That Starmer fella...

people who make "from the river to the sea palestine will be free is racist" arguments in the way people have above. clumsy analogies of "it's like making this racist antiblack statement", reminds me a lot of terfs trans exclusionary radical feminists when they're like "transgender is like pretending your black". both rely on an radical, typically white, liberal position based in reactionary thinking and no material understanding of racism or colonialism (let alone gender studies).

it relies on taking an issue and flattening it to being viewed through a western colonialist lense, a lense where america and its allies are furiously working for our safety, a lense where everyone speaking out against those goals is a terrorist/ commie/ homosexual. a lense where racism is "racism or not racism" and the idea of intersectionality or inter community dialogue doesn't exist in the mind of those making the analogies. the only thing that exists is the interests of the coloniser.

it is a divisive term, plenty of israeli, jewish and secular people on the right and centre find it inflamatory; describe it as racist. however the position widely documented in anti racist/ progressive circles, academics, theological teachers, organising groups (jewish, israeli, palestinian, muslim, secular) is "it's fine... we actually have a lot of thoughts on it and are willing to defend it but also understand and explain why people might draw issue". to come back to the trans analogy it's actually a lot more like "cis" or "cis-woman" - plenty of people you probably find v reasonable and agreeable, prehaps progressive, would describe cis as a slur, and you might be swayed by their argument, you might even tell a trans person to change their language, you might call for an mp to accept their suspension for fanning the flames, but you'd be wrong. it's just a term, can mean a whole lot of things depending how it's used. it's a term a whole bunch of trans people, non trans people, professionals and accedmemics find important

there are freaks on all sides ofc, willing to do and say genocidal things, willing to use words of any people to justify their own interests, plenty of people who defend the term will be first to admit this. you do not have to look far to see jewish and palestinian voices who disagree with "it's a racist term" and offer nuanced perspectives of it instead.

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

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/from-the-river-to-the-sea/

https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean

https://novaramedia.com/2023/10/18/dutch-court-rules-from-the-river-to-the-sea-protected-speech-and-not-antisemitic/

this binary position strips not only palestinians of the right to be able to define themselves and their history. it strips the right of jewish people to define themselves, their experience, their fears, their criticism of israel less they be told they're "not jewish, antisemitic, or don't undertand". it strips muslims of their right to protest, campaign, and voice heart wrenching pain as they see brothers and sisters bombed, only to be seen as "terrorist sympathisers" or scared to google certain things less they end up on a list. it treats israelis as this singular block of people who have a sigular understanding of themselves, their faith and their interpretation of what peace looks like.

but this is the intention of the binary, liberal view of racism, it's so we do not discuss postcolonial thought or critical race theory. it absorbs the discussion of racism into the support of colonialist thought. it then can be used to help justify the ongoing bombing in gaza and the westbank among other colonial projects by western states. all these things do is ensure they can run forever war over any target they can dehuminise effectively. a forever war which makes us all, but especially jewish and muslim people, far less safe and prone to violence.