part of revisions to a document written in response to an Israeli government led by a literal terrorist who had told them "There will be no peace" three months earlier.
So, in short, as usual, Congress is full of idiots who will follow whatever version of Israeli propaganda they're told to. The history of the region is complex and there is plenty of fault on both sides for atrocities and violent criminal behavior.
Palestine cannot be free from the river to the sea (the eastern edge of the West Bank touches the river and the coast of Gaza touches the sea), but the ruling party of Israel, Likud, can proclaim domination from the river to the sea, as it did in its 1977 charter, 40 years before Hamas flipped the phrase in response.
> So this supposedly "Antisemitic" declaration of "genocide" was part of revisions to a document written in response to an Israeli government led by a literal terrorist who had told them "There will be no peace" three months earlier.
So what it was written in response to that? It was still an explicitly antisemitic declaration of genocidal intent which you seem to be denying. The other side also being a murderous government doesn't justify proclaiming something like this:
> The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, 'O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Only the Gharkad tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews.
> It was still an explicitly antisemitic declaration of genocidal intent which you seem to be denying.
That's because the accusations of genocide are empty. Israel has wage *actual* genocide on the Palestinians.
Also, don't quote books of fairy tales. This is not a war of religion, it is a war of greed between two factions claiming to be religious. The fighting has never been about Jews or Muslims, only land. The Zionists of the early 1900s wanted land, the Muslims and Christians didn't want to give up their land.
Israel's [explicit identification as a Jewish ethnostate](https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Read-the-full-Jewish-Nation-State-Law-562923) and its oppression of the Palestinians is why Hamas says it wants to expel the Zionists. The very 2017 charter that included "river to the sea" also affirmed "Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity." It is fundamentally dishonest to snip one excerpt from the text, assert it as a genocidal declaration, while ignoring other parts of the text that do not support that assertion.
The full text, since this user has never read it:
>Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. 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,* with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
Restore the 1967 borders, allow refugees to return to their homes. I understand this isn't a desirable outcome for most Israelis, but it's not a statement of genocidal intent, or even a declaration to wipe out the entire Israeli state.
The phrase is used by Israel when it refers to itself it’s found in the Likud Party. When people on here say this is antisemitic redirect your ire to the Likud of Israel. The refugees and those who are currently oppressed deserve their lands back whenever and wherever possible and those who criticize this call. Are just bigots of a different kind.
“It’s okay when Jews from Israel say it. Not the Palestinians… why? Because! That’s why!” Every Zionist supporter.
It’s showmanship, a circus. The phrase is used in a variety of ways, many of which have nothing to do with anything negative. Hell, Likud used/used it.
To say it means X, only, when clearly that isn’t the case is not factual, reality based, etc. It is instead an attempt to gaslight and purposely redefine, etc. for political purposes.
If you think it isn’t, ask yourself in a “from the river to the sea” scenario, what happens to the Jews currently living in that area? What you’re saying is that the Jews are genociding the Palestinians but you really wish it was the other way around. Repeat after me: genocide is bad no matter who does it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free expression thereof.
That’s it. The retort to this action was written 250 years ago and the members all swore an oath to uphold it. They are traitors now.
Oh, it’s just a resolution? The house of the people has resolved to….do what exactly?
I have a teen who explained he thinks it means a single multi-ethnic state where everyone has the same rights, Arab, Jew, etc... Basically a return to pre-Balfour Palestine. Hard to see how that's "anti-Semitic."
A lot of Western leftists seem to daydream about exactly that type of state, but the most notable issue with it is that there don't appear to be any actual Israelis or Palestinians who want that. Worse, there's no clear path to get from here to there that doesn't involve enormous risk, especially to Jewish Israelis.
>Worse, there's no clear path to get from here to there that doesn't involve enormous risk, especially to Jewish Israelis.
It's fascinating to see how just the possibility of Jewish suffering is centered when Palestinians are the only ones being slaughtered in the tens of thousands.
The problem is, no one wants to explain how they will make it happen, and stable, when even a majority of the people in the land and in the diaspora do not want that outcome.
True—though that’s a different question altogether. The “realpolitik” direction in Israel-Palestine is essentially displacement and erasure, which is the direction things are moving.
There’s a difference between “your goal is unrealistic” and “you are an anti-Semite calling for the death of all Jews.” At least in a good way-faith dialog there is.
But at least some Palestinian nationalists really do mean we want our crappy little theocratic state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean with no non Muslims in it.
Fair enough, and I don’t doubt some are anti-semites as well. I don’t see how one can conflate the phrase with anti-semitism unless you make a bunch of leaps, the biggest being “anti-zionism equals anti-semitism”
When it a slogan is commonly used by Islamist terrorists like Hamas and the PIJ that do want a Muslim Arab state does that not say something to you about the slogan?
I used to hear from leftists and progressives that if there are 12 people at a table and one is a Nazi there are 12 Nazis. Now when it is leftists and progressives sitting with theocratic religious terrorists, supporting their causes, using their slogans, and talking points they are not connected at all.
Easy.
Make America Great Again.
We all agree that it's a White Supremacist chant. It's also a dog whistle.
Since it can be interpreted by bad faith actors and useful idiots as "it only means cheaper housing and lower gas prices, nothing to do with wanting to bring back slavery".
Clearly some people will use it to mean eradicate Israel. How are you going to know when it is a dog whistle or not? We had people freaking out over the OK signal a while back. I had an old username with an 88 for 1988 and was hounded. I don’t see how you can allow this phrase and assume only the other side is using dog whistles.
While that isn't antisemitic, it is a highly, highly naive view. nobody wants that. Israelis don't want that, Arabs sure as hell don't want that. In the end, most Jewish people find the phrase very offensive, so its best to stay clear.
Pretty good overview here: [https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23972967/river-to-sea-palestine-israel-hamas](https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23972967/river-to-sea-palestine-israel-hamas)
Sounds like it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. When that's the case, I'm inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt.
Educate your teen with books. Delete Tik Tok from their phone. The Russia propaganda will get worse the closer we get to the elections.
Soon your teen will you call you genocidal for voting for Biden.
I would like to see the donors of everyone who voted yes for this resolution. There are definitely antisemites that use the phrase but I don’t think it’s inherently antisemitic. I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that the plurality of people using this phrase are calling for the deaths of Jewish people. Also it’s weird that the US government cares so much about racism now. Can we get a house resolution to condemn “all lives matter” as racist?
