RedSoxFan9 Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 Just kidding! Quote Hill had urged countries to boycott Israel in a speech at the U.N. on Wednesday, calling for a "free Palestine from the river to the sea." ... "My reference to 'river to the sea' was not a call to destroy anything or anyone," he added in another tweet. "It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza. The speech very clearly and specifically said those things." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 Top story on foxnews.com Literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 The implications of calling for a "free Palestine from the river (Jordan) to the (Mediterranean) sea" are pretty damned obvious - it's an "eliminationist" position, pure and simple. The question is whether someone can claim such an "eliminationist" position without advocating a default "genocidal" position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted November 30, 2018 Author Share Posted November 30, 2018 im not seeing the genocide part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remarkableriots Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 11 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said: im not seeing the genocide part Quote It doesn’t matter what spin is put on this in the days ahead. The meaning was clear and unmistakable. CNN contributor and Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill called for the elimination of Israel in a speech delivered yesterday. Specifically, he called for “political action, grassroots action, local action, and international action, that will give us what justice requires — and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea.” Quote Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal vowed Gaza's rulers would never give up "an inch of the land" to Israel in an uncompromising speech before tens of thousands of cheering supporters at a triumphalist "victory" rally in Gaza City. "Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land," he told the crowd on his first visit to Gaza. "We will never recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/08/hamas-gaza-palestine-khaled-meshaal-israel A free Palestine from the river to the sea means no Israel which basically means the genocide of all Jews in Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 I wouldn't necessarily go so far as saying he is advocating for genocide against Jews, but he is definitely saying the Jewish state should be destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted November 30, 2018 Author Share Posted November 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Remarkableriots said: A free Palestine from the river to the sea means no Israel which basically means the genocide of all Jews in Israel. no it doesn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remarkableriots Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said: no it doesn't So what do you think they meant by saying Palestinian state should be where Israel currently is located? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted November 30, 2018 Author Share Posted November 30, 2018 Israelis can live in a secular state Temple professor =/= leader of Hamas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Remarkableriots said: So what do you think they meant by saying Pakistan should be where Israel currently is located? Now THAT would be an impressive feat which would have the full support of India! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remarkableriots Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 14 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: Now THAT would be an impressive feat which would have the full support of India! My mistake a new Palestinian state where Israel currently is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 Now hold on, I think you're onto something with declaring that neither side gets to keep the land and just giving it to Pakistan instead. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 Just now, Jason said: Now hold on, I think you're onto something with declaring that neither side gets to keep the land and just giving it to Pakistan instead. Seriously, I'm not seeing very many downsides to this plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said: no it doesn't It’s certainly what it has meant when the Arab opposition says it. At minimum it was a poor choice of words as it aligned Hill with people who do want to cleanse the land of Jews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: Seriously, I'm not seeing very many downsides to this plan. So do we give the current Pakistan back to India? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: Seriously, I'm not seeing very many downsides to this plan. Hmm...and Pakistan (being majority Muslim) would fit better into the region, too...and Israel (if given Pakistan in exchange) would inherit larger natural resources and space. It's a win-win! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, Jason said: So do we give the current Pakistan back to India? Some to India, some to Afghanistan, some to China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remarkableriots Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, Jason said: So do we give the current Pakistan back to India? Have Afghanistan take it over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said: ...and Israel (if given Pakistan in exchange) would inherit larger natural resources and space. Israel already does have a pretty good relationship with India's Hindu nationalist government Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted November 30, 2018 Author Share Posted November 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, sblfilms said: It’s certainly what it has meant when the Arab opposition says it. At minimum it was a poor choice of words as it aligned Hill with people who do want to cleanse the land of Jews. it's a stretch to say it aligns him with anyone this another case of someone being fired for reasonable criticism of an apartheid state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 17 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said: it's a stretch to say it aligns him with anyone this another case of someone being fired for reasonable criticism of an apartheid state RedSoxFan9 has been fired from D1P for this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted November 30, 2018 Author Share Posted November 30, 2018 1 minute ago, Jason said: RedSoxFan9 has been fired from D1P for this post. what's my severance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 36 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said: it's a stretch to say it aligns him with anyone No, it's not a stretch when he initially used the identical eliminationist terminology as the Arabs without the elaboration that he added later. You can fully acknowledge and condemn Israel's apartheidist policies as well as acknowledge the the creation of the Israel state was a grave mistake in the first place, but also recognize when eliminationist rhetoric can unintentionally advocate genocide without further elaboration/context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted November 30, 2018 Author Share Posted November 30, 2018 the phrase has been around for longer than Hamas has existed, and it isn't a distinct phrase where using it wouldn't be a coincidence. this isn't a guy with 1488 tattoo claiming he just likes the number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said: the phrase has been around for longer than Hamas has existed, and it isn't a distinct phrase where using it wouldn't be a coincidence. this isn't a guy with 1488 tattoo claiming he just likes the number. Of course the phrase pre-dates Hamas. The phrase probably has been used in some form or another by the frontline Arab states, the PLO, and other Palestinian national liberation groups since the early 1960s or earlier, and in each of those contexts involves the "elimination" of Israel as an entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.