https://newrepublic.com/post/178243/benjamin-netanyahu-literally-says-from-the-river-to-the-sea
The Israeli prime minister is making his views on Palestine and Palestinians incredibly clear.
This shithead's genocide is going to birth a new generation of vengeful extremists out of the ashes of Gaza for the rest of the world to deal with, in the future
By design. Fascists need an enemy to protect people from, in order to justify their cruelty. And they need a underclass to oppress, to demonstrate their power.
If they can make one out of the other - why, that's just efficiency.
Thus the cycle continues. Come the end of humanity, the last two people in the middle east will still be throwing rocks at each other.
The onion had ‘news from the future’ from several years ago and showed the last Israeli fighting the last Palestinian over a stray cat that wandered into the Gaza scrap
Hey look. Its what we've been telling you it was the whole time. A genocidal eradication of a people to take their land.
The weakness of western 'democracies' is disgusting.
That's the problem.
The western democracies aren't weak like TropicalDingDong says, their governments have chosen their side.
And if the neighboring countries do anything about it, the western democracies will take action.
The inaction isn't due to inability, but due to apathy for the Palestinians.
Saudi Arabia and the Arab world could ban the sale of oil and see biden prostrate, nobody gives a fuck about them because you can’t make money from them and being a religious minority (in the west at-least) is the icing on the cake, not to say they care about their religious brothers, it was never a reason for anything other than oppression of people they don’t like.
Saudi Arabia and the Arab world could ban the sale of oil and see biden prostrate
Like I said above, most Middle Eastern governments who aren't aligned with Iran have been tamed by the US using both carrots and sticks. Saudi Arabia wants their weapons, Egypt wants its aid, etc etc.
If they did that, the US would suddenly discover they have chemical weapons and need to be invaded ASAP.
Yeah, but they are not thinking about Biden, they are probably worried about the other guy.
worried about the other guy
Santa? Is it Santa? Because I'm pretty sure most Muslims don't believe in Santa.
It's Western democracies that tamed Middle Eastern countries to make sure they're always on Israel's side, or at least effectively neutral. You can see it from Saudi Arabia's weapons and war in Yemen to Egypt's aid; the US spends a lot of money and political capital to buy the Middle East's cooperation in Israel's Apartheid/genocide project. And if that wasn't enough, they deployed strike carriers to make sure nobody intervenes militarily.
I'm thinking these days. The problem with democracy is that it can't be forced even if it were the correct thing to do in the pragmatic sense. If you force it, it's not democracy.
That's not what they're talking about. They meant how Western democracies are supporting and/or watching Israel's genocide.
Oh, look, an open admission of genocidal intent.
Should be useful in the court case against Israel.
These are the quotes this article is based on according to another news outlet, and it is unsure if the translation (especially the wording for the proclaimed statement in the title) is up for debate since there are multiple translations.
(“from the river to the sea,” according to an English translation on the Israeli news channel i24NEWS.
According to other translations, Netanyahu said that Israel “must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River,”)
"Every area that we evacuate we receive terrible terror against us. It happened in South Lebanon, in Gaza, and also in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] which we did it.”
“And therefore I clarify that in any other arrangement, in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea.”
"This truth I say to our American friends,” Netanyahu said Thursday. “And I also stopped the attempt to impose on us a reality that will jeopardize us. A prime minister in Israel has to be able to say no, even to the best of friends. To say no when you need to and to say yes when you can.”
Does anybody know what "proposal" the USA made that he's referencing?
It's all behind-closed-door conversations, but one can only assume some form of self-governance in Gaza given the US continues to push for a two-state solution despite supporting the Israelis as they, you know, wipe out one of those states.
What Bibi is saying, here, is that even that small modicum of Palestinian agency will be eliminated and Gaza will formally become the open air prison it's unofficially been for decades.
Thanks. Yes, you're right. I think this is the missing part: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-says-no-way-solve-israel-security-gaza-war-without-palestinian-state-2024-01-18/
It's ok when Zionist colonisers say "from the river to the sea" but it's hate speech when the original inhabitants or their supporters say it
It depends on how it's said. Is it said as part of an effort to build a multicultural / religious state or part of an effort to rid the region of other ethnicities?
Well yes, a two state solution will never work but building a new cooperative nation isn’t stretching the borders of either current party
It worked with Native Americans, it worked in South Africa.
One of Rome's tyrant emperor's, Caracalla, granted citizenship to a huge swath of the empire because vesting populations is stabilizing.
