62 points
*

The phrase originally came from secular Palestinian nationalists in the 1960s calling for a democratic secular state within the boundaries of what was the British Mandate for Palestine, encompassing Israel, the then-Jordanian controlled West Bank and the then-Egyptian administered Gaza Strip — that is, the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The PLO of that era also advocated mass expulsion of Jews and their descendants except those who lived in Palestine before the late 19th century, and even that was ambiguous, so I don’t know that “The phrase doesn’t have any connotations of ethnic cleansing!” is really correct here.

permalink
report
reply
-13 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You realize the name Palestine is what the Romans renamed the land to add insult to injury after kicking out all the Jews.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

that feels like not was quite some time ago.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

There’s no record of the expulsion ever actually happening, but they did get pissy and rename the region because the people wouldn’t stop rebelling and worship the Emperor like civilized folk.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yes, but anglophone white people did it, so it doesn’t count.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

The land was changing hands for centuries: https://youtu.be/8tIdCsMufIY (and if we care about silly things about who was first, that would historically be Jews)

In fact before the British, it was actually owned by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) which sided with the central powers in WW1. The British enrolled Palestinians and Jews to fight them and promised to give them that land in exchange for conquering it.

Edit: I meant WW1

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

surprisingly, there were people there even before the Jews. they are not some indigenous population that sprung from the soil.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

This history is about WWI, not WWII. The Ottomans didn’t exist in WWII and Turkey stayed neutral. The Ottomans allied with the Germans in WWI, but it wasn’t the Axis.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

Well no, before the British arrived the land belonged to the Ottoman Empire. Before that it belonged to the Byzantine/Eastern Roman empire, Roman Empire, Greece, Persia. It hasn’t been a “free” land since at least the mid to early Iron Age.

Edit: Even then, it was only free from the end of the Bronze Age, where it was a smattering of city states either part of or beholden to primarily the whims of the Hittites, Egyptians or Assyrians.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Can you speculate as to why the area is seemingly so desirable?

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

all of the land there belong to Palestine, so the Palestinians working towards a secular state on land that was stolen from them is ethnic cleansing?

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say, “Yes, a solution that involves ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing” and the right to self-determination doesn’t really affect that fact?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You mean the Ottoman Empire? Is that supposed to be the same entity? I have no fuckin’ clue anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Modern Turkey does claim to be the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, yes, and was recognized as such in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Seems like often ambiguous topic seem like the things both sides of any argument focus on and dig heels in about.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Certainly true. On one hand, ambiguous topics are a convenient way to discredit one’s enemies by ascribing the more extreme position to them. On the other hand, they can just as easily be a dog whistle or motte-and-bailey argument.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I also wonder if when we talk about foreign and domestic troll farms if those are the topics they push.

Its like the Facebook math questions “8÷2(2×2)=?” Which gets thousands and thousands of engagement and people all arguing not knowing better or they do know better and attempt to explain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The 19th century begins in 1801. I think you’re likely referencing a later date (probably 1917).

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

First Aliyah, starting 1881.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Why? Though that’s also not before the 19th century.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

Adding the subtitle…

This phrase was never about killing Jews. It emerged in the 1960s as a call for equal rights within a democratic state.

permalink
report
reply
30 points

The equal rights were 1947 borders set by the UN, which Arab nations rejected and started a war which they lost.

If you look at the map, “from the river to the sea” clearly means the whole area.

The original slogan also was “from the river to the sea Palestine is Islamic/Arab”, but that would be far less catchy in the West.

As for equal rights in democratic state, that has to be a joke. Just look at population of Israel where almost 25% is Arabic and compare it to Palestine which is very homogenous.

Nethanyahu is a MF, far right politician that should spend the rest of his life in jail, but let’s not pretend the other side are saints. They would would do exactly same (maybe even worse) if they had the means.

There are no good guys on either side of that conflict, just innocent people caught in the middle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

The original slogan also was “from the river to the sea Palestine is Islamic/Arab”, but that would be far less catchy in the West.

From where do you get this belief? According to the Wikipedia editors the precise origin is unknown, but a variant matching your claim (except it’s from the water to the water) was coexisting with the “sea”/“free” version (both in Arabic) in the 1980s.

As for equal rights in democratic state, that has to be a joke. Just look at population of Israel where almost 25% is Arabic and compare it to Palestine which is very homogenous.

Why would a Jewish person choose to live in a ghetto rather than Israel. They have innate right to citizenship in the modern wealthy country next door. The people living in Palestine are doing so either because they have a deep attachment to the land or because they don’t have any other choice, not because it’s an attractive place to live. What Israelis have lived there were settlers trying to take land, not integrate into the society. Maybe the Palestinians (which ones?) would implement their own apartheid, but there not being many non-Arabs in Palestine isn’t at all an indication of anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

There were many attacks on Palestinian Jews already before Israel came into existence, when Arab nations attacked Israel (that is both Jewish and Arab Israelis), there were attacks against Palestinian Jews, so many or most of them fled, I guess also because the state Israel seemed like a safe haven compared to the horrors of Europe in the centuries before, so Palestinian Jews had many reasons to go to the Israeli areas.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Just look at population of Israel where almost 25% is Arabic and compare it to Palestine

That’s a bit like comparing the proportion of immigrant citizens in the wealthy US with those in its low income neighbour Mexico.

Only, if the US was also occupying most of Mexico and controlled who could enter or leave.

Tl; dr it says a lot more about the situation than it does about the wishes of the population.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

There is exactly one state here that does a forced “from the river to the sea” people replacement campaign here, and it is not Palestina.

permalink
report
reply
21 points

Is the right-wing anything but a disinformation campaign at this point? Outside of “fuck em all to death” I’m not sure what (or even if) they have a platform anymore. Seems to just be raw hate.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 454K

    Comments