A ground-breaking study by a coalition of prestigious academic institutions has concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza since 7 October, 2023, constitute genocide against the Palestinian people. The study, conducted...
When they chant “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free”, what do you think they want? Israel is located between said river and sea, so they want to exterminate all Israeli so the land is all theirs. The extermination of all Jews is codified in written form in the Hamas Constitution.
If there are people there who only want to advocate for the Two State Solution for Israel/Palestine, that’s a fair point to make. But when these people, knowingly or unknowingly, mix themselves with people that carry Hamas flags and chant “from the river to the sea”, then they’re either useful idiots, or they’re pro-Hamas while using the pro-Palestine cause as a cop out.
When they chant “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free”, what do you think they want? Israel is located between said river and sea, so they want to exterminate all Israeli so the land is all theirs. The extermination of all Jews is codified in written form in the Hamas Constitution.
You just love to spread immense misinformation.
You should actually educate yourself in this particular matter if you want to write and speak on the slogan. Don’t just blabber your personal opinion, give sources. Your personal opinion doesn’t matter, actual evidence does.
Not only that, do you know that Israel has made a slogan exactly like that too. So by your definition; Israel wants to exterminate all Palestinian people (and they’re currently doing so with the genocide)
If there are people there who only want to advocate for the Two State Solution for Israel/Palestine, that’s a fair point to make. But when these people, knowingly or unknowingly, mix themselves with people that carry Hamas flags and chant “from the river to the sea”, then they’re either useful idiots, or they’re pro-Hamas while using the pro-Palestine cause as a cop out.
Israel flat out said they do NOT want a two state solution.
Also explain to us; what is a Hamas flag? I have never heard about it nor seen one. I have only seen the Palestine flag. So tell us, show us and give us actual evidence with reliable sources.
You lie, spread misinformation and give ZERO reliable sources/ evidence.
You just love to spread immense misinformation. You should actually educate yourself in this particular matter if you want to write and speak on the slogan. Don’t just blabber your personal opinion, give sources. Your personal opinion doesn’t matter, actual evidence does.
According to Wikipedia article for “From the river to the sea”: "Many Palestinian activists have called it “a call for peace and equality” after decades of Israeli military rule over Palestinians while for Jews it is seen as a call for the “destruction” of Israel. Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Usage of the phrase by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to claim that it advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and the removal or extermination of its Jewish population." So it’s not as clear-cut as you suggested. It says some Palestinians define is as a call for peace, but even if it was taken as such in the past, nowadays I have the impression it’s mosly used as a defense of the destruction of Isreal. If it was just for the peace of Palestine, they’d use a more specific sentence because the way it’s pharsed it includes the Isreal territory in their intentions of “freedom”. But they want to be free from what? Free from the Israeli people presence? The article you linked kind of confirm what the Wikipedia article said: each side has an interpretation of what this sentece entails, but I’m more interested in the practical usage of the sentence today, and in my opinion it’s mostly anti-Isreal.
Not only that, do you know that Israel has made a slogan exactly like that too. So by your definition; Israel wants to exterminate all Palestinian people (and they’re currently doing so with the genocide).
From the same Wikipedia article: “The Palestinian phrase has also been used by Israeli politicians. The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: “Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”” It seems a variation from “from the river to the sea” was used by a specific Isreali right-wing party in 1977. It was strictly a position of said party in 1977, so we cannot pin it on Isreal of 2024.
Israel flat out said they do NOT want a two state solution.
In the article you linked, this is an opinion of Isreali Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after he got spooked by what occured on October 7th. Who know’s what the next Prime Minister will think about it? Israel was explicitly in favor of the Two State Solution in 1937 and 1947, but in both cases the Palestinians refused. Now that missiles are launched from Palestinian territory into Isreal, don’t be surprised if Isreal takes a more conservative approach in the name of its national security.
Also explain to us; what is a Hamas flag? I have never heard about it nor seen one. I have only seen the Palestine flag. So tell us, show us and give us actual evidence with reliable sources.
According to Wikipedia article for “From the river to the sea”: "Many Palestinian activists have called it “a call for peace and equality” after decades of Israeli military rule over Palestinians while for Jews it is seen as a call for the “destruction” of Israel. Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Usage of the phrase by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to claim that it advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and the removal or extermination of its Jewish population." So it’s not as clear-cut as you suggested. It says some Palestinians define is as a call for peace, but even if it was taken as such in the past, nowadays I have the impression it’s mosly used as a defense of the destruction of Isreal. If it was just for the peace of Palestine, they’d use a more specific sentence because the way it’s pharsed it includes the Isreal territory in their intentions of “freedom”. But they want to be free from what? Free from the Israeli people presence? The article you linked kind of confirm what the Wikipedia article said: each side has an interpretation of what this sentece entails, but I’m more interested in the practical usage of the sentence today, and in my opinion it’s mostly anti-Isreal.
