Israel / Palestine

That's not the only point made though is it? It also says most in Palestine disagree with the Oslo accords, and regard the PLO "as subcontractors for Israel". These seem like much more contentious claims to me, and I don't think it's ridiculous to ask if they are backed up at all. But rather than engaging with it you're suggesting that asking the question should make someone "embarrassed by their ignorance". And yet you're the one you used the phrases "corrupt and ineffectual" - which isn't what the section said in the first place.

Touch of the olde neo colonialism there son.

His claim is that these are such outrageous positions that we should consider all the content of the website to be dubious. My point is that actually they’re pretty standard points of view, and that if you had enough passing familiarity with Israel / Palestine you would recognise them as pretty standard points of view even if you disagreed with them.

But apparently “enough passing familiarity with Israel / Palestine” is too much to expect in the Israel / Palestine thread.

At the same time, however, PA-Israel security coordination remains hugely unpopular among ordinary Palestinians of all political stripes, who see it as a form of collaboration with the occupation and, for some, outright “treason,”

The above quote from the raging communists at foreignpolicy.com: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/06/palestinian-authority-israel-west-bank-security-cooperation-suspended-mahmoud-abbas/

There’s plenty more on this available if you actually bother to seek out Palestinian voices for a change.

The last opinion polling on the Oslo Accords that I saw had opposition to the accords outweighing support by a margin of roughly 5%. Admittedly those were from 2013, so maybe the Palestinian people have really warmed to the Accords over the last decade but given everything that has happened I sort of doubt it tbh, especially as the trend for support up to 2013 was on a downward trajectory.

These aren’t controversial viewpoints and making out that they are “iffy” is pretty funny.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20468333 review article of a Raja Shehadeh (lawyer from Al Haq) book which explains the shortcomings of both Oslo and the PA (this is from 2000). A recent Atlantic article about the failure of the PA. The reality is, on the ground in the West Bank there is little to no support for the PA and the other user’s claims are neither contentious nor novel.

I am aware of the mostly held view that the PA are corrupt AF.
You are presenting your opinion that Abbas and co are grafters, not sure your opinion counts as an established fact, however.
They probably are, I actually agree with you.
I also agree that the sky is blue (though sometimes it isn’t…)

Ignoring someone because they questioned the credibility of the website you referenced doesn’t really support your argument.

Your view that ‘From the river to the Sea’ doesn’t have anti-semetic connotations, is backed up by a website run by 2 Palestinians living in Ramallah, who claim to be objective but not neutral.
They may very well be, and for them it might not mean the same thing as when Hamas use it, but they don’t speak for all Palestinians, in the same way that Hamas don’t speak for all Palestinians.

There’s plenty more on this available if you actually bother to seek out Palestinian voices for a change.

Is there a need to be patronising and condescending to anyone who might not share your view on stuff?

I think it's reasonable to view a clearly polemic website with some suspicion - "decolonize Palestine" already shows that it has a fairly clear stance and isn't trying to be objective or unbiased. Plus the actual arguments are not well made - it doesn't actually explain why the view is wrong, it sets up a straw man (people say this is the only possible interpretation!) And then argues it might not be, but keeps throwing in emotive and loaded language - alternative interpretations are "intellectually dishonest". There are probably good arguments about differing uses of the slogan but I don't think they'll come from this website

All the discussion of what a sentence means, to me overlooks that the people that were there were not listened to in their choice to determine their lives.

The whole area were not listened to after the second world war. The whole area were lied (to put it mildly) by the English?

Can we agree on these points?

https://twitter.com/wasimakram7005/status/1718182252020994310

I'm sure Hamas was hiding on every floor of these building or Acliff will find a reason why it's anti-semitic to suggest otherwise.

The destruction is horrific, and my heart bleeds for all civilians, men, women, children caught up in the conflict. I don’t support the bombing or violence on either side.

Not sure how I’m somehow your thread punchbag. Was it when I showed disbelief that the IDF bombed the hospital, with further information coming to light?
Of course the IDF have done a lot worse now so what they might not have done doesn’t matter now.

Edit: oh and disagreeing with you that Hamas is essentially harmless.

I’m a bit alarmed at the London protest videos of many people chanting:

From London to Gaza, we’ll have an Intifada
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free

Maybe because Gaza and Intifada don’t really rhyme.