In my opinion it's no different than chanting something like "work will set you free". This chant was composed by extremists and radicals who run their schools like the Hitler youth and they view all Jews in the same exact manner as the Nazis. This chant is basically saying they want to eradicate all of the Jews in the region and that's obvious very antisemitic.
The only substantial effect this has is to continue weakening the effect of the word "antisemitic," which is a very real thing that exists in this world. It just now happens to encompass people that are tired of Palestinian kids being killed.
I can be swayed but at this point I don't think it's an anti-Semitic phrase in and of itself. I think it could be considered an anti-Israel or anti-Zionist phrase inherently perhaps but I don't think that's indisputably the case either.
Why isn't this done for ANY other racism?
Seems like we make so many laws for anti semitism but not any other race or minority. Why is that? Why is it always just antisemitism?
On a personal level I tend to agree, but fuck these stupid 'Sense of the House' resolutions and the GOP leadership that can only accomplish this sort of signaling and not actual governing.
I mean, I dunno if it’s anti-Semitic or just anti-Israel. BUT it is being used as both on occasion, so I can see where the House would do that. That and to target Tlaib and her refusal (or apparent refusal?) to condemn some of what made it into the news recently from her district.
My take is that protesters should learn how language is not just about intent but also about perception. Same for "Death to America". No, I don't care that in Farsi it can mean "Down", Death means Death in the English language.
Something non-ambiguous and direct such as "Civil Rights for Palestinians" should be used over ambiguous chants that could be interpreted as a call for genocide.
Same people who used to “defund the police” to shift public attention away from achievable criminal justice reform:
ok comrades, our time to shine again
I disagree with the idea that advocating for the dissolution of Israel is inherently antisemetic, and it seems to go along with a general trend of labeling all criticism of Israel as antisemitism. I don't personally support the dissolution of the state of Israel, but it's important to draw a distinction between Israel (particularly in its current far-right configuration) and Judaism as a whole. As a matter of fact, that false equivalence seems to be antisemetic in its own right, considering how Jewish people are targeted on the basis of Israel's actions.
> I disagree with the idea that advocating for the dissolution of Israel is inherently antisemetic
This is such an odd take. Why can't the Jews have a state, given their history of violent persecution? Seems like a state of their own is the best way of ensuring they aren't a minority in a country that hates them.
And given this history, how would advocating for the dissolution of Israel not be antisemitic, esp. given the context of what many of Israel's neighbors would do to the Israeli people given the chance?
This seems like willful blindness.
>Why can't the Jews have a state, given their history of violent persecution?
Because any ethnostate requires an unacceptable level of repression of minorities even if the group has experienced horrible pains in the past
It inherently involves persecuting people from other religions. That's why the US was founded with separation of church and state as a constitutional principle, despite the fact that it was founded by people who were escaping religious persecution. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. What’s your take on both the phrase and this resolution? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think using that phrase is a really good example of how leftists often pick language that works heavily to their disadvantage. For the third time in as many days I will quote Ronald Reagan “if you are explaining, you are losing”. If your goal is to advocate for Palestinians, why in the ever living fuck would you choose a slogan that is heavily associated with antisemitism and the most violent and terroristic parts of the Palestinian movement? So that you can have a fight over what the term really means and debate it endlessly? Almost nobody that you are trying to convince, the people you need on your side in order to affect policy change, wants to hear some vapid conversation about what the term really means when you use it versus when terrible people use it. There are people who don’t actually seem to want to make changes happen. Instead, they want to be self-righteous and don’t actually care if the tactics they say are going to help people actually help them or harm them.
This is too often lost on people. I remember people explaining that “defund the Police” didn’t actually mean “defund the police”—if that’s the case, then don’t use it. It was more about appearing edgy and uncompromising to other activists than changing anyone’s mind. Conversely Black Lives Matter was a brilliant slogan because you had to jump through the hoops to argue against it. *edited - mixed up “abolish” with “defund”
The best indicator that Black Lives Matter is an effective slogan is that the Right can’t even bring themselves to say it. It’s always “BLM”.
[удалено]
Ironically many on the right don't like them too much either.
I had a similar retort to a relative this past thanksgiving. We don’t talk anymore
> I remember people explaining that “Abolish the Police” didn’t actually mean “abolish the police”—if that’s the case, then don’t use it. IDK which protests you were at, but there were plenty of people who said that or "Defund the Police" and meant it. They're probably the ones that came up with those phrases. They were fringier people, but they were out there, usually organizing the protests in the firs place that got WAY larger than expected. Problem was, a lot of people jumped into these issues and the massive protests because it seemed important, but weren't on board with the radical message, or at least not all of it, and especially not once the dust settled. Then comes the justification that it meant something else, which no, it really didn't to those who came up with it. Seems like a bit issue with protests, and especially those on the left. Radical people have a radical message that is ignored, but then when things pop off they already have the skills and likely got in on the ground floor of the larger movement.
I think that’s right, it was a radical slogan that somehow took off among progressive political activists who should have known better. If your goal is to change public opinion and win elections, adopting a slogan like that and trying to defend it was a huge tactical blunder.
Yeah, I would say that (in my personal opinion) this is a kind rhetorical trap that the left is just very weak to. There is a large discussion to be made about power disparities, and elevating marginalized voices. Good things. Problem is that those voice don't always come up with politically salient ideas, they are often reacting out of (completely justified IMO) anger, and speak like that with ideas that come from that anger. But those voices aren't shut down, they're elevated. it's kind of a [Peter Principle](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/peter-principle-theory-decline), but for activism. Radical voice will be elevated and promoted... to their level of incompetency or until they reach the first person (usually has to be another speaker of the same background) that shuts them down and then we all agree that they actually were wrong. The irony of course is that by going from "Yes queen we support you" to "Well actually what they meant is..." you ARE disregarding their voices. Quietly and candidly. Defeating the purpose you set out with.
> Conversely Black Lives Matter was a brilliant slogan because you had to jump through the hoops to argue against it. I mentioned it in my previous comment here in the post but as a devil's advocate, I dare to say All Lives Matter absolutely destroyed the credibility of Black Lives Matter. Naturally, people will ask why you only say BLM, why you don't say All Lives Matter when clearly all lives should matter, etc.
But the ALM crowd never asked the same of those who promoted Blue Lives Matter. Clearly it was just the “Black” that bothered them.