But yea, lets continue the current regimen of apartheid because that keeping the region so safe...
The two state solution is going to continue what we have now where they kill each other over the border because neither side is going to be content with it
If you trust in Hamas, at least you can distrust Netanyahu
Why would you assume I trust any Hamas sources when I can just listen to Israeli leaders openly call for genecide? Also Hamas is a corpse of a regime who the West pretends is still alive to justify the genecide. My fear is the power vacuum will be replaced with something much worse. The Iraq war all over again.
I wouldn't count out a one state solution eventually. As this genecide and looming regional conflicts isolate Israeli politicians. Because let's not forget, it's leadership not civilians that create these horrible events.
Because let’s not forget, it’s leadership not civilians that create these horrible events.
These horrible events have Israeli public support so...
Just a reminder that before Palestinians lived there Jewish people lived there. I don’t really support either side. I just like saying uncomfortable facts out loud because I’m on the internet. Downvote away
Was the original Jewish population ethnically cleansed from the area in living memory? No? Then I don't fucking care.
So genocide is ok as long as enough time passes from the event? It's such an obvious dog whistle when those opposed to the current genocide are magically unopposed to the genocide perpetrated against a certain group of people "before 1930". It's not ok to perform acts of genocide against the Palestinian civilians today nor is it ok for the historical Jewish populations to have had acts of genocide perpetrated against them.
Jews and Arabs. They were collectively referred to as Palestinians at that time.
Here is the Jewish and Arab Mandatory Palestine national football team.
3 thousand years ago? Before there was Jewish or Palestinian people there, the was no one. Hence I believe the area should be completely emptied. Just like to say uncomfortable facts out loud.
I couldn't give a shit if they lived there 2000 years ago. It doesn't give them the right to colonize it in 2023.
There's never been a period of time when Jewish people weren't living there. How can a group of people colonize the place they're already living?
Because you see all Jews as from Palestine. That isn't the case. Before the colonization project started Jews and Arabs had lived together there for thousands of years. Then Europeans showed up, and suddenly most of the Arabs are corraled into reservations that the Europeans and Americans keep encroaching on with settlements.
Rather than assimilate to the existing culture and produce a single post colonial state they decided to try and push the Arabs out. Nobody would care if they had produced a post colonial state that had heavy protections for Jewish refugees, but was not a Jewish state.
Ahhh there it is. The PM of Israel just said he plans to violate the treaties and annex Gaza and the West Bank. By ejecting these people from their homeland or just wholesale killing them, that's fucking genocide. It really never was about Hamas. And Hamas still exists.
My opinioj as a stranger on the internet (so like your new best friend)/: A direct hand as in organizing it? No. Indirectly as in financing Hama's? Sure. A hand as in knowing it was about to happen and let it happen? Maybe, probably.
I hate him so much. Way before the Gaza war. He's an alt right tyrant regardless of his religion.
Don't call Zionists Jews.
Zionists are a disgrace using Judaism only as a shield for their war crimes.
Netanyahu is quite literally a white surpremacist that just wants to kill brown people and expand the Lebensraum.
Nazism isn't a religion.
Being a fascist doesn't stop you being Jewish any more than being a slavemaster stopped the pilgrims from being Christian
If you are consciously in direct violation of the tenets of a religion, can you say you're a member of that religion?
You can use their apocrypha and their iconology. Adapt their traditions and wear their garb. All you have to do is put first in front of the name or something.
If people stopped calling those people Christians that would have been a good start too. Both religions are pretty clear that these acts are not allowed.
Cherry picking a single chapter about a promised land and deciding to ignore all the rest where it's clearly state that acquiring it through this kind of corruption is forbidden is not exactly "following the religion".
Sorry mate but all Abrahamic religions contain rules for how to deal with your slaves.
Slavery is absolutely condoned by the bible.
Your whole argument is No True Scotsman.
No True Scotsman is if there were no known rules or structures for Christianity. We know what a Christian is or isn't.
… Christians owned slaves. There are rules for owning slaves in the bible.
What aren’t you getting about this?
I'm agreeing with you. "No true Scotsman" is when there is no standard by which to measure the thing. We have the Bible by which to measure Christianness, and since it has rules for keeping slaves right there in it, slavery is truly Christian. Saying it is not isn't a logical fallacy, it's just false.
Yes indeed they contain rules about slavery.
The problem is that they do the slavery but don't give the slaves their rights.
