https://truthout.org/articles/dont-buy-the-right-wing-disinformation-campaign-on-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
This phrase was never about killing Jews. It emerged in the 1960s as a call for equal rights within a democratic state.
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.
The 19th century begins in 1801. I think you're likely referencing a later date (probably 1917).
Why?
That's the commonly accepted date?
Though that’s also not before the 19th century.
Didn't mean to say before the whole 19th century. I'll edit that.
1917 is when the Jewish Virtual Library says was the start of the "Zionist invasion" in Arab literature.
I've definitely seen PLO-friendly sources cite 1881 as the start of the invasion.
Ultimately, though, this is just an aside, the main thrust being that ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing regardless of whether the ethnic cleansers want a secular, democratic state (or, indeed, are being ethnically cleansed themselves).
I take the very shocking view that ethnic cleansing is bad, whether pre-emptive or in vengeance.
Seems like often ambiguous topic seem like the things both sides of any argument focus on and dig heels in about.
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.
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.
You realize that before the British came in, 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?
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?
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
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.
surprisingly, there were people there even before the Jews. they are not some indigenous population that sprung from the soil.
Yes, I never said there weren't, just that people picking up specific point in history and forgetting there was anything before that.
you said that if we cared about historical things then the Jews would be the first. it was this statement that prompted my reply.
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.
Geographically, It’s located in the best place to be THE door to Europe’s and Africa’s trade routes with Asia.
Whomever controls that territory, controls an immense amount of the world’s commerce.
I can also add that in the Bronze age there was a critical trade route used to get Tin from now-Afghanistan to the eastern Mediterranean, and a lot of the city states in that area were basically stopovers on that larger route or between the big empires in the region.
Also going further back into the stone age, the entire area was considerably less of a desert than it is now
It's much less important now thanks to the Suez but still a decently wealthy coastal country.
You realize the name Palestine is what the Romans renamed the land to add insult to injury after kicking out all the Jews.
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.
You mean the Ottoman Empire? Is that supposed to be the same entity? I have no fuckin' clue anymore.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.