MovieChat Forums > Politics > Rashida Tlaib's defense of the chant "fr...

Rashida Tlaib's defense of the chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is completely absurd

posted a year ago by RustyShacklefurd (2039)
31 replies | jump to latest

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib has defended the chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", which is frequently chanted at pro-Palestine marches and rallies. She claims that the chant "is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate". But the very idea that a complete takeover of all the land of Israel by the Palestinians would lead to peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Jews is completely absurd.

There are 7 million Jews in the land of Israel. That's a sharp contrast to all the Arab countries bordering Israel. There are only 29 Jews in Lebanon, 3 Jews in Egypt and no Jews at all in Jordan or Syria. Most of these countries used to have much larger populations of Jews. 80 years ago there were 75,000 Jews in Egypt, 15,000 Jews in Syria and 10,000 Jews in Lebanon but subsequent persecution of Jews in those countries led to the complete decline of their Jewish populations.

Tolerance and acceptance of large numbers of Jews is already not a norm in the Arab world. Thus, the belief that a complete Palestinian takeover of the entire land of Israel could happen without the complete destruction of the Israeli Jewish population would have to be based on the premise that the Palestinians are morally and ethically vastly superior to all the surrounding Arab countries. But there’s literally no evidence that the Palestinians are morally or ethically superior in any way to any of the surrounding Arab countries. Just look at the Palestinian leadership. There’s Hamas, that just massacred over a thousand Israelis and openly calls for genocide of the Jews, and Mahmoud Abbas, who claims that the Holocaust was Hitler’s response to Jews committing usury. With leadership like this how the hell would it be possible for the Palestinians to free all of Palestine “from the river to the sea” while maintaining “peaceful coexistence” with millions of Jews?

Just laughable.

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

Younger Israelis and older Palestinians are overwhelmingly sold on a one state democracy. Tell the older Israelis and younger Palestinians to stop trying to genocide each other.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

First off, the bi-national one-state solution is not the same thing as Palestine "being free from the river to the sea". That chant refers to a complete Palestinian takeover of the entire land. It refers to a scenario in which the Palestinians are in total control. In contrast, the bi-national one-state solution means that the Palestinians share control of the land with the Israelis.

Second, there is nothing close to overwhelming support for the one-state solution among either group. It has 36% support among Palestinians and 19% support among Israeli Jews. And that number for Israeli Jews has certainly dropped in the aftermath of the attack by Hamas last month.

Third, the one-state solution would require negotiations between the 2 sides. And as I already made clear in the OP, the Palestinian leadership would be completely incapable of successfully completing such negotiations. How the hell do you think either Hamas or Abbas would be able to pull that off?

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

Ok, fair enough. I don't actually know the demographics. Plenty of stupid people obviously think the Israelis are just gonna magically leave. Religious propaganda and wishful thinking. For others, they imagine a free democracy... or so they claim.

Frankly, I sympathize with the anti-zionists. The idea foreigners are entitled to the land is fucking stupid. I wouldn't go to a black neighborhood in Chicago and kick people out of their house, saying my great grandparents lived there, and I just wanna "exist" in their world, but they have to pull their pants up and turn their radios down, but I just wanna be "equal". It doesn't work like that. Same damn difference with going into hostile Muslim lands and trying to rule over them. But realistically, it's too late to dissolve Israel. They're just gonna have to keep genociding each other. Not really my problem.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

Would you sympathize with the anti-zionists if you understood what Israel really is? Do you understand that Israel is the only chance for equality or fairness for Jews in the Muslim world? Do you understand that it's the only real chance Jews have to even exist in the Muslim world:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65301cb5ca1d095d0bb7cf92/Israel-is-a-necessary-refuge-for-Jews-in-the-theocratic-hateful-and-repressive-Muslim-world

Your analogy of taking over the homes of a black neighborhood in Chicago is absurd. There were already half a million Jews in the land of Israel by the time of the Holocaust. That's half a million Jews who didn't die in the Holocaust. If they had a state in Israel before the Holocaust they could have saved even more Jews from it. Presumably you don't need to take over the homes of a black neighborhood in Chicago because you already have your own home. Presumably you don't need to take over the homes of a black neighborhood in Chicago in order to literally save your life.

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

It's hard to understand people who want equality, but consider themselves superior.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

Who exactly are these "people" that you're referring to?

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

No, it means one secular state where Jews and Palestinians are equal.

If you combine Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jews and Palestinians are about equal in population.

It's about time they learned to live together since neither group is planning on leaving.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

The bi-national one-state solution is not the same thing as Palestine "being free from the river to the sea". That chant refers to a complete Palestinian takeover of the entire land. It refers to a scenario in which the Palestinians are in total control. In contrast, the bi-national one-state solution means that the Palestinians share control of the land with the Israelis.

