#it didn't change the reality that it's a genocidal terrorist organization

[allonsy-yesiwill]

I mean because the USA is a terrorist nation. We have destabilized more than a few countries putting dictators in power, for example El Salvador. We have also been funding at least 1 G-cide since 2023.

Even Obama who most people like, during his last year in office he dropped 26,172 bombs in seven countries and was able to bring back slavery to Liberia. We have history in Liberia because that's where the USA sent freed slaves in 1816.

Our Eugenics program inspired the Nazi. Hitler was able to make the Holocaust 'legal' by using Jim Crow laws in their own country. I am pretty sure Trump's COVID response was the test run to see how Americans would respond to a large scale eugenics program, we didn't seem to care if disabled people were killed so I guess for them it was a success. The disabled communities in the USA refer to COVID as a genocide because so many died. A mayor just said he would like to give homeless people fentanyl, I put a 75% change of some city actually makes that idea a reality.

Idk why countries didn't kick out American embassies, some time ago. I am 98% sure that not one POTUS who hasn't had a negative impact on the world... Even Jimmy Carter gave money to terrorist organizations when in office.

We have a school where you can learn to overthrow your government called it was called School of Americas it's now called Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

The United States of America is built on lies to cover up all the white supremacy that is our foundation. The people don't even elect our president. Our electoral college elects the president and they have zero responsibility to vote the same way the people voted in the general election.

In 2016 Trump didn't win the general election (people actually voting) he was voted in by the electoral college. That's also why it doesn't matter if this last election was ridged because the electoral college votes in the present.... Not the people so the results of the general election are as useful as sunglasses in the dark .

Would you like me to keep going, because I can.

I honestly don't know why more people have tried to attack us.

so i'm currently living in belgium and i went to the australian embassy yesterday to go vote, and while i was trying to find the aus embassy i found the us embassy. i genuinely am beginning to think usamericans are beyond parody, because why the fuck does their full-block sized embassy need an extra 2.5 metre gate sticking out into the road out the front, multiple in-uniform soldiers all sitting in literal guardposts, another just as tall gate to actually get to the front yard, then a metal detector at the doors - there's like 5 layers of security before you can even get through the front door! not to mention the small hoard of massive flags, of course.

meanwhile, the australian embassy is on the 7th floor of a building that has no indication anywhere on the outside that the embassy is even in there (to the point that i walked past it multiple times trying to find it), and all you have to do to get in is alert reception that you're there so someone can come get you and then go through a metal detector. absolutely ridiculous.

I get why the US President has goofy-looking levels of security because people have killed quite a lot of them, and attempted to kill the current one, but the embassy? Who the fuck is expecting a hit on the US ambassador?

[joons]

Most of Gazans have been either killed, injured, displaced and made refugees by bombs dropped by Israel, how many innocent children dead or scarred for life? Palestinians are as human as Israelis. Take a moment before talking about collective punishment. It’s not anti-semitism to acknowledge an apartheid state is one.

No one wants collective punishment, but American radicals only get nervous about collective punishment when it seems that they have lost control of who could be targeted by it. They have been flirting with that exact rhetoric for decades and now can't turn it off when terrorists happen to be on their "side." Hamas has always been explicit that it wants to punish and murder Jews, and with one voice, progressive activists try to interpret what they really mean so that it's more palatable, so that people will leap to defend the indefensible. That reflexive defense is turning a blind eye to the indiscriminate, explicitly anti-Jewish pogroms that Hamas has stated it must carry out, because it will always be more concerned with killing Israeli children than protecting Palestinian youth by its own admission. A sincere desire for peace in the region -- or even a belief that Israel has treated Palestine poorly and that there is a possibility of justice and redress -- does not mean we can deny what Hamas is. Anything, anything, beyond unqualified condemnation is cover for their inhumanity.

[icereader12]

I know I'm either preaching to the choir, or screaming into the void about this, but I feel the need to say it anyway. The phrase "from the river to the sea" is antisemitic. Full stop. Don't like it? Disagree? Unfortunately reality disagrees with you. And in a fight over information, reality should always win.

