Epic Double standards

Anyone who chants "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," is apparently in denial about their antisemitism because the 'free' bit is taken to mean being in favour of genociding other people rather than wanting to be free from oppression. I guess there is an argument there that this can be interpreted a different way but - honestly - it's a stretch and often used in bad faith.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu explicitly rejects a two-state solution and says that he wants an Israeli state "from the river to the sea."

https://newrepublic.com/post/178243/benjamin-netanyahu-literally-says-from-the-river-to-the-sea

He is also leading a military campaign which is in the process of carrying out an actual genocide and actual ethnic cleansing, which is something that they all claim the famous chant is a hypothetical call for.

Hypocicy in CAPITAL LETTERS.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

GlitterEater · 36-40, F

Anyone still siding with Israel just doesn't want to admit they were tricked.

LordShadowfire · M

@GlitterEater So you're in favor of killing Israel.

GlitterEater · 36-40, F

@LordShadowfire Wow, what a good faith response.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@LordShadowfire Saying you are against both sides committing genocide (whilst commendable in a sense) is the right answer to the wrong question.

Condemning the Hamas attack isn't controversial. Almost nobody in the west would do otherwise, myself and Glitter included. The bone of contention is what Israel does. It's not about holding them to a different standard, it's just acknowledging that they are the occupying force, they are doing most of the killing and they are given tacit support to do so by our governments.

It's like asking someone if you support the Iraq war and saying that you condemn 9/11 too. In literal terms, I agree with you but it misses the point

LordShadowfire · M

@Burnley123 [quote]Saying you are against both sides committing genocide (whilst commendable in a sense) is the right answer to the wrong question.[/quote]
Is it, though? Because here's what I've seen. Hamas attacked Israel, then Israel attacked Gaza (as in the whole place, not just the terrorist group that attacked them). And now it seems like it's a contest to see who can commit the most war crimes.
[quote]It's like asking someone if you support the Iraq war and saying that you condemn 9/11 too.[/quote]
Not really. Iraq didn't do 9/11. Hamas did 10/7. But I guess I see your point, sort of.

GlitterEater · 36-40, F

@LordShadowfire But like you say, Gaza is being attacked, not just Hamas.

LordShadowfire · M

@GlitterEater At least they got the general area. The US just attacked any and all neighboring countries, from Afghanistan to Iraq.

GlitterEater · 36-40, F

@LordShadowfire Okay, but the analogy makes sense to you, right?

LordShadowfire · M

@GlitterEater Yeah, it does. Israel is using the Hamas attack as an excuse to attack the whole region, and killing civilians and others who had nothing to do with it, which is fucked, and right-whingers in my country call me a Nazi for saying so.