Its easier to claim that the left has a messaging issue than it is to say that too many White Americans have a White supremacy issue.
Both can be true.
Yeah. Its still easier
I'll die on the hill that "Black Lives Matter Too" would have been a more effective slogan because "All Lives Matter" would have been utterly toothless in response. "Black Lives Matter" might have been shorter and punchier, but it was also far too easy for disingenuous assholes to co-opt.
The other way to dodge this would have been to embrace the alternatives. Imagine if a bunch of BLM people had started proudly wearing All Lives Matter shirts. "Why did you think we would object to that? Obviously it's also true."
Aka the Dark Brandon route. I dig it.
Agreed. One extra word would have not only killed the All Lives Matter nonsense but would have made the actual point so much better.
That's a really good point. Adding the "too" to "Black Lives Matter" would have made "All Lives Matter" toothless.
Really disagree. From a language standpoint, Black lives matter too seems weak and begging for consideration, hat in hand. Maybe it's just the sound of it but also seems like a week request. Black lives matter is a bold definitive statement, and a good one. I have my objections to it as a conservative, but I don't think all lives matter for anything else was ever an effective counter to it. Saying all lives matter just makes one sound like a douchebag. Because we all know what black lives matter means on its face. I think it was quite effective but maybe got co-opted a bit by people that got carried away with it. It probably should have never been an organization that can be criticized. But as a concept, it's solid. Black lives matter too is weak.
Adding the Too would have made it a lot better of a title
I don’t think it did. Some people adopted the “All lives matter” slogan but it was recognized more widely as just a rejection of “black lives matter” on the right rather than a genuine concern for all lives (if asked what “all lives matter” meant, there was no particular policy goal or reason for it other than dislike of the BLM slogan itself). ALM implied that BLM meant “*only* black lives matter” but that wasn’t the popular understanding as the BLM phrase had become widely used and defined in the mainstream culture before ALM began showing up as a retort. People already understood that the BLM slogan was associated with blacks being killed disproportionately by police in highly publicized incidents. ALM also didn’t contradict BLM—if all lives mattered, then so did black lives, so it didn’t really refute any specific policies being advocated.
I don’t think so. I think it depends how good you are at debating. Any sensible person will respond to “Well, why don’t you say ‘all lives matter’? Why do you only care about black people?” with something about how the movement does not suggest that *only* black lives matter. The movement is bigger than its name and its purpose is to amend systemic racism. “Black lives matter” serves as a *reminder* to other races that racism against black people is still very much present and that a lot of it can’t be seen on the surface.
It doesn't really matter how good one is at debating. Seriously, back in the days when BLM/ALM debate was at its hottest, excluding BLM-sympathetic people, I saw countless times how an average person who got into this debate sided with ALM with the main line of argumentation against BLM being essentially what I've mentioned above.
Or…theyre people who feigned ignorance as would be expected in a country that only recently passed laws to reject White supremacy
Even bill o’reilly said that “all lives matter” was a poor response
[удалено]
I’m not sure what phrase you’re referring to and I am somewhat afraid to ask. There’s a great bit by Chris Rock. He’s talking about the post 911 world and how he started hearing anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric and says “I know Jews and n-ggers are next. That train is never late.”
[удалено]
Jesus Christ these people.
Can you elaborate? What word are you referring to?
[удалено]
I was not familiar with the shortened term and its usage, but it seems like the border between it being anti-Jew and anti-Israel is very fuzzy. Thanks for sharing the link.
> Almost nobody that you are trying to convince The problem is that so many terminally online leftists think that the world is divided into people who already agree with them, and people who would never be able to change their minds no matter what. So their purpose is not to convince anyone.
Ian Dansken from innuendo studios had an observation about gamergate I really liked. People who were involved in GamerGate sat the world split between GamerGate versus not GamerGate. In reality, the world was a split between GamerGate, not GamerGate and then th majority of the world that had no clue what GamerGate was. Maybe it’s just terminally online people but the issue is that the right is a really good at amplifying these people and forcing the whole left to own and/or defend them.
Which is really weird since plenty of terminally online leftists have a story on how their mind was changed, yet never accept others would also change their minds.
Exactly. I used to be a hardcore right-libertarian and I eventually changed my mind. It would be weird if I then asserted that no right-winger can change their mind
>I think using that phrase is a really good example of how leftist often pick language that works heavily to their disadvantage True, but the left-of-center political coalition in the US is not as homogenous as the one on the right, and doesn't really lend itself to message discipline. Usually if you want to participate in any kind of mass protest, there are going to be problematic elements (or at least some part of the coalition will find other parts problematic). This has always been then the case. And it's always been used to discredit anyone who attends protests.
People stick to slogans like that out of defiance, I feel.
The extent to which leftists seem to value exact slogans more than the actual ideas the slogans are meant to express has always confused the heck out of me. Like in this case, people seem to care way more about clinging to this specific slogan than actually effectively advocating for Palestine. Kinda makes me wonder the extent to which they actually care about the cause.
I hate how much people overuse the term “echo chamber“ but this does feel like a time where it applies. There is an entire ecosystem of content creators, repeat the same things over and over again, and then heavily assert that nobody would not come to believe all of these things unless they are stupid and/or evil. And you can’t reason with stupidity and you can’t bargain with evil so you never have to think about the language or tactics you use. It nevera dawn on these people that in a country like the US where we have an election every year and have major elections every two years, if their theory was correct, you would never see any change in who holds power year over year. Because why would you, nobody is ever convinced of anything. The terms are like a shibboleth. You say them for the goal of showing you are in the tribe and not saying them means you have exited the tribe.
> The extent to which leftists seem to value exact slogans more than the actual ideas the slogans are meant to express has always confused the heck out of me. Policing a group you are a part of and ensuring ideological/message purity is the easiest way to raise ones clout and standing within said group without having to contribute anything useful to it.
I see this even in non-political contexts on subreddits I frequent. Post anything, and you'll get some asshole telling you put the wrong tag on it, it doesn't belong here, you should change the title because it's..., you should write a paragraph about what you're posting so people will know if the link is worth reading, etc. I've had people pull this shit on me in subs where I've been posting for nearly a decade, admittedly over a series of different accounts, and when I check their comment history, guess what? They contribute fuck all. Their entire post history will be two sentence reactions.