So first of all Wikipedia is not reliable at all. Anyone can edit Wikipedia pages. Here’s a link to Wikipedia’s own page about it. That said; where’s the article? You quote it but don’t give the actual link to it. That’s just air basically.
Once again your impression and opinions do not matter. Actual evidence does. What you think or get the impression out of it doesn’t mean anything. What the phrase stands directly, how was meant from the beginning does.
You’re not qualified for political discussions if, you cannot write without your personal opinions mixed in. Because that basically means, your entire discussion is biased.
But they want to be free from what? Free from the Israeli people presence?
This sentence right here just proved that you clearly have no idea what you’re writing about. They want to be free from Israel’s oppression. Be freed from the Apartheid system, be freed from purposefully murdering of their families, be able to anywhere they like. Have human rights, have an own land, a place to be. I have said this in my previous comment, I’m just repeating it since you apparently didn’t read it.
Israel stole the entire land that the Palestinian people owned, murdered thousands of Palestinian people, build an open-air prison for Palestinians people and you’re asking “be freed from what?”
Half of that wall, of text of yours can be dismissed because it’s only your personal opinion and nothing factual based. So again, your personal opinion doesn’t mean anything but factual evidence does.
Not only that, Israel has been refusing two-state solution even before the 7 October attack. Stop trying to blame this on Hamas.
It is also worth to think about the fact that Israel stole everything of the Palestinian people, murdered entire Palestinian families and then expect the Palestinian people to be “peaceful”.
That’s just not do able. If peaceful revolution is not possible, violent revolution is inevitable.
Now about the “Hamas Flag”;
It’s not necessarily a Hamas flag. I don’t think you are able to read Arabic (do you? Genuine question).
The written text on the flag says “la ilaha illallah muhammadur rasulullah” which translates to “There’s no god but Allah and Muhammad (PBUH) is his messenger”.
It’s the Shahada of the Islamic religion (IE: Religious flag) and not a ”Hamas” flag. Yeah they’re using the Shahada, doesn’t mean they “own” the Shahada.
In every comment you give to people, you purposefully mix things up to confuse other people, throw your own personal opinions in, you don’t give reliable sources, you write about things you clearly have no idea about and you flat-out lie.
There’s nothing you can write to justify killing 36 000 people, the things that was said by Israeli officials and the lying of the Israeli government.
Note: use paragraphs next time, it’s not really easy to read a wall of text.
No. What I’m saying is that the pro-Palestine protesters in the western countries are, knowingly or unknowingly, boosting the pro-Hamas message in many cases. There are probably very few (if any) pro-Palestine protests that don’t include the presence of some degree of pro-Hamas (and by extension, pro-Extermination of all Jews) people. This manifests either in the form of Hamas Flags, explicit anti-Israel flags and demonstrations, or chants of “from the river to the sea”.
On the other hand, the pro-Israel protests are very focused on the defense of Israel territory/citizens and anti-discrimation against people of Jewish heritage. There’s no explicit call to kill/expell all Palestinians. If there is, it is very fringe and the protestors themselves would certainly eject said person from the protest. At most, the most aggressive remarks are reserved specifically to the Hamas only.
As a said, even if the professor isn’t pro-Hamas, he’s beholden by institutional pressure to either hide his pro-Isreal views, or be lax on the pro-Hamas views of the students. No matter the side they are, it’s controversial either way. But just the pro-Hamas or Pro-Palestien side are allowed to express themselves freely without some kind of pushback or retaliation.
I don’t live in the cities that have the universities that held pro-Hamas protests so I can’t name them, sorry.
I’m just arriving at this conclusion because:
The main doctrine among students and faculty is being pro-Hamas, or at minimum agreeing on things like: Isreal is causing a genocide, Isreal is an apartheid state, Israel makes living in Gaza feel like an open prison, etc.
If any student goes over the line and is explicitly pro-Hamas, or advocates the extermination of all Jews (“to the river to the sea…”), harasses jewish students or blocks them from entering the building, protest in a way to disrupt the right of the non-protesting students to attend class, litter the common areas, etc. If they do this, the faculty just do nothing or reprimend them with a slap on the wrist. In other words, they condone this stuff.