And the one-state solution would be impossible. It would require negotiations between the 2 sides. As I already made clear in the OP, the Palestinian leadership would be completely incapable of successfully completing such negotiations. How the hell do you think either Hamas or Abbas would be able to pull that off?

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

Sure, it's a hard line to counter the Zionist concept that it's a Jewish state.The numbers are roughly 50/50 if you include all the Palestinians which Israel has exiled into refugee camps. It's not a tenable situation. At some point they must share the land as equal partners. The current status quo doesn't work. Israel can level Gaza. But you'll only create more terrorists out for revenge.

If Israel wants two states it can't encroach on Palestinian land with settlements. And the current division is not equal.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

Regardless of what happens now in Gaza or what happens with settlements in the West Bank, the bi-national one-state solution can't possibly work. As I pointed out, neither Hamas nor Mahmoud Abbas would be able to negotiate such a compromise. The numbers of Jews and Palestinians are certainly not roughly equal if you include all of the so-called Palestinian "refugees". Allowing all of them to return would certainly be a major Palestinian demand in negotiations for a one-state solution and the Jews would never accept it, destroying any possibility of the one-state solution. And as I said before, the tolerance and acceptance of millions of Jews is not an Arab norm to begin with. The possibility of a one-state solution starts with the premise that the Palestinians are morally and ethically vastly superior to all the surrounding Arab countries. Do you believe that the Palestinians are morally and ethically vastly superior to all the surrounding Arab countries?

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

I believe the Palestinians have been a degraded and debased people, and they haven't been able to develop a stable just society. History is not on the side of religious fundamentalism. Given time Islam will modernize.

But anyway, this conflict has no end in sight.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

None of that changes anything I said. You can claim that the Palestinians are "a degraded and debased people" but they clearly weren't much to begin with. The surrounding Arab countries haven't dealt with the same issues as the Palestinians and culturally they're also in the gutter. None of them have been able to develop stable just societies either. And it's not even an issue of religious fundamentalism. The Palestinians were just as intolerant of Jews before the rise of religious fundamentalism. And the Arab countries that got rid of their Jews in the mid-20th Century were all relatively secular regimes.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

They are intolerant of the Jews because Jews believe god grants 3000 year old land deeds on their land. Islam is no worse than Judaism or Christianity. It's all tripe.

There have been periods of history where the most enlightened people on earth were Muslims. They invented modern mathematics for one thing.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

Muslims have been intolerant of Jews since Islam started. The Koran and Hadiths are full of hatred for Jews. Jews were expelled from the Hijaz just a few years after Mohammed died. That had nothing to do with the land of Israel. Mohammed never went there and Muslims had no conflict with Jews in the land of Israel during the Middle Ages.

Islam is certainly worse than Judaism and Christianity in important ways. Unlike the other 2 religions, Islam is rooted in open ended holy war. The violent conquest of other lands is a central aspect of Islam.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

Muslims revere the Jewish prophets.

It's no different than the Jewish concept of the chosen people and that their enemies be slaughtered, nor the Christian Crusades. Every religion has that aspect.

There are moderate Muslims and in 100 years Muslim fundamentalism will be dead.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

Muslim reverence for Jewish prophets does not equate to tolerance or acceptance of Jews themselves. The Muslim record on their treatment of Jews speaks for itself. Jewish beliefs about the enemies of the Jews don't somehow change Muslim beliefs about Jews or Muslim treatment of Jews. Such Jewish beliefs were quite meaningless for most of the past 2,000 years because during that time Jews were powerless and passive.

Muslim jihad conquest is very different from the Christian Crusades. Islam is rooted in jihad conquest. Islam began with the conquest of millions of square miles of land. In contrast, Christianity is not rooted in the Crusades. The Crusades were merely a response to Muslim conquest. The Crusades were the reconquest of the land of Israel, which was under Christian control until Muslims conquered it.

You point to moderate Muslims as if they're perfect. As I already explained, the Arab countries that got rid of their Jews in the mid-20th Century were all relatively secular regimes. And you have no way of knowing that Islamic fundamentalism will be dead in 100 years.

[–] Filmtenk2 (4137) a year ago

That's the first time I've ever heard that prediction (muslim fundamentalism being dead in 100 yrs). I'm not expert though. Would be nice if true.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

I base that on historical trends. The world is becoming more secular and atheist.

[–] Filmtenk2 (4137) a year ago

Maybe our world but the underdeveloped middle east? Iran if it weren't for their government would probably be way more secular.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13168) a year ago

But that's my point. The Middle East is relatively underdeveloped now. Look at how conservative was American Christianity 100 years ago compared to now. Europe is mostly atheist. The Middle East will be wealthier and more technologically advanced.