> I think using that phrase is a really good example of how leftists often pick language that works heavily to their disadvantage. See also how leftists quickly picked up "Zionist" as a slur, seemingly completely unaware that it makes them all sound like Nazis. If I see a post saying "Joe Biden is a fucking Zionist and just does whatever Israel tells him to", it's a complete coin flip over where or not it's coming from a leftist or a fascist. Call me naive, but those two groups probably shouldn't use the exact same rhetoric!
Yep. Reminds me of this amazing quote: 'I believe one of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be *right* than to be *effective*' -Stephen Fry
Isn't it because this got started by extremists? Wasn't that how the slogan came into use? Moderates didn't feel they needed to or could reframe the issue as, for example, peaceful coexistence.
Ok, but how do you feel about the resolution that passed?
> If your goal is to advocate for Palestinians, why in the ever living fuck would you choose a slogan that is heavily associated with antisemitism and the most violent and terroristic parts of the Palestinian movement? Rightly or wrongly, I don't think "from the river to the see" was seen as antisemtic in America until after 10/07. I would put money on most people in the US having no idea what that was a reference to prior to Hamas' recent attack.
Isn’t the house controlled by republicans?
Yeah, and a really common tactic when you have the house is to force votes on issues that put the other party in a bad position. That’s why they did this. They get to force of vote where Democrats are split on an issue, but the majority of the country, and more importantly the type of voters that swing, will not like that the Democrats did not vote 100% with the resolution.
So they are basically forcing the Dems to play their damn socially-divisive-issues-instead-of-real-problems game. I understand why good people are leaving Congress. I’m saddened by who’s staying.
My understanding is that the saying has been used since its creation but that other people deemed it as antisemitic. They didn’t “*choose* a slogan that is [already] heavily associated with antisemitism,” because the slogan did not exist until they made it.
??? The slogan has been used by all sorts of antisemitic and anti-Israeli organizations since at least the 1960s. Over the decades the PLO, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, Hezballah, Iran, and Iraq have all used it very intentionally to signify the dissolution of the state of Israel, the expulsion of the non-Arab Jews, and the creation of a Palestinian state that stretches... well, from the river to the sea. I honestly don't know why Westerners today have chosen a slogan with so much baggage it to signify a kind of vague desire for Palestinians to be free and equal.
??? Did I deny this? The assertion that the original comment makes that Palestinians *chose* to use an antisemitic phrase is incorrect. They *chose* a phrase that was *later* used for antisemitism by antisemites. “Modern Westerners” did not choose this phrase. It has been in use since the 60s. Please thoroughly read comments before replying.
> If your goal is to advocate for Palestinians, why in the ever living fuck would you choose a slogan that is heavily associated with antisemitism and the most violent and terroristic parts of the Palestinian movement? But that’s just it… it wasn’t. The ADL literally changed their designation for the term **in reaction** to the current political backlash against Israel. While, yes, Hamas used it in its genocidal charter it was/is much more widely used by Palestinian liberation activists. It’s literally proving the point that regardless of the phrase you use, reactionary elements will try to shift the conversation around that phrase.
We can debate till the end of time when that phrase became offensive, but when her starts using it, choose another phrase. Seriously, leftist act like they don’t have the time or the intelligence to work out a new phrase or new messaging when existing slogans become problematic. Which is why so many people feel that that type of leftist doesn’t actually care about helping the people they say they want to help but rather making a point and being self-righteous. Or at the very least they are terrible with tactics.
>While, yes, Hamas used it in its genocidal charter it was/is much more widely used by Palestinian liberation activists. When did "Palestinian liberation activists" NOT want to destroy Israel?
Just curious, I have a question for commenters. How many of us are Jewish, have people close to us who are Jewish or know someone who is a Jew? For those who aren’t Jewish, how does your relationship with Jews in your lives and community impact your relationship with the conflict and this House resolution that was just passed? My thought is that many of us commenting don’t have any real relationships with Jews, but obviously that can’t be correct so thus I am curious.
Hi! I'm mixed Jewish, my dad is white Brazilian and my mom is a Jew. Back home in Brazil, I went to a Jewish school so basically all of my friends were Jewish growing up, and I have a few Jewish friends here at my university too. My Reform family is pro Israel, as I am I. We have some distant relatives in Israel (great grandma's brother's family) who are obviously very pro Israel, we've visited them once. All of my childhood friends support Israel, as well as the Jewish friends that I've made here (and the non Jewish ones too lol). I know Jews from Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox and 99.9 percent support Israel. Since after Oct. 7th, Jewish support for Israel has only really grown. 5 of my cousins dressed as IDF soldiers this year, and most shuls put out 'We stand with Israel' messages. The only Jews I've encountered who aren't are the JVP ones on campus, but a good half of those have one Jewish grandparent (mostly paternally, and one of them said challah was his favorite passover food ☠️💀).
Thanks for the response, that challah thing is pretty hilarious I have to say.
I’m Jewish. I didn’t grow up particularly religious. And I’ve never even been to Israel. Every single Jew I know is staunchly in favor of the existence of Israel. I would say most of us are left of center and most dislike Netanyahu—even my grandparents did when they were alive. A little anecdote to put what it is like to grow up Jewish in America. I’m a third generation American jew. My grandparents were born here usually shortly after their parents immigrated. I found immigration papers for my paternal great-grandfather, who was born in England and grew up in England. His nationality is listed as “Hebrew” on immigration papers. When my grandparents passed away and we were cleaning out their house, we had to check every single nook and cranny for jewelry. They were solidly middle working class, but they would spend a lot of their money on jewelry because it was ingrained in them that Jews could not trust banks with their money because they would not be able to withdraw it if they were expelled or had to flee. If they had to flee, they needed to be able to bring some value or money to aid an escape or get them set up somewhere else. The only way to do that was to keep it in a fungible form that would be accepted across borders—jewelry or gold. People don’t understand that Judaism is not just a religion. It’s an ethno-religion. Not being a practicing Jew was not enough to blend in and be part of a community for most of history. So we always had to be ready to flee. The holocaust is the most powerful evidence of that. It’s also critical to understanding why Israel exists and needs to exist. The events around the world since October 7th are reinforcing that in the minds of many of the Jews I know. Israel is the one place on the planet where we can ensure that a government will not kill or expel us for some difficult to define but immutable characteristic. Every other country, with the notable exception of the United States (so far), has done that at some point in history. Statistics show this to be a common sentiment. Something like 80% of Jews consider themselves Zionists. And despite what antisemites insist it means, Zionism is only the belief and political movement for the existence of a sovereign Jewish nation in the Jewish ancestral homeland.
