tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post2076993188115000700..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: "From the River to the Sea": A Guide to the PerplexedDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-13668378156856708562023-12-18T23:00:46.113-08:002023-12-18T23:00:46.113-08:00From my vantage, "freedom of speech" act...From my vantage, "freedom of speech" actually has relatively little import here, but that's because I'm a free speech zealot -- even where "river to the sea" is said with explicitly malign intent, that doesn't mean it isn't protected from formal governmental or administrative sanction (which is what "free speech" is all about). On the other hand, once we move outside the realm of administrative punishments and into such things as moral critique (away from "you should go to jail for saying this" and towards "you should be critiqued for saying this"), then the question of intent -- while not <i>irrelevant</i>, does not monopolize the field.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-46545478554762157192023-12-18T06:20:31.600-08:002023-12-18T06:20:31.600-08:00This was a refreshing write on such a controversia...This was a refreshing write on such a controversial and confusing topic; thank you for the education.<br /><br />To me, however, the true crux of the problem I am seeing in the US regarding this topic is about freedom of speech.<br /><br />Building upon your (1 through 4) description of your target audience, let's assume that a large number of protestors fall into this category as well. This means that the more innocuous intent of the slogan being chanted by so many has essentially manifested a new definition of the slogan.<br /><br />Language, after all, is always adapting to fit the needs of its speakers.<br /><br />Therefore, the history of this slogan becomes less important in this context. If the majority of those chanting "from the river to the sea" are too ignorant to see the potential harm in the words, then we are forced to at least entertain that there is righteous intent.<br /><br />And if there is any confusion or room for interpretation, freedom of speech must prevail.Ginstahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06916014216876282979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-54870403993438426872021-08-30T06:50:53.432-07:002021-08-30T06:50:53.432-07:00I'd like to first thank L'Americain for ma...I'd like to first thank L'Americain for making a genuinely poor argument for what is clearly his cherished notion of establishing a 57th Muslim-majority state in the world, between the overstatement of Palestinian refugees by about 5 million (I guess he/she/whatever can't add, not a huge surprise) or trying to project Palestinians as having citizen rights in Israel because it will make him feel good. In general, the one-staters are so bad at what they do that it makes me happy.<br />As for Marc Lamont Hill, he was never going to be fired by Temple. My view was that Temple made the poor decision to award tenure to someone as untalented as Hill, and it's their problem to deal with--they don't get off the hook for that. And being a stupid liar, which Hill is, isn't a firing offense inside the tenure structure.<br />But CNN had every right to tell Hill in effect "We don't want you on our payroll anymore, we have no legal obligation to keep you on staff, so please GTFO of here and bye." He earned that firing, and it was a pleasure to see him and his acolytes reeling in shock from it (not that they learned anything from it, but that's their problem to deal with as well, and I like my enemies whiny and impotent in any case).Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01583024997893127761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-30610401831054362222018-12-04T03:43:06.982-08:002018-12-04T03:43:06.982-08:00From cursory Internet browsing, there doesn't ...<br />From cursory Internet browsing, there doesn't appear to be a definite "coiner" in the phrase as it stands, but it seems to be associated with the PLO shortly after it was founded, so definitely post-48. Regardless, as elaborated in the post, the political grammar of the slogan refers to national independence and territorial claims, not with general "unity between Palestinians", which would be uncontroversially bland even for most Zionists.LWEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04239947470970748111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-73461530218086534572018-12-03T23:53:03.603-08:002018-12-03T23:53:03.603-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.LWEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04239947470970748111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-54310653337952178532018-12-03T16:25:47.954-08:002018-12-03T16:25:47.954-08:00Would you mind citing your source(s) for the claim...Would you mind citing your source(s) for the claim that the phrase's "historical pedigree has tended to be tied to more maximalist elements of Palestinian politics"? Who first coined the phrase? Was it pre-48 (or 47) or afterwards? My understanding was this it functioned as a call for unity between Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line.Elianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16741397805842842953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-69750020019475969352018-12-02T22:58:40.024-08:002018-12-02T22:58:40.024-08:00"If Palestinians can't put that to a vote..."If Palestinians can't put that to a vote, then they aren't truly free or equal"<br /><br />To be fair, there are plenty of questions in states generally considered democratic, that are constitutionally forbidden to politically pose (e.g. even if the USA is majority Christian, to officially proclaim it as the Christian Republic of America requires changing the Constitution first, which is a more difficult matter than just putting it to referendum).<br /><br />Presumably, The Fluffybunny Secular State of Israel-Palestine would work similar to this, with a big supermajority required to change the state to a mononational one, whether or not it would actually "work" IRL.LWEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04239947470970748111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-38357035523947079002018-12-02T22:56:33.221-08:002018-12-02T22:56:33.221-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.LWEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04239947470970748111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-38368166942512884852018-12-02T20:49:18.428-08:002018-12-02T20:49:18.428-08:00The thing is, a free and equal Israel would almost...The thing is, a free and equal Israel would almost inevitably become Palestine.<br /><br />A two-state solution is impossible now thanks to the West Bank settlements. There could be no viable Palestinian state without evicting the vast majority of settlers into Israel proper. Netanyahu would never do that, and if anything Israel is only moving more to the right with time. I don't see any plausible path to a two-state solution in the near future, and in the distant future, the Jewish population of the West Bank will no longer be recent settlers, but an established population that will who it will be much more morally and practically difficult to evict.<br /><br />One could question whether or not Israel/Palestine is truly free so long as the millions of Palestinian refugees, and their homeless descendants, are barred from returning to their homeland. Even if we exclude people who are only partially descended from the original refugees, the remainder would certainly be enough to push Palestinian Arabs into an absolute majority of the population of Israel/Palestine, considering that Palestinian/Israeli Arabs are already at near-parity with Israel Jews within the borders of Israel/Palestine.<br /><br />A two-state solution is impossible; all Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs within Israel/Palestine are going to have to share the same country. In a free and just Israel/Palestine, that will involve extending the right of return to displaced Palestinian Arabs and their descendants, unless they are offered and accept a home in their current countries (which looks unlikely). Even if only a small number of refugees return, Palestinian Arabs will be the absolute majority of Israel/Palestine. That is a likely outcome in the near future even without the return of any refugees. And why would a free and equal state where Palestinians form the absolute majority not be called Palestine? If Palestinians can't put that to a vote, then they aren't truly free or equal.L'Americainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05596283660357050407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-71998892220381325582018-12-02T10:47:47.857-08:002018-12-02T10:47:47.857-08:00I mostly agree, but a few points.
I would have mo...I mostly agree, but a few points.<br /><br />I would have mostly associated the slogan with the PLO, and in their case it was on one level at least purely tactical, wasn't it? In other words, if you won't recognize us, we won't recognize you. It was a spur to negotiations, which they proved willing to engage in.<br /><br />If you buy that interpretation, why wouldn't it apply today as well? There is exit and voice, and the slogan is a type of exit. Its political effectiveness among Israel's Western allies is certainly ambiguous, but that's a separate issue.<br /><br />There is also the contrast between the fears of Jews provoked by the slogan, and the routine, lethal assaults on Palestinians by the Jewish state.<br /><br />On balance I would agree it's a bad slogan, meaning it plays no constructive role.<br /><br />MaxSpeakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08594964334301228571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-88462429595900145022018-12-01T12:47:16.299-08:002018-12-01T12:47:16.299-08:00Wow.... For an East European Jew, you Americans ar...Wow.... For an East European Jew, you Americans are really people from Mars...stettinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07888010689757886823noreply@blogger.com