[–] Gd5150 (11965) a year ago

Electing terrorists has consequence.

[–] JoWilli (21627) a year ago

dems love Tyranny and chaos, its fastest way to destroy america.

[–] Galilguy (2527) a year ago

One of the most important things that Congress can do is to censor those who support a terrorist group.

It is telling that so many Democrats voted against censoring a supporter of a terrorist group, Hamas.

The vote was 234-188.

There were 188 votes by Democrats against censoring a Democratic member who is supporting a group that is on the State Department list of terrorist organizations.

Unbelievable. Her representation of our county is warped and dangerous to us..

[–] Filmtenk2 (4137) a year ago

Not sure how you concluded that Tlaib supports Hamas. If your reasoning is "politician said words xyx case closed" it's an oversimplification. Personally, I think the slogan is a collection of words one should not say publicly. CNN fired one of their tv journalists a few months back for using that slogan while giving a speech. If you wikipedia "from the river to the sea" their is one side that interprets it with antisemitic/violent intent and the other that sees "it as a non-violent call for a one-state solution with equal rights for all."

Given how Tlaib has condemned Hamas for Oct 7, expressed love for both Palestinian & Israeli people, and wants the violence to stop, I assume she falls into the "non-violent call" category of the slogan. Maybe it was ignorant of Tlaib to use that phrase but to say she supports Hamas is bonkers.

I'm not even a particular fan of Tlaib nor do I know if she supports a one-state or two-solution (one-state is a nonstarter). The demonizing that goes on in Congress from other reps and from media rhetoric is its own self propelled industry and needs to stop.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

"Given how Tlaib has condemned Hamas for Oct 7"

Really? Tlaib actually condemned Hamas? When did that actually happen. I haven't seen it.

Tlaib "expressing love" for both Palestinians and Israelis is just her way of saying that All Lives Matter. Tlaib's defense of the 'from the river to the sea' chant proves she clearly supports the one-state solution. She deserves any demonization she gets from the rest of Congress because she demonized Israel by claiming it caused the blast at the Al-Ahli Hospital even after her own government concluded Israel didn't do it.

[–] Filmtenk2 (4137) a year ago

I know Israel didn't do the hospital bombing. If Tlaib claimed otherwise before all the facts were known that was dumb.

Tlaib said of the slogan on a social media post:
“from the river to the sea” phrase is “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.”

https://apnews.com/article/rashida-tlaib-criticism-palestine-war-michigan-israel-b6c2b4ca091c54d580b97fd01056ecf6

It was dumb of her to use that inflammatory slogan but I think it was out of ignorance and not malicious intent.

"While criticising the Israeli response and US support for it, Tlaib has also repeatedly condemned Hamas’s assault."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/8/us-house-votes-to-censure-rashida-tlaib-over-israel-hamas-war-comments

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

I'm not taking issue with Tlaib's use of the chant but her defense of it. She made the defense that I quoted in the OP after the true genocidal meaning of the chant was repeatedly explained. She made that defense with malicious intent.

Tlaib repeated the claim that Israel struck the hospital after it was publicly acknowledged by the U.S. government that Israel didn't do it. That wasn't dumb. That was her intentionally spreading propaganda.

The Al Jazeera article claims that Tlaib "repeatedly condemned Hamas’s assault" but doesn't provide any actual quotes to that effect. I don't trust Al Jazeera's claim. I've looked for specific quotes from Tlaib condemning Hamas but couldn't find any. Her House.gov webpage released a statement the day after the attack saying that she does "grieve the Palestinian and Israeli lives lost yesterday" but that's not a condemnation of Hamas.

[–] ultravioletx (10237) a year ago

That's not what support for terrorism looks like. It's what support for Palestinians who are not Hamas looks like. If congress wants to accuse her by suggesting all Palestinians are terrorists, they will have to call them that openly. Spoiler alert, they won't.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

We're supposed to believe 'from rive to sea' screamed by crowds of protesters is about peace. Crows screaming 'Jihad' is just about a personal struggle. Meanwhile the ok hand sign is enough to get you fired for promoting white supremacy even if you're a brown skinned Latino.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/

[–] FootOfDavros (8702) a year ago

We're supposed to believe 'from rive to sea' screamed by crowds of protesters is about peace...

Why would anyone think that?

I thought it was about getting their land back from the West Bank (of the River) to Gaza (the sea)?

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib claims the chant is about peaceful coexistence. She claims to believe the Palestinians can get all of Palestine back and have peaceful coexistence with the Jews at the same time.