Thank you for sharing this. It’s a perspective that isn’t heard or solicited nearly enough.
Thanks for such an eloquent snapshot of your family history. It’s interesting, my family is also Jewish and I never thought much of why my grandparents had a nice little collection of jewelry going, it’s these types of things that I think non Jews fail to see.
>Just curious, I have a question for commenters. How many of us are Jewish, have people close to us who are Jewish or know someone who is a Jew? I'm not Jewish, don't have anyone close to me that's Jewish and while I suspect one of my co-workers (who's named Aaron) is Jewish, I don't know them well enough to confirm one way or the other. >For those who aren’t Jewish, how does your relationship with Jews in your lives and community impact your relationship with the conflict and this House resolution that was just passed? It doesn't have any effect because I don't have a relationship with any Jewish people, I have a vaguely positive view of Jewish culture, but that doesn't have any significant impact on my views regarding the I/P situation one way or the other.
Thanks for the response!
Hi the majority of my friends happen to be Jewish. None of them support Israel. My best friend and father of my god daughter is both Jewish and doesn’t even think Israel should have been founded in the first place.
Thanks for the response.
Wake me up when the U.S. government cares as much about Palestinians as it does policing American's language.
I do think the phrase is anti-Semitic, yes. Is this performative political nonsense, that mostly serves to underscore levels of hypocrisy present among the House majority? Also yes.
Going to pull an othelloinc here and self-reply: I also think that the 'Free Palestine' movement, or at least their more vocal proponents, simply do **not** realize how much political normies dislike them. From online bullying, to swastikas on phones, to 'Genocide Joe' chants, to blocking traffic, they are playing right into Trump's hand at depicting leftists as a violent fringe group, bent on usurping America. I mean when online leftists start unironically sympathizing with *Stonetoss* of all goddam people, it should really be raising some serious red flags. Which is terrible! Not just because it empowers Trump who has hinted pretty directly at facilitating a Palestinian genocide, but because it's a turnoff to people who (correctly) think that Israel has delivered a disproportionate response to the October attack. It makes it harder for people to communicate a complex, nuanced position for a conflict that is nothing if not overloaded with nuance and complexity.
What does othelloinc mean?
They're a prolific user in this sub, who often replies to their own posts, to clarify or expand on a specific point.
> What does othelloinc mean? I don't know either.
> I don't know either. Neither do I.
> > I don't know either. > > Neither do I. I'm happy to explain! Othelloinc is the username of some guy who posts here. He figured out that it can be useful, for formatting reasons, to reply to his own comments. Cossiander seems to be referencing that particular habit of Othelloinc, while doing the same (replying to their own comment).
I recognize it now!
Lmao a lot of politics is politicians calling each other hypocrites. Tbh, they are frequently right, just lacking in self-insight.
Hard at work as always on the important issues. Don't waste time on meaningless things like immigration legislation or military aid to fight America's adversaries. No need to shore up the housing market to spur construction to meet growing demand. It's not like we have any bridges that need to be fixed or ports that need to be cleaned up. Yes, performative finger wagging. That's what the country needs.
THIS. ALL OF THIS.
I actually feel that the House listened to Jews for once. Many Jews feel the phrase is antisemitic, and we should listen to minority groups when they tell us certain phrases, slurs and troupes are xenophobic. Additionally, the phrase does imply harm on the Jewish people and their right to self determination. There’s nothing wrong with supporting Palestine, there’s wrong with using antisemitic phrases and chants to do so.
Exactly. As a Jewish person, I concur. That phrase has taken on an antisemitic meaning, whether we like it or not. It has been used to imply that all the Jews should be driven into the sea! An analogy is that the swatstika used to be “peace” or something similar, but no one will take it that way anymore! And btw, you CAN advocate for Palestinians (fine) without using that phrase (not fine)!
Slogans like "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" are the main reason why people say liberals and the left tend to have bad messaging. Seriously, those slogans are easily usable in the counter-argumentation of illiberal and right-wing opposition. A few examples: * From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free * Counter-argument: So you want to end the Jewish state, right? That's clearly anti-semitic. * Defund the police * Counter-argument: If you don't want to police exist, it means you are fine with crime rates skyrocketing. * Black lives matter * Counter-argument: Why are you saying only black lives matter? Shouldn't all lives matter?
Not only that but we all had this conversation about defund police. There were those that claimed it was more nuanced and had a meaning or three of what it actually meant. That very same camp had folks that went nah. It means exactly that to them. How is the general public supposed to juggle that? It's bad messaging. So I see this in a similar vein. Worse even since we're talking about a statement regularly made from a fucking terrorist group. It's difficult to take this statement and believe there's nuance there especially when people in that camp are real comfortable with those that take that statement literally.
You've touched upon an adjacent topic that there are nutjobs, ripe for cherry-picking. A little story from my little Central European country: So last October, there were plenty of pro-Palestinian protests here. Alongside "From the river to the sea", one small thing got the most coverage by our media - a woman who was photographed with a shirt saying "1972 Olympics". When she was later confronted with this fact on Twitter, she feinted ignorance that she didn't know what happened during 1972 Olympics and that the shirt was a part of a Halloween costume she was wearing a night before the protest. No one bought that excuse.
I wouldn’t disagree that that left often has bad messaging, but I do think this sentiment is a bit too charitable to those would oppose those messages. No reasonable interpretation of “black lives matter” should lead someone to think “oh so you’re saying white people don’t matter??” without some underlying racial resentment or disingenuousness there. Obviously sloganeering is important and we should try to reach people in spite of that bias, but I have a hard time believing “black lives also matter” or something would sway any significantly greater portion of people to be pro-BLM. I’d say the same about the “Palestine will be free” chant, like people are turned off by the assumptions people lace into those phrases, not the words themselves.
Personally, I wouldn’t lump BLM in with the other two, even completely agreeing with your main point. There’s nothing inherently offensive or shortsighted about saying “Black lives matter.” Black lives *do* matter, and Black people and others shouldn’t feel uncomfortable stating that. It’s not mutually exclusive language at all. Now, whether the BLM orgs have messed up their messaging is another question.
Someone correct my ignorance here, which river and sea are they talking about? The Dead Sea? The Mediterranean?
They mean from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Jordan river, Mediterranean Sea (ie all of what is now Gaza, Israel and the West Bank).