Too many things need to align for a solution. Without presumption, the bare minimum I see are that the locals need to want to live in communal peace, their leaders need to want communal peace, foreign negative influence needs to stop or be countered effectively, and material resources and political influence need to be distributed in a manner acceptable to a critical mass of the locals.

That hasn’t been the case for millennia. It’s good to have hope, but there’s a reason achieving peace in the Middle East is used as a comedy trope.

One could make the same statement about "Israel's right to exist". For one person that might be to assert that Israel could exist in a very different form, where all the people in the territories it controls have equal rights and representation, are not subject to displacement or a two-tier legal system. To another it may assert that Israel must exist as a Jewish-majority ethnostate, and this requires ethnic cleansing to establish and maintain.

Not sure why you're my punching bag in this thread? Because of shit like this. Tens of thousands of people peacefully march in London and lots of other cities around the world including Jewish people protesting for a ceasefire and release of prisoners.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67246847
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2023-10-23/ty-article/.premium/british-jews-rally-for-israeli-hostages-held-in-gaza-amid-rising-antisemitism/0000018b-5c31-d8e2-a1eb-ff37966a0000
But all you focus on is how evil the Palestinians must be. The only place I can even find reference to an intifada chant is on the telegraph and there isn't any video or picture evidence. Not saying it didn't happen but how that stood out as the most prominent part of a huge protest to you says everything.

Rep.

Tens of thousands of people peacefully march in London and lots of other cities around the world including Jewish people protesting for a ceasefire and release of prisoners.

Update; half a million.

I think it extremely sad that people conflate Intifada with violent means.
It is a word that cannot be translated effectively. In the Palestinian context it was students who both wanted to separate themselves from violent uprisings, and to legitimise a protest as a mirror of Gandhi's tenets.
Sources:

1. Mary King's Book
   
2. Vice Article
   
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intifada
   
   

As such, projecting a meaning on a chant in a march organised by the definitively peace-seeking Palestine Solidarity Campaign can only be seen as an attempt to delegitimise protests, akin to Braverman's/ this government's attempts to do so

I've asked people to read before posting- but it seems an unwillingness to do so remains.

The conflation of the term stems from the tail-end of both of the first and second intifadas, and specifically the second, instigated by enough indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians by the IDF that Chirac even commented that in no way could "he convince [anyone] that the Palestinians are the aggressors".
Reference 1
Reference 2

from the river to sea is a debate we have every few years, usually when there is a particularly bad flare up of violence within palestinian territories - skeptically speaking - this seems to flare up as a discursive technique to draw attention away from discussing the issue at hand. be it the violence which started the conflict, but also help derail or discredit those speaking out against atrocities leveled at the palestinians. this disruption inherently benefits western states and their media to provide political cover for their support of bombing campaigns and discredit any protest movements within their borders, i make this distinction as we should be stern in not only avoiding, but challenging antisemtic tropes.

here is an explainer on how this term is radicalised on the fringes, but in the centre of political thought; historically it is used, it's widely seen as a call for peace:

https://forward.com/opinion/415250/from-the-river-to-the-sea-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

the hamas charter has adopted the term in in the last decade, how it defines its operations, which is written in passive voice and ingrained with antisemitism. but as we know with any of this military doctrines, any nations call to arms is not one any sane person reads without disgust, including that of israel (https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/art-war-deleuze-guattari-debord-and-israeli-defence-force), but especially my own state and that of britains allies as i've mentioned in earlier posts. it's important to rationalise what percentage of the palestinian population would vote for them as of 2023 (last election was 18 years ago and over 50% of palestinians are under 18! children!!!) even after 18 years of escelations from both sides endangering their lives, palestinians are as diverse in thought as the israeli population, an israeli population who also hold its critique, opposition and disgust for the fringe of their leadership who have overseen the escelations on palestinian territory, increased arming of settlers and failure to protect them from a real threat that the israeli leadership originally funded, some of which is talked about here:

https://forward.com/opinion/564190/hamas-charter-truth/

there are of course many jewish people who find this term inflamitory and antisemetic regardless, and we're right to have diversity of thought and argue this case, to be listened too. but i think picking up on the protest yesterday, as a radical fringe interpretation was the prevailing driver, when you had a crowd of jewish and palestinian voices marching together. is at worst intelectually dishonest and islampahobic, at best, not very intelectually inquisitive and does nothing to sure up the safety of jews and muslims alike.

