#Palestinian liberation does not see rights the same way you do

[canichangemyblogname]

Coffee stop stranger to my friend watching a TikTok video: “A terrorist organization uses that phrase to call for jihad, just so you know.”

Me playing dumb because I know this person is just being Arabophobic and Islamophobic: “Which phrase? Alhamdulillah?”

*a pause while they “think” because they don’t know Arabic and have no clue what they’re actually arguing against*

Them: “Yeah. You kids need to stop saying it. It makes people uncomfortable.”

Me: “THANK GOD you were here to tell us. Where would we be without you?”

Old people are so bold and they love to comment on things that are none of their damn business 😑

[palms-upturned]

Frustrates me to no end seeing people say “what’s your alternative to voting blue? Stage a revolution right now? This second? Get real, you’re posting on your computer instead of firebombing walmarts.” I don’t think that you understand what people are actually doing. I know for myself, I’ve been reading more history and theory than I ever have before. I’ve been marching. I’ve been getting involved with labor activism. I’ve been doing strategic research. I’ve tried to archive and share resources. I’ve watched other people do WAY more than I ever have or probably could. I’ve seen people occupy arms manufacturing sites and hold wildcat strikes and disrupt daily life as much as possible. We’ve all seen this happening at unprecedented levels for months now. And most of all, I’ve seen Palestinians telling us, rightfully full of anger, do not ever go back to how things were before. Do not turn away from what’s happening and your own complicity in it.

This is not something that we can vote our way out of. Our state is built on the same violence being inflicted on the people of Palestine. We helped to build Israel. We are still arming it and funding the “war” right now. Even the most half hearted measures from international bodies like the UN to take the bare minimum of a stance against genocide are quashed by the US. As they always have been, our power and resources are used to reinforce imperial and colonial hegemony. That remains the same no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office. And so does our own struggle for liberation. Meaningful change is never, ever going to come from within. We force the change to happen, as we always have.

If you can understand intersectionality, then surely you can understand this: we are not going to free ourselves by sacrificing colonized people. You may vote blue, and for you it could be a matter of life and death. Believe me, as a poor disabled person in a red state who almost killed myself over medical debt, I know the stakes. But I think you have to own the fact that you are empowering perpetrators of genocide and breaking solidarity with colonized people, not even to liberate yourself, but just to bargain with the oppressor for your life. That Palestinians and everyone else who we have harmed are going to be angry and they are more than within their rights. Instead of deflecting by just assuming that no one else is capable of putting their money where their mouth is and actually trying to lay groundwork for change, just do whatever you feel you have to do and sit with the reality of the situation.

Palestine will be free, we will be free, the whole world will someday be free. But for now, this is where we are, and we won’t free ourselves by operating like crabs in a bucket. Get organized, take care of each other, commit to solidarity. Empower yourself and each other rather than the state.

[the-microphone-explodes]

So recently this Tweet went viral on Twitter, which is generally stating something that is rather common that I have also noticed on the app. (I will say that I do believe antisemitism and anti-black racism to also be extremely normalized as well, perhaps to an even greater extent).

That being said this was the general response (found in the quote retweet and the comments) to the above tweet:

I wanted to put this together and show it to others on here because it seems that it is strongly indicative of how hated Indian people are in progressive spaces. And before someone comes after me to say this is largely online, I will state that this rhetoric is eerily similar to the discrimination I faced growing up as Indian and that I continue to face. Additionally, people online are people in real life, they carry this rhetoric in the real world too and Indian people exist online too, we see how people dislike us.

To dissect and debunk all the sentiments in the tweets above would take an immense amount of time and energy that I do not have. Even archiving and collecting these tweets caused me to fall into a spiral of stress and tension. You don't have to go through all of it, much of what is expressed is vile, but I am trying to point out something. And it's that racism against Indians has become normalized, perhaps even encouraged, obviously in right-wing spaces but in progressive and liberal-left wing spaces as well. If you click on the accounts of many of these people, you can see them advocating against other forms of racism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Palestinianism etc. These are progressives, not your run-of-the-mill conservative bigots. Hostility is growing against Indians, out in the open, and it seems that not many are willing to combat or acknowledge it.

The tactics are the same of course, to take a vocal minority of a group of people and paint the vast majority as the same, effectively portraying the group as if it has monolithic ideas. This is obviously a ridiculous thing to do, but even more so when one realizes that India is home to 1.4 billion people, not counting Indians living in other countries. These are all individuals who hold their own complex ideologies and beliefs, it is not possible to condense them down to one stereotype.

Am I denying that Indian people have our own issues and bigotry (to say the least) surrounding anti-Black racism, misogyny, islamophobia, casteism etc. Absolutely not! I have spent much of my life trying to unpack these sentiments drilled into me from a young age, and I have tried to help my peers do too. I have also spent time in real world activism combating such issues, because it is the only way forward to a more equal society.

But just because our society has prejudice does not mean we should be subjected to such bigotry from other progressives or have the discrimination we face not be taken seriously. Even the worst among us does not deserve to have racist sentiments spewed against them because bigotry is wrong, point blank. We don't deserve to be called rapists, to be accused of all being racists, and say that racism against us is "self-inflicted". Indians do not deserve that, we just don't.

[edenfenixblogs]

Reminder! But be aware that many Jews use the term Zionist/Zionism in a way that you do not understand it/are not familiar with! Many Jewish people who you would define as Zionists and/or people who have all the same politics as you may:

1. Call themselves Zionists because it is a term with deeply individual meanings for many Jews

2. Not call themselves Zionists, but bristle at hearing the term “Zionist” be used as a pejorative because the history of the word Zionist being used as an antisemitic dogwhistle in leftism, communist Russia, and Arab extremist organizations (and because I am Jewish and on the internet I will state explicitly that no, of course I do not think all Arabs are extremists. I do not think all Muslims are extremists. I do not tolerate Islamophobia in any way on my blog or in real life. If I see a single even somewhat questionable instance of maybe Islamophobia in any replies here, you will be blocked and reported. I am taking the time to educate about Zionism as a dogwhistle, because I have chosen to tolerate a certain amount of feedback as a Jewish person. I am neither Arab nor Muslim so it is not my place to extend an olive branch of understanding regarding Islamophobia to you nor do I have any interest in doing so. I wholeheartedly condemn anti-Arab and Islamophobic hatred. As we all should)

3. Actively call themselves anti-Zionists because they define the term Zionism in a way that includes occupation, genocide, and expulsion

4. Actively call themselves anti-Zionists but still believe that Jewish people as an ethnoreligous group are inherently indigenous to the lands around Jerusalem while ALSO considering Palestinians to be indigenous to that same land.

5. Actively call themselves anti-Zionists because they oppose the formation of any religious state whatsoever, but still believe that Jews deserve to reside where they are right now without forced expulsion.