The presidents of those universities often are beholden by the opinion of the pro-Hamas students. There’s a famous episode where the president of Havard, Claudine Gay, when asked if “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate the college’s code of conduct, was evasive and said “it depends on context”.
And I’m sorry if I originally said they’re mostly pro-Hamas. What I really meant is that they’re either pro-Hamas or Pro-Palestine. If they’re not, they’d fell intimidated to express their pro-Isreael opinions, just like most pro-Israel students would when they see the treatment their jewish colleagues receive, so it creates the illusion that 99% of the faculty and students are pro-Hamas or pro-Palestine, but it’s the social and institutional pressure that I cited above that makes it seem so.
That is a lie. Almost no one is pro-Hamas. What they are is people who are against Palestinian genocide and want Palestinian independence.
Or are you making the bigoted claim that Hamas and Palestinian are synonyms?
When they chant “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free”, what do you think they want? Israel is located between said river and sea, so they want to exterminate all Israeli so the land is all theirs. The extermination of all Jews is codified in written form in the Hamas Constitution.
If there are people there who only want to advocate for the Two State Solution for Israel/Palestine, that’s a fair point to make. But when these people, knowingly or unknowingly, mix themselves with people that carry Hamas flags and chant “from the river to the sea”, then they’re either useful idiots, or they’re pro-Hamas while using the pro-Palestine cause as a cop out.
You just love to spread immense misinformation.
You should actually educate yourself in this particular matter if you want to write and speak on the slogan. Don’t just blabber your personal opinion, give sources. Your personal opinion doesn’t matter, actual evidence does.
Not only that, do you know that Israel has made a slogan exactly like that too. So by your definition; Israel wants to exterminate all Palestinian people (and they’re currently doing so with the genocide)
Israel flat out said they do NOT want a two state solution.
Also explain to us; what is a Hamas flag? I have never heard about it nor seen one. I have only seen the Palestine flag. So tell us, show us and give us actual evidence with reliable sources.
You lie, spread misinformation and give ZERO reliable sources/ evidence.
EDIT: made some corrections to the spelling of words.
EDIT 2: it seems you cannot since you’re apparently ignoring me but responding to other people with lies and zero evidence to back it up once again.
According to Wikipedia article for “From the river to the sea”: "Many Palestinian activists have called it “a call for peace and equality” after decades of Israeli military rule over Palestinians while for Jews it is seen as a call for the “destruction” of Israel. Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Usage of the phrase by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to claim that it advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and the removal or extermination of its Jewish population." So it’s not as clear-cut as you suggested. It says some Palestinians define is as a call for peace, but even if it was taken as such in the past, nowadays I have the impression it’s mosly used as a defense of the destruction of Isreal. If it was just for the peace of Palestine, they’d use a more specific sentence because the way it’s pharsed it includes the Isreal territory in their intentions of “freedom”. But they want to be free from what? Free from the Israeli people presence? The article you linked kind of confirm what the Wikipedia article said: each side has an interpretation of what this sentece entails, but I’m more interested in the practical usage of the sentence today, and in my opinion it’s mostly anti-Isreal.
From the same Wikipedia article: “The Palestinian phrase has also been used by Israeli politicians. The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: “Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”” It seems a variation from “from the river to the sea” was used by a specific Isreali right-wing party in 1977. It was strictly a position of said party in 1977, so we cannot pin it on Isreal of 2024.
In the article you linked, this is an opinion of Isreali Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after he got spooked by what occured on October 7th. Who know’s what the next Prime Minister will think about it? Israel was explicitly in favor of the Two State Solution in 1937 and 1947, but in both cases the Palestinians refused. Now that missiles are launched from Palestinian territory into Isreal, don’t be surprised if Isreal takes a more conservative approach in the name of its national security.
Sure: Hamas Flag, Palestine Flag.
So first of all Wikipedia is not reliable at all. Anyone can edit Wikipedia pages. Here’s a link to Wikipedia’s own page about it. That said; where’s the article? You quote it but don’t give the actual link to it. That’s just air basically.
Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning anyone can edit nearly any page and improve articles immediately
Once again your impression and opinions do not matter. Actual evidence does. What you think or get the impression out of it doesn’t mean anything. What the phrase stands directly, how was meant from the beginning does.
You’re not qualified for political discussions if, you cannot write without your personal opinions mixed in. Because that basically means, your entire discussion is biased.
