@theacharnian
There’s a difference between Pro-Palestnian views and Pro-Hamas views.
Hamas isn’t even an internationally recognized government of palestine, and recognized by many countries including Canada as the terrorist organization. I still don’t understand why there is some people who refer to two interchangeably.
For sure. I will scream fuck Hamas until my voice goes hoarse.
The problem is the grey zone where it there is no clear line. Is using the word “genocide” crossing a line? Is using a rhetorical inversion of that line from Likud’s 1977 manifesto (“from the river to the sea”) crossing a line? Is “free Palestine” crossing a line? I don’t think so. But the article has examples like that.
Calling “from the river to the sea” an “inversion of Likud’s manifesto” is a talking point. Take a time machine and go talk to hard line Likudniks of the past 50 years, you will hear plenty of colorful and distasteful slogans, but not that one. For decades pro-Palestinians have shouted it, rallied around it; they own it, no one else. Just like the Israelis own “we need to delete Gaza” - it is not “an inversion of Iran’s call to wipe Israel off the map”.
It takes a very fearful settler mentality to interpret “will be free” as “murder the Jews”. In particular the kind of mentality that would write something like “the establishment of a “Palestinian State,” jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population” (same manifesto).
On the other hand “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” is very very explicit.
Talking points? I don’t know. When someone says who they are, believe them.
I still don’t understand why there is some people who refer to two interchangeably.
The same reason there are people who call anything anti-Zionist “anti-semitic”. Take that as you will, but to me it is a means to scare and silence people.
@theacharnian
There’s a difference between Pro-Palestnian views and Pro-Hamas views.
Hamas isn’t even an internationally recognized government of palestine, and recognized by many countries including Canada as the terrorist organization. I still don’t understand why there is some people who refer to two interchangeably.
For sure. I will scream fuck Hamas until my voice goes hoarse.
The problem is the grey zone where it there is no clear line. Is using the word “genocide” crossing a line? Is using a rhetorical inversion of that line from Likud’s 1977 manifesto (“from the river to the sea”) crossing a line? Is “free Palestine” crossing a line? I don’t think so. But the article has examples like that.
Calling “from the river to the sea” an “inversion of Likud’s manifesto” is a talking point. Take a time machine and go talk to hard line Likudniks of the past 50 years, you will hear plenty of colorful and distasteful slogans, but not that one. For decades pro-Palestinians have shouted it, rallied around it; they own it, no one else. Just like the Israelis own “we need to delete Gaza” - it is not “an inversion of Iran’s call to wipe Israel off the map”.
It takes a very fearful settler mentality to interpret “will be free” as “murder the Jews”. In particular the kind of mentality that would write something like “the establishment of a “Palestinian State,” jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population” (same manifesto).
On the other hand “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” is very very explicit.
Talking points? I don’t know. When someone says who they are, believe them.
Now now it’s only racist when brown people say it.
The same reason there are people who call anything anti-Zionist “anti-semitic”. Take that as you will, but to me it is a means to scare and silence people.
The extremists on both sides (very much including Hamas) can get fucked. Especially since they have effectively worked together.