For non-Jewish people using the term anti-Zionism, I urge you to really think about what Zionism actually means to you as a term. Like what do you think that word is? What kind of person do you think a Zionist is? What assumptions are you making in the use of that term and is it fair to expect every Jewish person to agree with that definition and why do you feel that way?

And before anyone comments on me or makes assumptions about my stance.

I do not call myself a Zionist!

I deeply oppose the current government of Israel. I had the opportunity to go on a birthright trip to Israel, and declined to go because I do not support the subjugation of Palestinians. I also chose not to go, because at the time there was a spate of bus bombings. I have family in Israel that I have never met and cannot meet because I refuse to go there out of both personal fear AND political unrest AND political/moral opposition.

I support sovereignty and equal rights and liberation and self determination for all Palestinians. I believe Palestinians are indigenous to the land.

I also believe Jewish people are indigenous to the land. Since Hadrian’s expulsion of the Jewish people from Israel/Judea in 135 and the resultant formation of Syria Palestina, there has been no place that Jews have existed that has considered them foundational parts of society or that has not expelled us. We have always been considered settlers. There is no other place in which we could even conceivably BE indigenous besides the levant. I believe that the “whiteness” of modern Jews of European descent is a product of millennia of expulsion, resettlement, and relocation. I know for a fact that PoC Jews have also REMAINED in the region since the expulsion in 135 and if they’re not indigenous to there, then who on earth is?

I believe that indigeneity does not expire. I believe that the fact that Jews sing daily prayers about their history in Israel/the levant is pretty strong evidence that Jews all over the world have never lost their connection to the region. I believe that two thousand years is a long time.

I believe that it could not matter less whether Jews or Palestinians were there “first.” What matters is the strong cultural ties BOTH cultures have to the levant. What matters is that civilians have a safe government that they can trust not to commit genocide against them. To expel them from the land of their ancestors. To banish them to settlements.

I believe colonialism is wrong. I believe imperialism is wrong. I believe there’s even more I need to learn even after living in this conflict and diaspora my entire life. I do not believe that the land that exists there right now needs to be called Israel. I only believe that there needs to be safeguards in place at a governmental level that explicitly protects the sovereignty, safety, and legitimacy of Palestinians and the Jews who live there. There must be guardrails to prevent genocide against both groups. There must be some formal institutional mechanism to ensure the safety of both parties.

I believe that none of these ideas are in conflict with one another.

Anyone telling you that the solution is straightforward is lying or has plans to harm a large number of people. You are not special. You did not invent the perfect idea that no one thought of that magically solves the issues of statelessness, fear of displacement, expulsion, or genocide. If your plan only involves helping one group without regard to the needs of the other, it is a bad plan. If you don’t believe that Jews should be expelled from Israel, is that Zionism? If you believe Jews should have self determination and representation within government that protects their interests, is that Zionism? Even if the same self determination and representation exists for Palestinians? If you are a hardcore anti-Zionist and believe that Jews do not belong in i/p at all, where do the Jews go?

Where are the Jews indigenous to that isn’t Israel? Where do they go. Europe doesn’t want us. The rest of SWANA doesn’t want us. We certainly are not indigenous to the Americas. It’s been awhile since there were expulsions from Asia (as far as I know), but they did happen there. And Asian countries have very rich indigenous histories of their own that we have no place in. The United States is increasingly violent to us and is certainly nobody’s idea of a Jewish homeland.

If your argument against Zionism is that Jews don’t belong there, where do we belong? If your argument against Zionism is that Jews don’t deserve to ever leave diaspora and should not have self determination or protection, why not us too? Again, I have no desire to go to Israel!!! I have actively rejected offers to visit Israel!!!

I don’t call this set of beliefs Zionism. I don’t believe there is a term for this set of beliefs. But someone else might disagree. And that’s the point. I’m not shaming anyone who does or does not call themselves a Zionist.

[scarlet--wiccan]

Hello! I've been boycotting Marvel ever since I saw the BDS notice you reblogged however I'm a bit confused: when the post says it's okay to buy from independent sellers does that mean it would be okay to buy the Scarlet Witch comics from a small comic book store? Or it is just meant to say it's okay to buy comics from other prints and companies if we know they aren't supporting Zi0nists?

This is my personal philosophy, which is A) subject to change; B) not intended to be proscriptive or authoritative; C) not a representation of the BDS movement, its praxis, or its goals. I've made my beliefs very clear about Palestinian liberation. I am 100% pro-boycott, but I would urge you to defer to actual movement organizers and leaders, which I am not.

Boycotting is a goal- and result-oriented action, and organizers name specific targets for a reason. My understanding is that the primary targets of the Marvel boycott are Marvel Studios and the M C U. This is a cultural boycott that was called specifically in response to the upcoming Captain America film. Marvel Studios has also historically had close dealings with the United States military industrial complex.

The comic book industry is an incredibly unbalanced system. Low sales impact independent retailers first, and with much greater severity than the publishers and corporations, and the majority of writers and artists who work for Marvel or DC are in vulnerable positions where project longevity and job security often depend on presale numbers. For these reasons, I have always prioritized buying print, buying from local independently owned comic book shops, and going out of my way to place preorders for titles that I want to support.

Marvel is a large corporation and it's owned by Disney, which is also a target for boycott and divestment, so you would be within reason to boycott all Marvel products, but to the best of my understanding, BDS has not listed comic books as a target-- and I don't see the impact as being optimally productive, due to the economic imbalances I described. I, personally, have continued to purchase print comics from a local store where I am familiar with the staff and owner, and I trust their politics. I do my best to keep track of the public behavior of writers and artists, and only purchase work made by people I feel I can similarly trust.

If you choose to purchase Marvel or DC comics, I would encourage you to perform the same due diligence, and ONLY buy print and ONLY buy local. Don't make digital purchases or buy subscriptions directly from the company, and don't buy merchandise, specifically of the M C U.

I would strongly encourage you to match your purchases with donations. The most effective way you can give money right now is by donating to personal fundraisers. My friend Eeri has organized a spreadsheet tracking GoFundMe drives for dozens of Palestinian families and individuals, all of which have been verified. They've also made individual posts and reels for each fundraiser that you can share on your instagram, if you have one.

[doyouevenknowwhatshappening]

You are, in fact, not a leftist or even left aligned if you do not support Jewish people and denounce anti-semetic behaviors when you see them.

You can not call yourself a leftist, an alternative person (such as punk, goth, etc), or call yourself anti-fascist if you do not stand up for Jewish Voices.

There is an actual rise in not-zees in the USA and even other places. This is usually a mind frame seen in the EXTREME right and MAGA crowd.

Know your dogwhistles.

Such as "Have a totally joyful day" or "lizard people control the government," as some of the more well known ones. Which are blatant calls for Jewish hate.