this is a sentiment i've heard echoed from jewish friends during and prior to this conflict; while not about the phrase, words here echo this sentiment of how we must resist our governments in seeking to distract from the humanitarian issue:

https://forward.com/opinion/565515/jewish-grief-war-hamas-gaza-israel/

i've used forward here because some people seem to have issues accepting the voice of palestinian or muslim news networks disproportionately, be it large networks like al jazera which are as prone to manipulation as western broardcasters, or smaller voices of those wishing to project their stories. i hesitate to call this action islamaphobic, as i'm sure it's largely the fault of ignorance and internalised bias, afterall, our own governments seek to install this doubt in us.

the forward is a historic jewish american paper, widely respected and if you click through it is filled with diverse thought which is centric on the experience of jewish people in america, by nature must explore issues from perspectives inside and outside the state of israel. some articles on the site will disagree with this interpretation i've presented, my point is not to argue one way or the other, but it's to show that to internalise this statement flatly as "a call to genocide" or "a terrorist decleration" ignores the voices of muslims and jews alike; when coming from people in a largely secular, ex-colonial state with its own history of antisemitism and islampahobia, flattens and esentialises these discussions. one which does not bring us, spectators, jews or muslims any closer to a peace, a peace that states of any form do not wish us to have. one article is an opinion piece they saw fit to publish by a palestinian historian, the other the other is a senior collumnist published after the attacks of the 6th, and one is a regular contributer after the 6th.

these are all articles i found with minimal googling while waiting for my washing to finish on a sunday, i urge readers to maybe use their hands researching than replying. we can have debates about optics when children are safe, people are back in their homes on both sides. echoing the words at the end of yonah lieberman's article, our focus should be on ensuring there is not only an end to this conflict in the form of ceasefire, but also the prevention of future conflict with the end of apartheid for palestinians. making jews and muslims within israel and palestine safer, but also here at home, within our borders.

To be clear, I am 100% in support of the marches and calls for a ceasefire and do not in any way think the Palestinians are evil. Though you’re saying I focus on how evil Palestinians must be to make me sound like more of a cunt.

I do however think that Hamas are evil and awful, as well as Israel’s leadership.

Edit: changed link for non parody account, video is the same:

https://x.com/yonimichanie/status/1718292755443507493?s=46&t=zRLQ2HZpRJjXs9_MLQOitA

There are plenty of other vids.

I don’t think this is widespread, but I would be lying if I wasn’t concerned about what it means, from London to Gaza, given the violence (on both sides) of the previous 2 Palestine/Israel intifadas.

@Aldosterone @Maj thank you for the info, I am reading as much as I can to understand as much as possible.
I feel compelled to discuss and learn, it would certain be a lot easier to not type anything and avoid being called an ignorant Palestinian hater.

not sure if on purpose but that's a Corbyn parody account. It's fairly obvious given that I imagine he knows how to spell his own surname........

Thanks for the heads up.

To be honest, I saw the same video and several similar a couple of times yesterday, and today found the first Twitter post showing the video and linked it. Didn’t check further than it saying Jeremy Corbyn…

Updated post with same video but alternative account.

Does no one have an answer to my discussion points?

All the discussion of what a sentence means, to me overlooks that the people that were there were not listened to in their choice to determine their lives.

The whole area were not listened to after the second world war. The whole area were lied (to put it mildly) by the English?

Can we agree on these points?

I don’t think anyone would dispute these points. But once you factor in the Jewish diaspora we end up in a never-ending discussion of who was there ‘first’.

The Palestinians have been appallingly treated and there are many wrongs that need to be righted, and many of these wrongs have been perpetrated by right-wing Israeli governments who treat Palestinians as subhuman.

That doesn’t change the fact there are now generations of Israelis who have been born there and don’t have somewhere else to go.

So I’m still uncomfortable hearing ‘from the river to the sea’ on marches though because sometimes it feels to me like a dog-whistle - and like most dog-whistles, while some people use them innocently, others do not. It’s the ambiguity that makes them dog-whistles.

But all you focus on is how evil the Palestinians must be

this is a massive, unfounded, shit stirring leap. @Acliff said nothing even close to this. If your aim is to get people to think more carefully about assumptions they might make about protests or chanted slogans, all you will do with this is push people further away.

The LRB long take..

https://archive.ph/02dH4

Edit to add context.. Shatz has published a biography of Fanon.

Has Fanon come up on this thread?