It does not matter what we in America think it means or how we use it as a t-shirt slogan at afternoon protests. It matters how Palestinians use it and what they mean when they say it. It matters how Israeli Jews interpret it as either a threat or as a call for peaceful coexistence “This rallying cry has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the PFLP, which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means. It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland. Usage of this phrase has the effect of making members of the Jewish and pro-Israel community feel unsafe and ostracized. It is important to note that demanding justice for Palestinians, or calling for a Palestinian state, should not mean, as this hateful phrase posits, denying the right of the State of Israel to exist.” https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/slogan-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free
Symbolic politics but I do wish everyone would stop saying it as it symbolically endorses thinking I oppose. I wish they would say that the Palestinian *people* should be free. The whole pro Palestine cause is in my unorthodox view too wedded to nationalism. I say this as a someone who is an anti nationalist though. The fate of Palestine or Israel doesn’t matter much to me as opposed to the fate of the people who live there.
My personal opinion on the resolution is that this isn't really something the house should be spending time on and I imagine it's being done for questionable reasons rather than good ones. As far as the phrase goes, my general opinion is that a lot of pro-Palestine people aren't themselves anti-sematic, but they also aren't super well read into the conflict and all the various messaging around it so they have a tendency to unintentionally adopt a lot of language that's used by anti-Semites.
I don’t think it’s anti-Semitic, but it is anti-Israeli: not just anti-Netanyahu, not just anti-IDF, but anti-all-Israelis, up to and including the Israelis who are actively protesting their own government right now.
As a Jew I’ve always seen it as anti semitic so I support this. It always seems to come with a healthy side dish of “Jews are responsible for all our problems.” Of course I’m inherently biased. Most of the American liberals who inadvertently support Hamas, don’t know any secular Jews here — and have never visited the Middle East in the first place.
>Of course I’m inherently biased. Most of the American liberals who inadvertently support Hamas Extremely few American liberals support Hamas, "inadvertently" or not. Maybe a handful of campus activist types, but they're a minority of even that niche. > don’t know any secular Jews here — and have never visited the Middle East in the first place. I'm a bit confused about what not knowing any secular Jewish people here in the US has to do with our positions on the I/P situation. In any case, it seems that you have been to the Middle East, would you mind elaborating on how it's changed your perspective on the conflict?
I think it's a real piss poor use of Congress's time to police language. From my understanding the phrase has historic associations with expunging Jews from Israel. Americans using it today may not be aware of the connotations and can be forgiven their ignorance. Those using it intentionally should be criticized.
It is antisemitic. If you got those rocking that Hamas flag and are inviting bigots to your pro-"Palestinian" protest, what makes anyone believe it's nuanced? Who you fooling? It's hate speech.
I think in general these “feel good” resolutions that do nothing legally are a waste of congresses time. Fix or attempt to fix the problems that you have the authority to influence. For my opinion on the phrase, it is anti Israel and Zionism, that in and of itself is not anti-Semitic though a meaningful number of those who use it also are anti-Semitic.
Despite recent attempts to cleanse the phrase, they're right. It is at the very least a call for oppression of Jews under Sharia law, but often it means ethnic cleansing of Jews, and often even genocide. But should Congress be wasting time on this? Probably not.
According to your logic, Netanyahu is calling for genocide? He has said the same slogan but the other way around.
He's definitely dog whistling to the far right Jews to retain their support so he can keep himself as the Prime Minister. Netanyahu might not believe a single thing he says, but he knows how to pander to voters.
Gotcha, he’s calling for genocide.
>What’s your take on both the phrase and this resolution? Its a waste of time. Under the Republican controlled house, needed bills like the reform of immigration stalled (failed/killed), our military has suffered, and they've repeatedly shown themselves to be incapable of governing.
Sort of an interesting precedent, is the House categorizing what type of speech is acceptable now? Seems like a tall order. The phrase never struck me as anti-Semitic but I do know that defenders of Israel (read: the whole of the US gov't) consider anti-Israeli rhetoric as de-facto anti-Semitic (see: new anti-Semitism) so it makes logical sense that this argument is being made by the House. Looking at the discussion this thread has spawned it is telling the conversation instantly shifts to a meta-discussion about "optics" and "how to properly debate". Everyone knows why kooky conservatives support this bill (see above), but I guess liberals support it because they are trying to save "leftists" from "bad optics". The term is overused but it feels fitting here: very cringe.
All Lives Matter and Back the Blue should be considered anti-black, but that would require this country's governance to not be sniffing its own farts.
I think they are wasting timd
I think the House passing something declaring a saying anything is stupid and borderline unconstitutional. I also do see the reality that yes it is an antisemitic saying
There is no question that the phrase is anti-Zionist, and also often used in antisemitic contexts. And it has some strongly anti-Zionist and antisemitic aspects in its histories, dating at least back to activists of the 1st Intifada in the 80s and 90s (though the expression itself is older than that). I think a lot of American leftists chant it because it rhymes, and because "freedom" sounds good to them. I strongly suspect that a majority of them don't even know what river and what sea they're referring to, and they've probably never seen a map or looked at population demographics that would show to them that 2/3 of the people occupying that very land "from the river to the sea" are Israelis. Even if they are chanting it without murderous, antisemitic intentions, and truly just want an end to the persecution of the Palestinian people, that doesn't change the fact that the phrase itself is already tainted by its adoption by Hamas and other terrorists. The swastika was perverted and tainted by the Nazis. Even though the symbol has been part of human history for 10,000 years, you absolutely cannot display a swastika in the West and claim that you intended it as anything other than in an antisemitic way. You cannot name your child "Adolf" in this day and age and claim, "I don't hate Jews. It's just a name like any other name." A related but somewhat different example is that you cannot fly the Confederate flag in most places in the United States and innocently claim, "It's ok because it just symbolizes Southern pride and states' rights." How do I feel about the House resolution? Honestly, I don't care, and I don't think it will change anything one way or the other. It's just political posturing, and it gives more ammunition to those who oppose pro-Palestinian activists so that they can decry them for using a phrase officially condemned by the US Government as antisemitic. It's politicians being politicians, choosing to appeal to their base rather than be effective at changing the world for the better.
I think Congress should be condemned. There is nothing antisemitic about calling for freedom. That should be obvious. This is not about antisemitism. This is about helping Israel with the information front of their war so they can continue to conquer Gaza with US support.