I am Goyim, I am not a Jewish person. I have no Jewish ancestors. However, I was taught about Jewish history in the most dumbed down way any kid can. Then I took it on myself (as you're supposed to do) to learn MORE. I have read about the past, both ancient and modern, of what jews have gone through. The amount of hatred, judgment, and fear these people experience is beyond me. For simply existing.

And before ANYONE begins to say anything about Palestine, I am 100% pro-palestine. I support the nation's right to exist peacefully, to have jurisdiction over their land, just the same as I support the right for Jewish people to have a safe place. The occupational control of the Palestinian people, the fact Hamas was created by Isreal, the fact that thousands are dying right now as I type this out; none of this is okay. What Isreal is doing, what Netanyahoo is doing, IS NOT OKAY. All of this has been caused by white nationalism, anti-semetism, and colonialism.

Jewish people as a whole, and Muslims, are NOT TO BLAME for the genocide happening in Palestine right now.

If you read the history, if you KNOW things before you scream them at the top of your lungs, you'd also know this. You'd know to blame Europe for what it has caused. You'd know to blame Anti-Semitism and the UK for "giving" Jewish people, Isreal. You'd know to blame the USA for getting involved in anything in the Middle East. You'd know that NEITHER THE JEWS OR PALESTINIANS WANT THIS.

Propaganda is two sides of the same danm coin people. Listen. Learn.

There are DEFINENTLY people doing things that are cruel, unjust, and horrifying to Palestinians. However, fear mongering has led people everywhere to believe, "Look what this one IDF soldier did/said!" Means "look, Jewish people ARE bad! Think of the children!"

The same way that many Israelis are being fed the same propaganda about Palestinians/Muslims as a whole. SINCE BEFORE OCTOBER 7TH.

Lies will and HAVE came from both sides. This doesn't mean that everything coming out of Palestine is false by ANY MEANS. But it does mean that fabrications to aid your opinions will always and have always been part of how wars have been fought.

People who scream for justice for Palestine while screaming at anyone for being Jewish and inciting hate against them are just as bad as the people supporting said Genocide.

You can acknowledge that what's happening to the Palestinian people is caused by a terrorist state. While also continue to fight against the hatred, misconceptions, discrimination, and fear of Jewish people worldwide. This is not about "picking sides" between Palestinians and Jewish people.

This is about liberation. Full stop.

This is about ending the tyrrany.

You can not be anti-war and yet celebrate when war is being fought. This is not a football game. This is not chess. These are lives.

[power-chords]

Seeing posts like these is heartbreaking to me because I want to believe these people hold no intrinsic animosity towards Jews and are simply ignorant and ill-informed. I have to ask: What is the immediate practical utility, in terms of substantive, material aid to Palestine, in “exposing Zionists” (presumably on social media)? The reblog referenced by OP is with respect to rhetoric from the openly genocidal Israeli government, and they certainly don’t need anything in the way of “Zionist exposing.” They’re happy to do it themselves. How is the liberation of Palestine advanced by compiling lists of diasporic Jews on Tumblr, many of whom upon cursory inspection explicitly denounce the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Israeli government and are in support of a ceasefire, and circulating said lists with the sole apparent aim of marking an “insidious” and “clever” pariah group with whom you should not interact (because they are disingenuous manipulators who cannot be reasoned with)? I can only speak to my experience with my fellow American Ashkenazim, but I have had productive conversations with colleagues and family members of FAR more staunchly pro-Zionist sympathies, and found that patience and pressure from community/peers is the most effective tool in changing minds and hearts. Ironically, it is by legitimizing the reality of their fear of antisemitism – and how Israel’s rhetoric endangers world Jewry by conflating its interests and its activities with Jews as a nationally-identified monolith – that gets the most mileage. WHATEVER WORKS.

Of course the Israeli state deploys insane, manipulative propaganda to justify its violence. States often do that! It infuriates me to watch the IDF carpet bomb and starve Palestinian civilians and wipe out entire lineages and then call South Africa’s ICJ suit for crimes against humanity “blood libel.” What I have yet to see on blogs like the one screenshotted above is any demonstrable curiosity about the historical and contemporary propagation of actual blood libel, or the tenacity and pervasiveness of antisemitic conspiracy theories, or ANYTHING about the culture of world Jewry generally that is extrinsic to Zionism! (Part of the reason I’ve been so profusely vocal lately on such things.) Of course there are bad actors arguing in bad faith; the same is true of any politically motivated group. But diasporic Jews urging caution and precision in the language you use when (justifiably!!!) condemning Israeli nationalism doesn’t emerge from a historical vacuum that you are free to write off as secretly ideologically motivated in covert, nefarious support of that nationalism. At best it’s a bad look and does nothing to aid the survival, welfare, and ultimate liberation of the Palestinian people. At worst you’re playing right into the hands of antisemites.

[unsolicited-opinions]

Re: your post about the Ezra Klein, Coates interview, and specifically the analogy you drew about civil rights; I’m kind of confused about how you came to the conclusion that the Palestinians haven’t tried doing nonviolence. Did the march of return not count? Furthermore, moral sobriety did not convince the American public that black people weren’t inferior. I think you calling Coates a polemicist was incredibly uncharitable and shows apathy to the point that him and Klein both agreed on: that Israel is an apartheid state.

Thanks for the comment. I'll presume your good faith and return the same in this longish answer.

You wrote: "I'm kind of confused about how you came to the conclusion that the Palestinians haven't tried doing nonviolence." 

Your confusion may be a result of the fact that I neither said nor implied this. What you're doing here is called a straw man fallacy.[1] 

What I did say was that Civil Rights activists led by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Congress of Racial Equality were utterly committed to nonviolence. You can tell this is true by how they never committed acts of terrorism. 

You wrote: "Furthermore, moral sobriety did not convince the American public that black people weren't inferior."

I don't know what "moral sobriety" is. I don't know what moral inebriation would be, either.

I certainly didn't claim that moral sobriety accomplished anything and this is another straw man.[1] 

What I did claim was that the principled nonviolence of the Civil Rights Movement impacted public opinion sufficiently to get the  Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed. 

This is from the transcript of the Coates/Klein conversation[2]:

TA-NEHISI COATES: I can’t accept that your interest in a true democracy was destroyed by violence from your partner. I just can’t accept that. First of all, I think even in this rendering that we have here, I suspect that there are reasons for why that suicide bombing even happened.

'You' here refers to Israel. Coates is saying that Israelis must not be committed to peace because violence from Hamas derailed Israeli public support for a peace process. If this is true, why is it not also true for the Palestinians? This seems to me like both a double standard and terrorism apologetics.

You wrote: "...I think you calling Coates a polemicist was incredibly uncharitable…"

Coates himself acknowledges this. Here's a long excerpt from the transcript [2], keeping his comments in context:

EZRA KLEIN: Did you go around with anybody who would say, no, we’re doing the right thing here. Or even we’re not doing enough here.

TA-NEHISI COATES: No.

