Don’t Buy the Right-Wing Disinformation Campaign on “From the River to the Sea”
Don’t 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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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).
First Aliyah, starting 1881.
Why? Though that's also not before the 19th century.
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.
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?
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.
Can you speculate as to why the area is seemingly so desirable?
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.
That makes perfect sense, thank you.
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.
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.
You're right my bad
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.
Would be before Palestinians.
I suppose that would depend on how you define Palestinians. but the point remains.
Well, by the definition you are suggesting, the Jews would also be Palestinians.
there was also a group already in the area referred to as the Philistines. a young David is rumoured to have killed Goliath.
You realize the name Palestine is what the Romans renamed the land to add insult to injury after kicking out all the Jews.
that feels like not was quite some time ago.
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.
Yes, but anglophone white people did it, so it doesn't count.
When British empire was there, it belonged to Britain, not Palestine.