If you look up the rights those slaves would actually have, you quickly realize what's being followed and what isn't.
That's what I'm saying, I hate him because regardless of what his religion or ethnicity is, he himself is just evil. He's out for wealth and power and fuck whoever gets in his way.
“For 30 years, I am very consistent and I am saying something very simple: this conflict is not on the lack of a state of Palestinians, but the existence of a state, the Jewish state,” Netanyahu said, according to a translation on i24NEWS. “Every area that we evacuate we receive terrible terror against us. It happened in South Lebanon, in Gaza, and also in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] which we did it.”
It turns out, when you terrorize people and steal their land for decades they are still angry at you when you('re forced to) let them borrow some of their land back while continuing to terrorize them.
So...they just lost the international court case then, no? He legit just said "we're taking it over."
'Course, this is me just being hopeful there is some recourse for the blatant disregard for humans 🫤
No, waging a war of conquest is a fundamental right of any sovereign state. That doesn’t bear directly on a question as to the prosecution of a genocide.
Patently false.
UN Charter Article 2, paragraph 4:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
UN Charter doesn't abridge the natural rights of sovereigns. The UN Charter is also not a binding document apart from governing the internal workings of the United Nations. Maybe make sure you know anything about a topic before making yourself look foolish.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8D95DEA9B7DFE825
If you don't have that concept firmly established as a basis for more complex ideas, there's nothing for us to discuss.
My point is, sovereign states are things we made up while "fundamental rights" are things that apparently are just properties of those things that we didn't add.
It's all just bullshit trying to justify power hungry assholes wanting to increase their web of influence (over people who don't want to follow them) to the people whose lives and well-being they need to risk to extend their power.
And yeah, evidently there isn't anything to discuss if you can only reply to a specific question with a link to a lecture series about the broad topic. Though I know you dodged the question because you can't use logic to get to that point, you either believe in "fundamental rights" or you don't and picking at that thread is more likely to lose support than to gain it because the right you are arguing for essentially says states have the right to go kill people in neighbouring states if they want to take them over, which was largely rejected after WWI and even more so after WWII when the colonial empires started realizing "hey maybe it's not ok to rule all these other countries for our own benefit".
This comment isn't for you anyways. It's for people who read what you said and got a feeling of, "this doesn't sound right" but weren't able to put their finger on exactly why.
What the fuck are you on about the charter is absolutely legally binding, and binds nations to decisions of the Security Council which has repeatedly stated that wars of conquest are illegal.
Chin up. Just because it's the right of a nationstate doesn't mean it's accepted. Wars of conquest have been almost universally denounced in the post-WW2 period. Treaties and mutual-defense agreements have been structured in the post-war period to forestall any such wars and have largely proven successful at doing so.
It's definitely best not to forget that, because it's about to happen in America.
Motherfuckers aint been payin attention.
that particular article is mealy-mouthed
I’m sure all the people pissed that Rashida Talib used those words will be equally upset about Bibi saying it. /s
So he's finally admitted it. I'm guessing there will be silence from the people that said Israel was definitely going to give Gaza back to Palestine after Hamas was gone.
It certainly seems like all roads are leading to a big war soon. Storms a comin fellas. Enjoy what we have now.
And why does that justify Israel bombing innocent civilians, many of them children?
"B..but Hamas!!!!"
"From the river to the sea" is just a fancy way of saying "Lebensraum"
Isn't it ironic...dontcha' think...
AKA Revisionist Zionism.
And what a coincidence-- Bibi just so happens to come from a family that ascribes to that specific variant of Zionism!
I thought they'd wait longer before doing this. Don't they want to tease the West a bit longer? See if they can get more weapons and stuff? Or are they calling their bluff, knowing they'll give them stuff no matter what they say at this point?
Of course he says this, all of his actions for the last thirty years have telegraphed this intent. War is how he stays in power, and he takes it personally.
According to Google translate, the exact quote is:
מדינת ישראל חייבת לשלוט ביטחונית הכל השטח מערבת הירדן.
"The State of Israel must control the security of all the territory west of the Jordan."
Reverso:
"The State of Israel must control the security of everything from the Jordan Valley."
That's a very alarmist interpretation.