EZRA KLEIN: Why?

TA-NEHISI COATES: There are things in this world that I see that I just don’t want to hear the justification for. I just don’t think can be justified. I don’t want to hear — I don’t know what I can glean from a justification for — and I’m talking about in an American context — segregation.

I don’t know what necessarily I can glean from a justification for enslavement by hearing somebody like interviewing somebody and say, tell me why this is legal. Some things come down to, for me, just a moral decision. And I actually think journalists do this all the time. I think we all draw a line somewhere about what we feel is out of bounds and what we feel is beyond.

For me, I was willing to entertain probably a debate from people who were anti-occupation, but maybe not necessarily anti-Zionist. Maybe it would be classified as liberal Zionists even. All the way over to people who thought Zionism was a terrible idea and the worst thing that had ever happened. The justification for settlements was outside of my frame.

EZRA KLEIN: But that does wipe out all of Israeli society almost, right?

TA-NEHISI COATES: I was concerned with what I don’t know. And what I haven’t heard. And for me, Palestinian voices have been pushed so far out of the frame. Like that is the thing that is hard to access. And I think this is open for critique. But I made a conscious decision, frankly, in the language, you know what I mean?

Later in the interview, Coates returns to Klein's criticism:

COATES:... this was just a decision I made. OK, who am I not hearing from? Who have I not heard from?

And so that necessarily means marginalizing a portion of it.

Coates openly acknowledges that he decided consciously, deliberately, to ignore the parts he didn't want to hear in order to protect the narrative he wanted to focus on. He states that this is open for critique…which is what I'm offering. I haven't been uncharitable in any way. 

You wrote: "...and shows apathy to the point that him and Klein both agreed on: that Israel is an apartheid state." 

That's a third straw man[1]. Look again. How did my post start?

I agree with Coates and Klein both that the circumstances for Palestinians in the West Bank can be compared to apartheid. Israel within the green line can't be described that way, but the West Bank, in my opinion, can be described that way.

I think the West Bank settlements are indefensible. They are shameful and wrong. Israel could have protected its security without building settlements clearly meant to eventually annex the land into Israel. I have nothing but contempt and condemnation for them. 

Coates and Klein, however, also agreed about what would happen if Israel unilaterally pulled out of the West Bank as they did in Gaza in 2005. Again, here's the transcript:

KLEIN:...If we ever pull back, if we do what we did in Gaza, and allow this to be self-governed, an army will be raised, and what happened on 10/7 will be a small preview of what will be coming for us eventually.

That doesn’t make anything happening in the West Bank right. It doesn’t have any effect on the morality of it whatsoever. But it is the politics of Israel that somebody is going to have to deal with at some point or not. And then we’re just here. I’m not here to tell you I’ve come up with some answer. It’s just one of the things that has to sit in the pot.

TA-NEHISI COATES: Yeah, I don’t disagree with that at all. I don’t disagree with that at all.

Given this agreement between Coates and Klein that Israel pulling out of the West Bank unilaterally without enforceable security guarantees would result in disaster, what would you have Israel do? If it was up to me, I'd start with making water distribution fair in area C of the West Bank.

Now that I have defended my reasonable and supported criticisms of Coates from three straw man comments, I need to mention that the same category of error Coates gives us had a mirror image this weekend in Bill Maher.

BONUS GRIPE: Bill Maher does the same kind of thing as Coates, but in a mirror

Did you see this?

Set aside for a minute that Maher condescending to Chappell Roan and Roan's audience won't change any minds and set aside that Maher continues to be a living avatar for Peak Boomer Asshole Behavior - and what we're left with is a narrative about Israel/Palestine which is made to seem reasonable only by consciously, deliberately, dishonestly choosing to leave out utterly essential information. They're both writing for confirmation biases. There are only two differences between what Coates did and what Maher did:

1. Maher leaves out essential information about the Palestinian concerns and Palestinian realities while ignoring or downplaying Israeli failures…while Coates leaves out essential information about Israeli concerns and Israeli realities while ignoring or downplaying Palestinian failures. 

2. Coates at least ADMITS, when pressed, that he's doing this. Maher, smug prick that he is, does not. 

They're both wrong. It's assholes running the Israeli government, assholes running Hamas, assholes running the Palestinian Authority, and assholes running the Iranian government- and NONE of these parties has honestly sought peace for at least a couple decades. (Iran and Hamas have never sought peace.)

And with their deeply dishonest determination to serve their narratives by leaving out half the story, neither Coates nor Maher are helping elevate the conversation and fumble towards truth or resolution nearly as much as Ezra Klein does with consistent intellectual honesty.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/11/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-ta-nehisi-coates.html

[meatcute]

Not an American, and I despise Harris and Biden for their enabling of genocide, and Harris in particular for her role in so much institutional cruelty and misery. If I were there, I don’t think I’d vote for either if it came down to it.

At the same time, there’s a glimmer more hope for me when it comes to Palestine specifically with her than with Biden. It’s not a lot, and definitely not enough to be convinced she’d be willing to denounce Zionism or push the Democratic Party to distance themselves from the Israeli regime, though. It’s something though.

Here are my reasons why:

Biden specifically has been a huge voice of Zionism for decades. He once told Netanyahu that he was Israel’s best friend in US politics. Harris does not have that degree of personal investment in Israel- Obviously, she is supported by AIPAC, but she has not entrenched herself in it like Biden did.

She’s just not as old. Everyone I know that’s Biden’s age, smart or not, liberal or conservative and even actively leftist, take a lot of talking to in order to reconsider their stance on anything. We don’t have the ability to do that directly with Biden, as we can see from it taking weeks and personal lobbying for him to step down- Harris will probably be more receptive to adapting her stance on most issues than we could ever hope Biden to be.

I guess my overall feeling on the situation is: I wanted Biden gone; I want Harris better. I think everyone continuing to talk about Gaza, pressuring her on that, alongside her record on Native American rights, sex workers, police reform, etc has a genuine chance of affecting her policy choices as president.

So I’m holding out hope. Not hope on the way that “if American’s just vote for her, she’ll be a good president!” way, but in a “If this election campaign continues the way it is, she can choose to reinvent herself and her stances on major issues that the Biden-Harris administration failed.” way.

If she doesn’t make those choices, and chooses to stand even stronger pro-Israel, pro-cop and toe the Democratic Party line, then you can drag this post back up and we can all laugh at it together as a symptom of chronic centre-left apologism.

TL:DR: Keep criticising Harris’ record, keep condemning the Biden-Harris administration’s fucking awful treatment of Palestinians and apathy towards Sudan. I believe that doing that has an active political purpose in changing how Harris will approach things, and that keeping that open as a possibility can energise this movement even stronger.

irdk this just sounds like youve been totally sold over by harris having better optics than biden. harris being younger or not as expressive on her opinions on israel does not mean she doesnt stand by the decisions shes made. do you think she endorses the genocide by accident?