This sentence right here just proved that you clearly have no idea what you’re writing about. They want to be free from Israel’s oppression. Be freed from the Apartheid system, be freed from purposefully murdering of their families, be able to anywhere they like. Have human rights, have an own land, a place to be. I have said this in my previous comment, I’m just repeating it since you apparently didn’t read it.
Israel stole the entire land that the Palestinian people owned, murdered thousands of Palestinian people, build an open-air prison for Palestinians people and you’re asking “be freed from what?”
Half of that wall, of text of yours can be dismissed because it’s only your personal opinion and nothing factual based. So again, your personal opinion doesn’t mean anything but factual evidence does.
Not only that, Israel has been refusing two-state solution even before the 7 October attack. Stop trying to blame this on Hamas.
It is also worth to think about the fact that Israel stole everything of the Palestinian people, murdered entire Palestinian families and then expect the Palestinian people to be “peaceful”. That’s just not do able. If peaceful revolution is not possible, violent revolution is inevitable.
Now about the “Hamas Flag”;
It’s not necessarily a Hamas flag. I don’t think you are able to read Arabic (do you? Genuine question).
The written text on the flag says “la ilaha illallah muhammadur rasulullah” which translates to “There’s no god but Allah and Muhammad (PBUH) is his messenger”.
It’s the Shahada of the Islamic religion (IE: Religious flag) and not a ”Hamas” flag. Yeah they’re using the Shahada, doesn’t mean they “own” the Shahada.
In every comment you give to people, you purposefully mix things up to confuse other people, throw your own personal opinions in, you don’t give reliable sources, you write about things you clearly have no idea about and you flat-out lie.
There’s nothing you can write to justify killing 36 000 people, the things that was said by Israeli officials and the lying of the Israeli government.
Note: use paragraphs next time, it’s not really easy to read a wall of text.
So you are saying that all Palestinians are Hamas?
No. What I’m saying is that the pro-Palestine protesters in the western countries are, knowingly or unknowingly, boosting the pro-Hamas message in many cases. There are probably very few (if any) pro-Palestine protests that don’t include the presence of some degree of pro-Hamas (and by extension, pro-Extermination of all Jews) people. This manifests either in the form of Hamas Flags, explicit anti-Israel flags and demonstrations, or chants of “from the river to the sea”.
On the other hand, the pro-Israel protests are very focused on the defense of Israel territory/citizens and anti-discrimation against people of Jewish heritage. There’s no explicit call to kill/expell all Palestinians. If there is, it is very fringe and the protestors themselves would certainly eject said person from the protest. At most, the most aggressive remarks are reserved specifically to the Hamas only.
You said most professors are pro-Hamas.
Can you even name three professors from those institutions that are pro-Hamas? Because you seem to be changing your story.
As a said, even if the professor isn’t pro-Hamas, he’s beholden by institutional pressure to either hide his pro-Isreal views, or be lax on the pro-Hamas views of the students. No matter the side they are, it’s controversial either way. But just the pro-Hamas or Pro-Palestien side are allowed to express themselves freely without some kind of pushback or retaliation.
Actually, this is what you said:
So please name three professors who have a “pro-Hamas” doctrine.
I don’t live in the cities that have the universities that held pro-Hamas protests so I can’t name them, sorry.
I’m just arriving at this conclusion because:
The main doctrine among students and faculty is being pro-Hamas, or at minimum agreeing on things like: Isreal is causing a genocide, Isreal is an apartheid state, Israel makes living in Gaza feel like an open prison, etc.
If any student goes over the line and is explicitly pro-Hamas, or advocates the extermination of all Jews (“to the river to the sea…”), harasses jewish students or blocks them from entering the building, protest in a way to disrupt the right of the non-protesting students to attend class, litter the common areas, etc. If they do this, the faculty just do nothing or reprimend them with a slap on the wrist. In other words, they condone this stuff.
The presidents of those universities often are beholden by the opinion of the pro-Hamas students. There’s a famous episode where the president of Havard, Claudine Gay, when asked if “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate the college’s code of conduct, was evasive and said “it depends on context”.
And I’m sorry if I originally said they’re mostly pro-Hamas. What I really meant is that they’re either pro-Hamas or Pro-Palestine. If they’re not, they’d fell intimidated to express their pro-Isreael opinions, just like most pro-Israel students would when they see the treatment their jewish colleagues receive, so it creates the illusion that 99% of the faculty and students are pro-Hamas or pro-Palestine, but it’s the social and institutional pressure that I cited above that makes it seem so.
Ah, so this is all based on faith. Why didn’t you say so?