Let's start with origins. The phrase first gained traction, or general use, in the 1960s. It was co-opted by the PLO in 1964. The PLO was a group of Palestinian liberation groups, hence the name. Throughout the 1960s - the 1990s, they launched terrorist attacks around the world, but mostly in the Middle East. (Brittanica, Nov 16, 2023) The US designated them a terrorist organization, and their first leader, who brought the phrase "from the river to the sea into the limelight, repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel using this phrase (University of Michigan). The PLO claimed to represent Palestinians, and was a fighting force in the Arab-Israel war of 1967, which was declared by the Arab, and lost by them. When the PLO and Arab nations lost, the PLO rallies, and began attacking Israel with guerilla warfare. So the phrase originally referred to the desire to destroy the only majority Jewish state in the world.

History of the phrase continued.

When the PLO decided to recognize reality and acknowledge a two-state solution might be a good idea, many more radical groups in it refused to follow along and broke with the PLO. One of those group was Hamas. Hamas, widely recognized as a terrorist organization, uses the phrase in its charter. Hamas, also in their original charter, states that there will be no peace in the region until all the Jews in said region have been killed.(translation done by Federation of American Scientists). For those who can't connect the dots, that's a call to genocide. By putting that phrase next to their stated desire for genocide, Hamas confirms that that phrase, to them, is a call for genocide. (Business Insider, Nov. 6, 2023) So, in more modern day, it is still a call to genocide.

How the phrase is treated today.

Many who march for Palestine, including Palestine-American Representative Tlaib, say the phrase has changed meanings to them, and that they do not use it as a call for Jewish genocide. (Washington Post, Nov, 2023.) However, most Jewish organizations still regard the phrase as antisemitic, both for its origins, and for how people use it. This includes the ADL, AJC, Jewish Journal, etc. all of whom provide in depth analysis on why the phrase is bad to use. Most of it has to do, as previously stated, with the continued use of the phrase by terrorist organizations such as Hamas and PLEP to call for genocide. While some Palestinians argue that phrase has been commandeered by extremists, but it's okay if they use it because they aren't, that is an horrible argument. The extremists didn't take the phrase from them, they took it from the extremists (see above proof). You'd think, since many pro-palestinians claim to not support the extremists like Hamas, they wouldn't use the same phrases, so as to distance themselves from the crazies. Instead, they embrace the rhetoric.

Nevertheless, the real problem with continuous use of the phrase is that, when a minority group collectively says "that phrase is harmful to our community, please stop saying it", we oblige. When Black Americans said, "stop using the n-word, it's hurtful", we listened, because they were the community being hurt . And soon enough, we as a society realized those still using that word were racist. When the disabled community asked, "stop using the r-word, it's hurtful", we listened, because they were the community being hurt. And soon enough, we as a society realized those who kept using the word despite the harmed community's wishes were bigoted. The phrase "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used, both in the past and now as a rallying call for destruction of an ethnic group on the grounds that those calling for said destruction didn't like having to share land with said ethnic group. It has been used to kill people and incite violence. That's not up for debate, that's a historical fact. It is still being used to incite violence and get people killed. That is also fact. Marginalized communities are allowed to reclaim hurtful phrases for themselves. But the phrase "from the river to the sea" wasn't and still isn't used to hurt Palestinians, it's used to hurt Jews. Therefore, the only ones allowed to reclaim it are the Jews.

I don't care some Palestinians claim to not be using the phrase as it was originally meant. They are still using the rhetoric of an extremist group that uses that rhetoric to call for Jewish genocide. And when people use that same rhetoric for the same cause (liberating Gaza/ Palestine), they are saying, intentionally or not, that they agree with the rhetoric and actions of the terrorists who use that phrase to call for genocide. We can't read minds. Intention means very little when people call for hate. Whether they "mean it" or not, they are still calling for hate. It's the same cause, with the same words. If pro-palestinians insist on using the same phrases used by terrorists, they need to stop getting mad when we confuse them for supporting terrorists. The is nothing wrong with calling for a two-state solution. There is everything wrong with supporting a terrorist organization that calls for genocide. If you use language that could mean either but has historically meant the latter, people will think you are the latter. Calling for the death of all the Jews in a region is antisemitic. The phrase "from the river to the sea" has historically been used, and is currently being used to call for the death of all Jews in Israel. No one cares if you think you're using it differently. To the community still being hurt by that phrase, it is one and the same. Either pick a different slogan or stop being upset that you are being called an antisemitic terrorist supporter.