"we can laugh together" ah nvm you dont care about this. you typed this whole essay only for your reaction to a future where our president kills palestinians to be "lol guess i was wrong!" like what is the point of this. congrats on the successful ragebait ig?

[tshifty]

I actually do blame people for staying home. Trump will be even worse for Palestinians. Choosing not to go vote for Kamala is going to result in more harm for EVERYONE. If you can even help any number of marginalized people suffer less by voting and you don’t, I just can’t understand that thought process. This isn’t at you since I know you said you would be voting. But also from a strategic standpoint, democrats aren’t doing to start listening to leftist until they can show they are a reliable voting block and that takes time. I wish liberals/leftists could play the long game like republicans always do and look how far they’ve moved the party right.

I think this is a really important conversation to have right now, so I am going to answer this very earnestly in a long form. And I don't purport to know the right answer-- honestly I don't think anyone knows the "right answer" or if there really is one atp. But I do want to share my perspective on this, which is a bit contrary to yours.

TLDR; bc this is very long: I think that political and social change is more nuanced than simply "voting is right or wrong", and I think that we are about a decade into fundamental systems change in this country which does add a layer to the conversation.

I think as a baseline, we can agree on a few points:

Voting is an important tool that we have in the system we live in

Trump is objectively, on every issue, worse than Harris

If Trump gets elected, more people will die, and faster

Shifting our political culture and system is long-game

So now a few of your points that I am going to disagree with.

"Democrats aren't going to listen to leftists until they can show they are a reliable voting block" -- this is something that I used to also believe to be true, but I don't anymore. I don't think the Democratic party is ever going to in truth embrace leftist policies, because those policies by nature weaken the grip of our 2-party system, and thus lose democratic party leaders and politicians a lot of money. The Democratic party has shown time and time again that they are very willing to do whatever it takes to prevent a leftist, or a democratic socialist, or a progressive whatever label you use, to rise through the party ranks and succeed. The party endorses in down-ballot elections against progressives; the party bankrolls moderates to defeat progressives; the party spreads disinformation and works to cause fragmenting within left spaces. Unfortunately, the Democratic party is at the end of the day one side of the electoral machine; and while the GOP is worse on policy issues, I would say that the parties operate the same in many functioning ways.

"People who choose not to vote are (at least partially) to blame for the result" -- again, something I wholly used to believe, but don't entirely anymore. At the end of the day, I believe the blame lies with those in power. I blame the Democratic party and elected officials for being morally decrepit and absolutely incomprehensibly unstrategic. I blame politicians for being spineless fucking freaks who either are actively trying to harm people, or refuse to do what is needed to actually create the change they run their platforms on every few years. While I do personally still believe that voting is an important tool even given the context we are seeing in 2024, I cannot bring myself anymore to blame those who are continually spit on by the Democratic party, for not voting for them. So while I do agree with the sentiment that voting is important to the extent that we vote to choose our enemy, I do not believe that it is really those who don't vote that are wholly to blame. I think this system is designed to hurt people, and I can't blame people for refusing to vote for politicians who continue to harm them and their communities.

"Liberals/leftists should play the long game in a similar way that republicans have"-- I halfway agree with this and halfway think we may disagree. I agree that Republicans, as fucking morally decrepit as they are, have as a collective deployed some pretty brilliant and terrifying political strategy over the past many decades to achieve their goals. I agree that the Republican party plays politics much better than Democrats, and that it's pretty embarrassing to watch Democrats and leftists etc. fail to do so. However. I disagree in the sense that, I don't think this political system that we have is even worth fighting for. I think that fascism is knocking at our door red or blue; one is just going to happen faster and more intensely than the other. The Dems are running towards fascism at 20mph; the GOP is running towards fascism at 200mph. So while I am going to vote for the 20mph option bc that buys us more time to prepare, I do unfortunately now believe that we have crossed that point of no return. Our politics will never be "as they were". I think that for the past 10-15 years, the US has been in a stage of political and social revolution (and let me be clear, NOT in the way i have seen many self-proclaimed communists talk about in that revolution is some big event, that shit is stupid as fuck), and that we also have a long ways to go. The US is a very young country, and historically we have been due for this for a while. I think the next 4-8 years are going to dramatically accelerate our democratic backsliding, and I honestly am at a point where I am going to spend my energy to prepare for how to operate in that reality, than I am going to spend my energy trying to save an outdated system. I do think we have to play the long-game, and to me that looks like reimagining how we want our government and politics to operate, and being extremely pragmatic about what that will entail and how we can leverage power to get there. I believe that social and political revolution and change takes DECADES, and ultimately that the change will not come from within our current system but from outside it. Also to be clear I believe that armed revolution in the context of the United States would be fucking stupid bc that means going up against the US military and ultimately that is truly just some stupid half-baked notion coming from very privileged people who don't believe they will be the first to get shot.

So this has gotten extremely long and I do apologize for that lol.

[satansluckycigarette]

As a working class American living below the poverty line: fuck Bernie and Pelosi both! There is absolutely no excuse to vote for an ultra-nationalist like Trump: if you voted for him, you are trash. Plain and simple. Trump let Americans die in the streets during covid, and it was absolutely not cheaper before then. I was lucky. I was an essential worker during 2020, and I managed to stay employed throughout Trump's first term. I struggled to pay a $500 rent despite that. Biden raised my wages because Indiana follows federal wage law. When Bernie says that didn't happen: he is a fucking liar.

Another lie Sanders pushes is to say Biden is anti-union. That is complete and utter bullshit. Biden signed executive orders strengthening unions in his first ninety days and is the first president to have ever marched in a Labor strike. To say otherwise is to deny facts that you can just Google. Sanders is a fucking liar who is afraid of losing the white Vermont vote and he can eat shit.

Pelosi is no better if she wants to deny that corruption exists within the party. Hiding from internal problems is a guarantee path to failure every time. The way I see it: they are both looking for ways to make nice with the incoming regime. Fuck them. The Democrats are not going to save us and real leftists have known that for decades.

Why did Harris lose? She didn't get the same votes Biden did in 2020. Plain and simple. Trump's margins did not increase- every body who voted him did it again. Why didn't Biden voters vote for Harris: four reasons:

1. Gaza. Obviously. You can't win the Palestinian vote when you're giving money to the people murdering their friends and family.

2. The Border. Obviously. You can't win the Latino vote when everyone remembers the day you went to the border and cheered on the mounted cavalry you sicced on their friends and family.

3. Sexism/racism. Liberal men suck just as hard as conservative men. Cis straight men are trash: any idiot could've told you that.

4. Appealing to centrists. Obviously. There is no middle ground between us and the people threatening to kill us. Attempting to find that middle ground makes you look weak. Obviously.