The article admits in the first paragraph that it's a possible mistranslation. If you've been following the rhetoric then you know this is not a new stance, it is a reiteration of the existing question of what body will administer Gaza after the war. Biden has said that the PA should be "revitalized" and assume control of Gaza. Netanyahu has said that the PA lacks the capability, credibility, and capacity to do so. As far as credibility, it's hard to imagine that Israel is the better option. The idea that Netanyahu is better than the admittedly unpopular Abbas is risible.
Egypt has flat out refused to take on the job, the Arab league has floundered.
It seems like the best solution would be a UN transitional force that would rebuild Gaza with financial support from Qatar and UAE, who have expressed willingness. They would be responsible for maintaining order following the power vacuum of removing Hamas, PIJ, etc. They would have to bolster the PA, establish a police force, systems of governance, and roll out the transition for a peaceful transition of power to the PA (or a newly created body).
That's no small task. The last thing anyone wants is another Afghanistan. The USA spent decades and billions of dollars to remove the Taliban and establish a democratic system. They finally admitted that it hadn't worked and handed everything back over to the Taliban.
The alternate translation is "everything west of the Jordan River". It's the same thing, just not in a prepackaged sound bite.
That's not the significant part of the mistranslation, however. This article says that "Israel will take over the entire region" but the more accurate translation is "Israel must have security in the region."
This article is using the most shocking possible translation just to get clicks.
That's seems like an awful lot for a tiny little spit of land that basically affects fewer people than any medium sized American city. I think Israel has the superior claim, arguably a duty.
On the one hand, it is a little frustrating to see this global focus when there is so little attention paid to the 1.7 million people displaced in Pakistan of the 6 million people displaced in Sudan, or the 86,000 people killed in Nigeria.
On the other hand, imagine the efforts that the world would go to to free a medium sized American city that was taken captured by terrorists and rebuild it afterword.
Israel may be the best equipped to maintain order, and they have an existential prerogative to do so. However, what does the eventual transfer of power look like in that scenario? The PA and the UN are maybe the only bodies with the credibility to manage and rebuild the area and form a stable and representative government.
Obviously there are significant differences between the circumstances; whether there are leaders and partners on the ground we can work with, whether there is a nuclear power involved, being the significant differences that stand out to me.
I think the transfer of power looks like this: members and accomplices of Hamas are killed as enemy combatants and terrorists, infrastructure is repaired, goods and supplies flow, and and everyone is pretty glad to be rid of them and people who just want to live their lives go and do so, I hope as or at least with a path to full Israeli citizenship and democratic representation. Bibi and his loyalists are also going to need to be voted out by the Israeli people, part of that existential prerogative. Maybe pockets of residence will persist underground. They will be got though.
I think the transfer of power looks like this: members and accomplices of Hamas are killed as enemy combatants and terrorists, infrastructure is repaired, goods and supplies flow, and and everyone is pretty glad to be rid of them and people who just want to live their lives go and do so, I hope as or at least with a path to full Israeli citizenship and democratic representation.
If Israel was willing to do that Hamas wouldn't exist.
I disagree. The ideological opposition to a Jewish state is as old as Zionism itself and the violent opposition is as old as the state. In fact I think I recall some diplomat or another who was an early advocate for a Jewish state being assassinated for it. There was always a group of extreme, Islamic religious fundamentalists who violently opposed a Jewish state. At any rate, time is linear and we are here now.
And luckily for everyone, Israel is a democracy and therefore represents hope for change and a more just future.
The ideological opposition to a Jewish state is as old as Zionism itself and the violent opposition is as old as the state.
I mean yes. Why wouldn't they oppose a Jewish state? "Hey we'll steal your land and build an Apartheid state on it" did you want them to agree to that?
I'm willing to bet there will never be any kind of voluntary transfer of power.
I firmly expect that Israel's intention is to drive out the Palestinian population and annex Gaza once and for all. Nothing else explains their strategy of mass infrastructure destruction, the regular bombing of civilians, and the regular drumbeat of suggestions of foreign nations like Canada taking in Palestinian refugees. They're clearly attempting to render Gaza utterly unlivable.
I mean, what else could possibly be their endgame given the level of destruction Israel has engaged in? A vibrant and functioning Gaza will never be tolerated by the Israeli far right (they literally just finally openly rejected a two state solution, though let's face it, in practice that's nothing new). Containment has failed. The only thing left is destruction.
I mean, what else could possibly be their endgame given the level of destruction Israel has engaged in? A vibrant and functioning Gaza will never be tolerated by the Israeli far right
It'll never be tolerated by Israel period. Let's not pretend the Israeli left and non-far right are innocent in this.