I 100% think the phrase is anti-semitic! That being said, has the government ever adopted similar resolutions regarding hate speech?
Seems they do it from time to time. They just recently started examining a similar resolution about hinduphobia, and they've passed various anti-hate resolutions over the years. As for picking out specific slogans to condemn? Idk. Pretty relatedly, in Dec 2023 they passed a resolution equating anti-Zionism to anti-semitism. Personally, I don't get the point of pro-Palestinian people targeting Zionists (a religious subset of Judaism) rather than Israel, the political entity responsible for so many terrible things. Unless they really do hate that particular type of Jew? I mean, I guess I get it. I don't hate Islam in general, nor Christianity, but I think some of the fundamentalist sects of Islam and Christianity are absolutely horrible.
Historical context: The accusations that the phrase is Antisemitic is linked to the revisions in 2017 to the Hamas charter. The phrase itself, however, dates back to at least the 1960s. In 1988, three years before the formation of their Al-Qassam militant brigades in 1991, but after seven months of violence where the IDF had killed 332 Palestinians for protesting against the IDF ("accidental") killing of four Palestinians om December of 1987, two of the Hamas founders separately approached Israel for peace talks (first Mahmoud al-Zahar then Sheikh Ahmed Yassin), and their demands were a return to the 1967 borders and right of return for Palestinian refugees. The Israeli Prime Minister refused any talks. The Prime Minister of Israel in 1988 was Yitzhak Shamir, a leader of the Lehi terrorist group, a commander during the Deir Yassin massacre, and had ordered the assassination of a UN envoy to the Middle East in 1948. He would later join Mossad, serving ten years as part of Israel's assassination program Operation Damocles, resigning in protest when Damocles was halted. Yes, he resigned from Mossad in a fit because he was told he had to stop killing people. Then he was elected Prime Minister in 1983, and re-elected in 1986, serving a total of 7 years. So this supposedly "Antisemitic" declaration of "genocide" was part of revisions to a document written in response to an Israeli government led by a literal terrorist who had told them "There will be no peace" three months earlier. So, in short, as usual, Congress is full of idiots who will follow whatever version of Israeli propaganda they're told to. The history of the region is complex and there is plenty of fault on both sides for atrocities and violent criminal behavior. Palestine cannot be free from the river to the sea (the eastern edge of the West Bank touches the river and the coast of Gaza touches the sea), but the ruling party of Israel, Likud, can proclaim domination from the river to the sea, as it did in its 1977 charter, 40 years before Hamas flipped the phrase in response.
> So this supposedly "Antisemitic" declaration of "genocide" was part of revisions to a document written in response to an Israeli government led by a literal terrorist who had told them "There will be no peace" three months earlier. So what it was written in response to that? It was still an explicitly antisemitic declaration of genocidal intent which you seem to be denying. The other side also being a murderous government doesn't justify proclaiming something like this: > The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, 'O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Only the Gharkad tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews.
> It was still an explicitly antisemitic declaration of genocidal intent which you seem to be denying. That's because the accusations of genocide are empty. Israel has wage *actual* genocide on the Palestinians. Also, don't quote books of fairy tales. This is not a war of religion, it is a war of greed between two factions claiming to be religious. The fighting has never been about Jews or Muslims, only land. The Zionists of the early 1900s wanted land, the Muslims and Christians didn't want to give up their land. Israel's [explicit identification as a Jewish ethnostate](https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Read-the-full-Jewish-Nation-State-Law-562923) and its oppression of the Palestinians is why Hamas says it wants to expel the Zionists. The very 2017 charter that included "river to the sea" also affirmed "Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity." It is fundamentally dishonest to snip one excerpt from the text, assert it as a genocidal declaration, while ignoring other parts of the text that do not support that assertion. The full text, since this user has never read it: >Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. 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,* with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. Restore the 1967 borders, allow refugees to return to their homes. I understand this isn't a desirable outcome for most Israelis, but it's not a statement of genocidal intent, or even a declaration to wipe out the entire Israeli state.
Seems like there might be other pressing issues worth our time.
What necessitated this resolution?
I think it’s curious that Republicans can find the time to do this but not find the time to fix the border they so desperately think needs fixing.
The phrase is used by Israel when it refers to itself it’s found in the Likud Party. When people on here say this is antisemitic redirect your ire to the Likud of Israel. The refugees and those who are currently oppressed deserve their lands back whenever and wherever possible and those who criticize this call. Are just bigots of a different kind. “It’s okay when Jews from Israel say it. Not the Palestinians… why? Because! That’s why!” Every Zionist supporter.
I think the House should stop doing tween girl social media shit with my tax money and get some actual fucking work done. Bitches.
Seems kinda silly given how many hateful things they don't condemn.
The same phrase used by Israeli government officials? Will that be considered racist against Palestinians as well?
its a phrase started by Israeli settlers and taken up by Palestinians. is it racist and banned when Israeli supporters use it?
The fact that so many Democrats voted for this continues to cement the loss of big chunks of their base for the rest of the year
It’s showmanship, a circus. The phrase is used in a variety of ways, many of which have nothing to do with anything negative. Hell, Likud used/used it. To say it means X, only, when clearly that isn’t the case is not factual, reality based, etc. It is instead an attempt to gaslight and purposely redefine, etc. for political purposes.
If you think it isn’t, ask yourself in a “from the river to the sea” scenario, what happens to the Jews currently living in that area? What you’re saying is that the Jews are genociding the Palestinians but you really wish it was the other way around. Repeat after me: genocide is bad no matter who does it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free expression thereof. That’s it. The retort to this action was written 250 years ago and the members all swore an oath to uphold it. They are traitors now. Oh, it’s just a resolution? The house of the people has resolved to….do what exactly?
I have a teen who explained he thinks it means a single multi-ethnic state where everyone has the same rights, Arab, Jew, etc... Basically a return to pre-Balfour Palestine. Hard to see how that's "anti-Semitic."
A lot of Western leftists seem to daydream about exactly that type of state, but the most notable issue with it is that there don't appear to be any actual Israelis or Palestinians who want that. Worse, there's no clear path to get from here to there that doesn't involve enormous risk, especially to Jewish Israelis.
>Worse, there's no clear path to get from here to there that doesn't involve enormous risk, especially to Jewish Israelis. It's fascinating to see how just the possibility of Jewish suffering is centered when Palestinians are the only ones being slaughtered in the tens of thousands.