Trying to pretend anything else happened is ignorant at best and pandering to Fascists at worst, and wasting time arguing about who really screwed the pooch here does nothing to protect the people that Trump will kill. The Democrats as a whole fucked up for very glaringly obvious reasons. Sanders and Pelosi are equally guilty.

For the real average American and everyone else fucking terrified right now: don't cry, organize. The IWW, The Socialist Rifle Association, and whatever you and your friends can think to do to fight back and stay alive are all more helpful than anything the Democrats are going to come up with anytime soon. Stay furious.

[oneshortdamnfuse]

I’m still reeling from the fact that anyone can think this is a logical interpretation of my post explaining that The United States and Israel are participating in genocide by mass starvation of Gazans which has been a tactic used in genocides throughout history including the Holocaust. The Holocaust prefaced the post to contextualize my knowledge of refeeding syndrome, which is a phenomenon I first heard about in studying the Holocaust. No implied or explicit connection was made between Jewish people and Nazis, which is a valid concern within any discourse involving Israel. That’s why this response is so completely and utterly wild:

So Israel (Jews) is (are) historically connected to (responsible for) the holocaust, uniquely obligated to do no harm, and fundamentally dishonest. Not knowing you at all, I’d like to hope that you never would have meant for your post to be read that way. But it is an extremely predictable reading of your post, even if not the intended one. You’re knee-deep in antisemitic tropes, and that is fundamentally counterproductive to what I will continue to assume is your guiding principle — social justice and bettering the world.

This, here, is disingenuous because if you go back and look at my post there’s no implication that I was conflating Jews, Judaism, or Jewishness with Israel. No claim was made by me that Israel is historically connected to the Holocaust and thus, as A State, they are uniquely responsible to do no harm. That is a very horrible statement to begin with because, as A State, Israel is obligated to do no harm along with The U.S. We have international laws “protecting” human rights for that reason. They were taken to court for a reason. The United States and Israel have also repeatedly lied over the course of the bombing of Gaza. To then say that I am positioning Jews as “fundamentally dishonest” is an extremely bad faith take.

The above statement was also not made by a Jewish person. I want to make that very clear because when a non-Jewish person gives uncritical support to Israel and conflates Israel with Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness, they are both empowering Zionists and antisemites to view Israel as another word for Jews (See: “Israel (Jews)”). It emboldens Zionists in their belief that Israel is above reproach because any criticisms of them are “antisemitic.” It also emboldens antisemites to view Jews as universally responsible for the State of Israel’s actions against the Palestinian people - a people, I must remind you, who are not a religious monolith. Palestinian Jews preexist the State of Israel. For this reason, the conflation of Israel (A State) with Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness is harmful and dangerous.

I am also not Jewish, so I understand that I can have blind spots on this issue. However, this “reading” of my post is not “an extremely predictable reading” nor was it “knee-deep in antisemitic tropes” given thousands of people DID NOT interpret it that way. If you think that, then you need to work on how and why you closely conflate any criticism of Israel as A State with antisemitism. Claiming “Holocaust Inversion” as a diversion from criticism of Israel when Israel as A State participates in a documented genocide and uses tactics common across genocides clearly demonstrates an unwillingness to engage with reality - that Israel is an occupying power that is attempting to ethnically cleanse territories they’ve occupied of Palestinians using methods common in genocide.

You cannot claim Holocaust Inversion any time someone makes a comparison between the impact of the Holocaust on its victims and the impact of modern day genocides on its victims, just because that genocide happens to be perpetrated by Israel (among many other actors such as The U.S.) To say that starvation negatively impacted Holocaust survivors even after liberation due to refeeding syndrome and that we can see the same thing happening to Gazans isn’t Holocaust Inversion. This does not place blame on Jews for the condition Gazans are in nor make them collectively responsible for that harm. Further, to argue that criticizing States as dishonest and participating in political games is not to accuse an entire ethnoreligious group of being dishonest and it would be foolish to even think that.

The ultimate point of my post was to talk about the historical consequences of intentional starvation and refeeding syndrome (which I first learned about in my study of the Holocaust), how intentional starvation is used by states to commit genocide as it is viewed as a “passive” consequence of political turmoil, and place blame on The United States and Israel for the current conditions Palestinians are suffering under. I don’t feel bad about saying those things and I’m not going to coddle anyone who objects to criticism of either State. If I implied or made any explicit connection between Jews, Judaism, and/or Jewishness and antisemitic tropes, then I’d take accountability for that but that’s not been proven in the response given and I don’t trust feedback from people defending Israel in any way.

[bookishfeylin]

I don't want to accuse Sjm of Zionism, there is simply not enough evidence and it is a severe accusation because of the state of Palestine right now and can very easily be blatantly Anti-Semitic. But I do want to say with her track record of being racist, misogynistic, homophobic and with a tendency to write her white main characters as conquerers and colonizers (Its not confirmed but we can all get a picture of Feysand being primed for High King and Queen) it does rub me wrong.

Not to mention a lot of ToG has that same undertone. There's a conversation between Aelin and Rowan where they talk about conquering more lands after taking back Terrasen and she says that if she gets “bored of being queen she will conquer and gain more land to be empress". And once again I'm not saying this to accuse her of Zionism, but it doesn't feel right and Sjm is known to write in a way that mirrors her personal beliefs. I say this with only regards to her actions (through her writing) and not her beliefs as a Jewish woman.

There's nothing wrong with visiting her family in Israel, or even having a grandmother that still volunteers at a military base because that's her grandmother's actions and not hers. There is something wrong with the fact that she wrote Aelin as someone who's "taking back" her country and then contemplating conquering more. And Feysand possibly being High King and Queen when they treat PoC coded Illyrians like they're savages and you don't see them outside of the Mountains unless they're dying for Rhysand on the battlefield. It just all feels very colonizer to me.

I hope I'm not coming off as rude, the issue of Palestine is very close to my heart and reading ToG and Acotar and seeing some things mirrored in them has always kind of remained unsettled with me and I would love to hear your opinion on it.

Hi anon! Nope, you’re not rude! :) So a big disclaimer: I am a Black American. Any analysis I can offer on this is through that lens, fortunately or unfortunately. That being said:

While the pro-imperialist, pro-colonialist, and pro-"both sides" themes PERMEATING Sarah's writing do likely point to her beliefs or biases (even unconscious, internalized ones she has), so do the artistic works of many white creators, often in way worse and way more blatant ways than Sarah's books. How many of tumblr's beloved “children’s shows” feature the imperialist/colonizers/genocide committing villains be shown as redeemable, as sympathetic, and worthy of redemption while simultaneously declaring any victims of colonization/genocide who have the audacity to fight back as the REAL bad guy, or just as bad as their oppressors? And not just children’s shows—so much media in general has this same theme, where the colonizers are more redeemable than the colonized, often including a cautionary tale warning oppressed peoples to “be careful” in our liberation efforts so we don’t become “just as bad.” (See my on media tag for a lot of discussion on this, among other things.) Our media—our books, our television shows, our movies— are, unfortunately, FULL of colonizer/imperialist apologia. Full of some “they’re human too!” nonsense that I am TIRED of having shoved down my throat. My point is, Sarah's writing is more likely due to her being a white woman in western society rather than any support of what’s happening to Palestinians. She’s one white creator among many, and merely exists as a symptom of a greater problem in our society and white fans who argue that pointing this out and critiquing this disgusting trope of “oppressor is redeemable and sympathetic and HUMAN but oppressed aren’t” in their favorite cartoon is being a ~toxic anti puritan~ make this worse. So does her writing point to her own biases about the nature of oppression? Yes, but in a way that appears to be no different than most media made by white people in the West, and unrelated to her thoughts on the Israel-Palestine conflict specifically. But yes please be unsettled because these ideas are ALARMINGLY present in media.

[mariacallous]

At the weekend, as tens of thousands marched in London to protest against antisemitism, a charity which calls itself the Campaign Against  Antisemitism managed to split the Jewish community.

It went for London’s mayor by insisting that the London where supporters of radical Islam chant and preach was “Sadiq Khan’s London”.

It was not the London of a Conservative government that has been in power these past 14 years. It was not London, the capital city of a free country, where people are entitled to demonstrate peacefully. But Sadiq Khan’s London, where according to a video put out by the campaign (see above) fear and hatred is the fault of London’s Muslim mayor.

Forgive me, I am so sorry, I forgot to mention Sadiq Khan’s religion, although to the worst people on the right his religion is the single most significant fact about him.

“Here are some of the things you can look forward to in Sadiq Khan’s London,” the commentary begins. “Being harassed in McDonald’s” – the film cuts to shots of demonstrators shouting “shame on you” in a McDonald’s, possibly because McDonald’s has an Israeli franchise, but who knows?

The screen changes to shots of demonstrators calling for an intifada, comparing Israeli Jews to Nazis, and chanting for a Palestinian victory from the “river to sea”, a slogan, which contrary to the soothing claims of western apologists, means and is meant to mean the ethnic cleansing of Jews.

And all of this is Sadiq Khan’s fault, apparently, for not denouncing the protestors loudly enough.

There are two ways of fighting racism. You can either embrace liberalism or communalism. The liberal response in this case is to oppose anti-Jewish racism because conspiracy theory and prejudiced hatreds are antithetical to a free society.  The communalist response is to embrace sectarianism, and combat prejudice against blacks with prejudice against whites; prejudice against Jews, with prejudice against Muslims.

You do not have to look too deeply into anti-Muslim prejudice before you run into the global phenonmenon of the irrational hated of Sadiq Khan.

To be fair to the Campaign against Antisemitism there is plenty of anti-Jewish racism to oppose. Since Hamas attacked Israel abuse of Jews in the UK and across the West has exploded. Many people, and not only Jews, are frightened about a revival of Islamist terrorism.

But like so many on the right, the campaign goes beyond fighting prejudice and confronting legitimate fears.

Liberal Jews were angered by the Campaign’s claim that the mayor was failing to challenge “antisemitism, glorification of terrorism and incitement to intifada”. They knew that, unlike his Labour predecessor Ken Livingstone, whose rule as Mayor of London anticipated the far left takeover of the national Labour party by Jeremy Corbyn, Khan has befriended London’s Jews

London’s old rulers would have been chanting “from the river to the sea”, and allying with Hamas and every other misogynist, racist and homophobic group. Khan has gone out of his way to build good relations with Jews. When Jeremy Corbyn was in charge of Labour, Khan spoke out against anti-Jewish hatred, and showed as he did it more political and moral courage than most people on the British left could muster in the 2010s

Khan is a liberal Muslim and as such faces the scorn of Islamists. He received death threats after he supported same-sex marriage.  No serious organisation combating antisemitsm would hold him responsible for the pro-Hamas wing on the streets of London. The Islamist right hates his politics.

Nor while we are about it does Khan have sole oversight of the Metropolitan Police. He shares the task with the Home Secretary, who has been a Conservative politician since 2010. In any case, as everyone knows or ought to know, no politician has the right to ban demonstrations in the UK.

Rishi Sunak and then Home Suella Braverman tried to prevent pro-Palestinian protests in the autumn, and were told by the police that marches could only be stopped if there was a threat of serious disorder, and that the "very high threshold" has not been reached.

Shouldn’t we be grateful for that, incidentally? By which I mean we should not only be grateful that politicians cannot arbitrarily constrain our civil liberties but that, for all the fears of terrorist violence, there has not yet been “serious disorder” on the streets.

It’s not just the pathetic jabs at Khan that has caused such anger. I hope for the sake of the reputation of the Campaign Against Antisemitism that they did not know it, but linking Khan with terrorism takes British conservatives into the darkest corners of right-wing politics.

When I interviewed him I was staggered by the level of security Khan needed. The police’s concern for his safety is up there with their concern for the king and prime minister. Fifteen armed officers, trained in counter-terrorism and emergency medicine, are on his security detail because Khan is a Muslim, on the receiving end of the paranoia generated the Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory.

The hate he receives is astonishing. I am not belittling Khan when I say that he is a standard social democratic politician. His political priorities are building more social housing, controlling traffic and limiting pollution.  If he were a white politician, no one would trouble him

As it was, Khan’s staff told me that the police took one bomb threat so seriously, they had Khan conducting online meetings while dogs sniffed for explosives in the mayoral office. Officers routinely put 24-hour surveillance on his family home because of credible threats against him and his wife. And a Nazi sympathiser from Surrey, who threatened to “do something” to Khan, which would mean “we will see him in the news” was sectioned under the mental health act.

So great is the hate staff at City Hall receive, they are offered counselling to help them cope with the volume of racist, Islamophobic, violent and abusive messages they see.

Khan is at the centre of global conspiracy because he is a Muslim politician running a great western city.

That’s all there is to it.

While he was president in 2019, Donald Trump took time out to attack Khan, claiming that he had turned London into a violent hell hole. Trump went on to befriend the British far-right commentator Katie Hopkins, a reality TV star turned mob raiser, who said that London was now "Khan's Londonistan."

You need to take a step back. No previous US president would have wasted his time with an obscure, foul-mouthed commentator like Katie Hopkins or thought that the mayor of London was a worthy opponent.

But in our world their warm embrace makes a hideous sense. Trump has a fascistic appeal and relies on conspiracy theory to drive up his support. The modern far right, which may be back in power in Washington DC  this time next year, is powered by the  belief that the globalist elite  is plotting to destroy the white Christian West by flooding it with migrants.

I can’t think of a better symbol of the new world than the willingness of the President of the United States to befriend and amplify an obscure propagandist from the other side of the Atlantic or for Khan to become an object of their mutual and mutually advantageous loathing.