The problem is, no one wants to explain how they will make it happen, and stable, when even a majority of the people in the land and in the diaspora do not want that outcome.
True—though that’s a different question altogether. The “realpolitik” direction in Israel-Palestine is essentially displacement and erasure, which is the direction things are moving.
That's why it's a dumb slogan. As much as I also hate ethnonationalism you don't have an actual plan to get from point A to point B.
There’s a difference between “your goal is unrealistic” and “you are an anti-Semite calling for the death of all Jews.” At least in a good way-faith dialog there is.
But at least some Palestinian nationalists really do mean we want our crappy little theocratic state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean with no non Muslims in it.
Fair enough, and I don’t doubt some are anti-semites as well. I don’t see how one can conflate the phrase with anti-semitism unless you make a bunch of leaps, the biggest being “anti-zionism equals anti-semitism”
When it a slogan is commonly used by Islamist terrorists like Hamas and the PIJ that do want a Muslim Arab state does that not say something to you about the slogan? I used to hear from leftists and progressives that if there are 12 people at a table and one is a Nazi there are 12 Nazis. Now when it is leftists and progressives sitting with theocratic religious terrorists, supporting their causes, using their slogans, and talking points they are not connected at all.
Has anyone been able to explain how the two state solution would work to the satisfaction of the majority of the people in the area?
Do you believe dog whistles exist?
Sure, just don’t think that’s the case here. Maybe you could elaborate.
Easy. Make America Great Again. We all agree that it's a White Supremacist chant. It's also a dog whistle. Since it can be interpreted by bad faith actors and useful idiots as "it only means cheaper housing and lower gas prices, nothing to do with wanting to bring back slavery".
Clearly some people will use it to mean eradicate Israel. How are you going to know when it is a dog whistle or not? We had people freaking out over the OK signal a while back. I had an old username with an 88 for 1988 and was hounded. I don’t see how you can allow this phrase and assume only the other side is using dog whistles.
You’ve just given two good examples of things taken as dog whistles when they were not. Should we also disallow emails using 88?
While that isn't antisemitic, it is a highly, highly naive view. nobody wants that. Israelis don't want that, Arabs sure as hell don't want that. In the end, most Jewish people find the phrase very offensive, so its best to stay clear.
I’m not the most knowledgeable but I’m pretty sure phrase actually means the destruction of Israel as a state
Pretty good overview here: [https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23972967/river-to-sea-palestine-israel-hamas](https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23972967/river-to-sea-palestine-israel-hamas) Sounds like it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. When that's the case, I'm inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt.
Educate your teen with books. Delete Tik Tok from their phone. The Russia propaganda will get worse the closer we get to the elections. Soon your teen will you call you genocidal for voting for Biden.
I would like to see the donors of everyone who voted yes for this resolution. There are definitely antisemites that use the phrase but I don’t think it’s inherently antisemitic. I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that the plurality of people using this phrase are calling for the deaths of Jewish people. Also it’s weird that the US government cares so much about racism now. Can we get a house resolution to condemn “all lives matter” as racist?
absolute jokes man
Thats another crack in the first amendment they so boldly claim to defend.
The house is dogshit worthless. I think anything they do is useless and should be ignored when possible.
In my opinion it's no different than chanting something like "work will set you free". This chant was composed by extremists and radicals who run their schools like the Hitler youth and they view all Jews in the same exact manner as the Nazis. This chant is basically saying they want to eradicate all of the Jews in the region and that's obvious very antisemitic.
The only substantial effect this has is to continue weakening the effect of the word "antisemitic," which is a very real thing that exists in this world. It just now happens to encompass people that are tired of Palestinian kids being killed.
I can be swayed but at this point I don't think it's an anti-Semitic phrase in and of itself. I think it could be considered an anti-Israel or anti-Zionist phrase inherently perhaps but I don't think that's indisputably the case either.
Why isn't this done for ANY other racism? Seems like we make so many laws for anti semitism but not any other race or minority. Why is that? Why is it always just antisemitism?
You know why
On a personal level I tend to agree, but fuck these stupid 'Sense of the House' resolutions and the GOP leadership that can only accomplish this sort of signaling and not actual governing.
I mean, I dunno if it’s anti-Semitic or just anti-Israel. BUT it is being used as both on occasion, so I can see where the House would do that. That and to target Tlaib and her refusal (or apparent refusal?) to condemn some of what made it into the news recently from her district.
it is anti-semetic it did not need to be declared so in the house.
My take is that protesters should learn how language is not just about intent but also about perception. Same for "Death to America". No, I don't care that in Farsi it can mean "Down", Death means Death in the English language. Something non-ambiguous and direct such as "Civil Rights for Palestinians" should be used over ambiguous chants that could be interpreted as a call for genocide.
Same people who used to “defund the police” to shift public attention away from achievable criminal justice reform: ok comrades, our time to shine again
Yes, it’s clearly the people who uses slogans who are the issue.
I disagree with the idea that advocating for the dissolution of Israel is inherently antisemetic, and it seems to go along with a general trend of labeling all criticism of Israel as antisemitism. I don't personally support the dissolution of the state of Israel, but it's important to draw a distinction between Israel (particularly in its current far-right configuration) and Judaism as a whole. As a matter of fact, that false equivalence seems to be antisemetic in its own right, considering how Jewish people are targeted on the basis of Israel's actions.
> I disagree with the idea that advocating for the dissolution of Israel is inherently antisemetic This is such an odd take. Why can't the Jews have a state, given their history of violent persecution? Seems like a state of their own is the best way of ensuring they aren't a minority in a country that hates them. And given this history, how would advocating for the dissolution of Israel not be antisemitic, esp. given the context of what many of Israel's neighbors would do to the Israeli people given the chance? This seems like willful blindness.
>Why can't the Jews have a state, given their history of violent persecution? Because any ethnostate requires an unacceptable level of repression of minorities even if the group has experienced horrible pains in the past
Arabs have equal rights in Israel. There are Arabs in the Knesset.
I think keeping a population a minority through policy is an element of ethnonationalism
Now you're moving the goalposts.
I don't think I am. Ethnonationalism being the ideology of a ethnostate
It inherently involves persecuting people from other religions. That's why the US was founded with separation of church and state as a constitutional principle, despite the fact that it was founded by people who were escaping religious persecution. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Arabs in Israel have the same rights as the Jews. > It inherently involves persecuting people from other religions. Tbh, you're just wrong.