The incitement to violence is real. As Brenton Tarrant prepared to massacre 51 people in Christchurch mosques, he found the time to urge his supporters to show their commitment to a “white rebirth” by removing the “Pakistani Muslim invader [who] now sits as representative for the people of London”.

“Why would a terrorist in New Zealand know about me?” Khan asked at the time

Because fascism in one of its modern variants has found him to be a perfect target was his answer.

It is a sign of how we have normalised extremism that Khan must be surrounded by teams of bodyguards and the British media barely find that fact worth mentioning. It is a sign, too, that apparently respectable right-wing newspapers, politicians and indeed anti-racist organisations don’t stop to think before joining the pile on.

[arianagrandre]

can I ask a question?

I was raised with one view. As I've gotten older, I've learned this view was wrong. But for the longest time I was surrounded by people who agreed with that view, and convinced me it was right.

In regards to Noah, isn't he Jewish? If he sincerely apologized and learned, would it be okay then? I know some people are calling for a boycott of stranger things, which I will support, but I also know when I was 18/19 I was still surrounded by those who had the same view I had growing up. Thank God I don't have that view anymore.

I want to make it clear I do NOT support what he did. I am also NOT against the Jewish people. You can say that Palestine should be free and there should be peace without being antisemitic. It isnt the same thing.

hi thanks for the ask and your honesty! i can understand only growing up with one mindset and only having that to fall back upon because that’s all you’ve ever known. but at the same time i think context and circumstances matter.

lately i’ve been seeing a ton of people (particularly from the West) who have started to deprogram and unlearn everything they’ve been conditioned to believe about israel, their govt, zionism, islam etc. and i’m sure it wasn’t easy getting there. but i have to be honest and show how privileged of a position that is, to be able to have that distancing in the first place. to have the space to change your mindset or perspective about an ongoing genocide that palestinians have been experiencing for their whole lifetime. unlike the rest of us who are afforded the time and privilege to learn or unlearn what we think we know, palestinians don’t, they were born into their oppressed reality, their fight for liberation is all they’ve ever known.

noah could change his mind but… why should we bother making him comfortable if he did? having basic compassion for palestinians is the very least anyone can do. it’s not something i feel is really worth ‘celebrating’.

i think what makes it worse is that noah has all the resources at his fingertips, being someone with a huge platform and connections. he could easily choose to be more accurately informed if he wanted to. it’s a choice he consciously makes. one could argue that he was only raised with his mindset but again, it’s his choice to refuse to question his own way of thinking, even now, amidst the huge support and protests around the world—and questioning your own perspective is the most fundamental first step in having a deeper understanding about your own worldview, let alone unlearning it.

the problem isn’t whether he knows that civilians are losing their lives—the problem is that he does know and he’ll find ways to justify it (this is what zionists do). there are so many jewish people and organisations in support of palestinians and he could easily google why and maybe start to unpack his personal views. but he’s too comfortable where he is and he’s willing to choose his own comfort over the lives of palestinians. so whether or not it’s okay if he apologised and changed his mind is of no concern to me, because he’s clearly not concerned about anyone else at the moment anyway

[obislittleone]

Hey, I just wanted to be informed about what “from the river to the sea” means? I’ve been looking it up but all I’ve found is free Palestine bullshit. In one of your posts you implied it has a separate meaning so can you please explain if you’d like? Sorry if I’m being rude or anything I just want to be informed.

"From the river to the sea" (Arabic: من النهر إلى البحر, romanized: min an-nahr ’ilā l-baḥr; Palestinian Arabic: من المياه للمياه, romanized: min al-mayeh lil-mayeh, lit. 'from the water to the water') is a political slogan that refers geographically to the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which currently includes the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories: the West Bank, which includes East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

At first glance, it has no other connotation to it other than the meaning people are shouting, which is 'Palestine will be free.'

It sounds very progressive and helpful to Palestinians when that's all that's said... but with the additional words that belong to the phrase: فلسطين ستكون عربية

It translates to: from water to water, Palestine will be Arab.

Not 'Palestine will be free', Palestine will be Arab.

Little white liberal ppl are writing these inscriptions on signs and protesting against the killing of Palestinians, but when they do, they don't even understand that they are encouraging Hamas to make Palestine an Arab only state. They claim they want to save lives while literally chanting for the extermination of jews using Hamas Nazi rhetoric.

This, of course, does not mean that all Palestinians are Arab or that there are not Arab jews. However, the notion of Hamas wanting to irradicate only the Israeli government is completely false when their mission was to mainly kill jews and try and take the land by force of killing innocents on October 7th. My friend Hasharon had sent me video attachments of hamas recruits shouting their kill count to one another and saying in their language 'praise allah, for all these dead jews.' They also screamed things on the phone like 'father, i killed ten jews, be proud of me, father, i killed ten of them.' They quite literally committed the exact same attrocities but on a deeply personal level. (Y'know, the same thing that people are condemning Israel of doing... except commiting numerous war crimes in the process.) Obviously, it is too complicated of a situation to take one look at and choose sides. For the most part, I side with Jews as I am one, but we must not forget about our muslim brotherhood in this time. Jews and Muslims are cousins, and they have the ability to live in peace. They have for thousands of years, and the discourse is only now coming from the ways this notion of 'there has to be only one bad guy' is being portrayed in the media.

There is no one bad guy. That would be the easy thing, to say 'oh Israel should be wiped off the planet because they are settlers and have no right to be there and by existing in that land, they are causing Palestinian suffering,' or to say 'Well Hamas is the literal government that Gaza chose for themselves and not only did they use secret tunnels to invade Israel and kill over a thousand innocents, but when Israel responded, their people hid them in hospitals and schools and made Israel look like the bad guy for irradicating terror.'

Do you see how both notions seem to fall on the radical of either side? It's why the conflict not only gets out of hand through the media, but starts to paint a picture that 'if you don't choose the right side you are an evil nasty person and you also deserve to die.' Or at least that's what my anons have been saying, but I digress.

The point is, by going to one extreme or the other, we make even more chaos in an already complex and sad situation.

Very few people in Israel actually believe Gaza should be destroyed, and likewise, I've not seen any of posts from actual Gazans saying they condone the death of others in their name. There are always going to be extremists, because unfortunately, there are some adults who behave like children and think they are of the highest possible knowledge in this world. Being well educated means nothing if you're only educating yourself based on the things you already believe. There's some Jewish wisdom that my grandmother taught me saying: to achieve knowledge is to experience the discomfort of realizing you may have been wrong.

Many liberals are very confident that they have all the answers in this time. I'm not condemning anyone, and I'm not excusing other's behavior either, but I want to make it known that you can't just say something without backing it logically and with context. 'From the river to the sea,' is a perfect example of that.

Sorry for this long rant I've just been wanting to get it off my chest as I've seen even more non arabic people posting the arabic signs around my city and non even realizing what they actually mean.