@hebrewbyinbal I'm sorry you have to see that. I guess those "warriors" feel they are helping Palestianians by taking 5 seconds to write something nasty. I think the beginning of the end for me on Twitter was when former Rep Gabby Giffords who nearly died in an assassination attempt achieved the incredible goal of becoming a Bat Mitzvah (given that she had suffered brain damage in the shooting). The comments were filled with so much hate.

@pomerance @hebrewbyinbal

》Feel like they are helping #Palestinians
To be honest, I used to believe that too. But I have recently become despondent realizing it was the other way around. Because it made me realize fewer are interested in either harmed group.

@imstilljeremy @hebrewbyinbal It’s possible that they are dedicated to their cause irl. But I’m sure they are just into finding any Jew and yelling at them.

@pomerance @imstilljeremy @hebrewbyinbal I found David Hirsh’s book very eye opening on how ‘liberal’ (‘left’ in the UK) can be, in fact often are, really antisemitic.

I don’t agree with everything in the book but I recommend it as some thinking material.

https://www.routledge.com/Contemporary-Left-Antisemitism/Hirsh/p/book/9781138235311
#antisemitism

Contemporary Left Antisemitism

Today’s antisemitism is difficult to recognize because it does not come dressed in a Nazi uniform and it does not openly proclaim its hatred or fear of Jews. This book looks at the kind of antisemitism which is tolerated or which goes unacknowledged in apparently democratic spaces: trade unions, churches, left-wing and liberal politics, social gatherings of the chattering classes and the seminars and journals of radical intellectuals. It analyses how criticism of Israel can mushroom into antis

Routledge & CRC Press
@sheepchase @hebrewbyinbal @imstilljeremy I will put it on my list. I agree. Advocating for Jews to leave the one country where they have self determination is the same as advocating for genocide.
@sheepchase @hebrewbyinbal @imstilljeremy If you think of it “River to the Sea” means sending Jews where? To try to reclaim their homes in the countries they were expelled from? That sounds like sending people to sure extermination. “River to the Sea” is a disgusting slogan
@pomerance It doesn't *necessarily* mean sending Jews anywhere. Palestinians being free - the second half of the sentence - doesn't in any way depend on an absence of Jews.
Undoubtedly the chant is often used by antisemites (and its inverse is often used by anti-Palestinian racists) but I don't think labelling it in absolutes is either accurate or helpful.
@rabbigabriel Thank Rabbi, I take your point. I will say: knowing that’s what most of us (or at least half) hear when they say that should stop chanting that. And for the others, that’s exactly what they mean OR they just don’t care what happens.
@rabbigabriel And I say all this as someone open to confederation as 2SS seems hopelessly stalled

@rabbigabriel @pomerance

You are mistaken Rabbi.

https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/From-the-River-to-the-Sea
https://www.adl.org/resources/glossary-term/allegation-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free

It is directly a call for the destruction of Israel, and thus for the protections of the state of Israel on the Jews in the MENA. As the governments in the MENA have expelled their Jews, and Jews presence (like LGBTQ+ presence), there is no reason to believe that this call is anything but a call for Jewish death or expulsion, as has happened in the recent past.

“From the River to the Sea” | #TranslateHate

What does From the River to the Sea mean and why are anti-Israel protestors chanting From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free? See how “From the River to the Sea” is antisemitic.

AJC
@serge @pomerance Respectfully, I don’t think you mean that I’m mistaken. I think you mean that you disagree.
The page you linked says that the chant is a call to “erase the State of Israel and its people”. My point is that that interpretation simply is not reflected by the language of the chant. That may be the intention underlying it, in many or even most cases, but that isn’t the same as concluding that it’s the actual meaning of the actual words.

@rabbigabriel @pomerance

If Alice drops an anvil onto a man's head, it's a reasonable conclusion that he will die/be injured.

Chanting for the erasure of the physical and and legal protections of a marginalized group in a place where the law and history are directly contrary to their mere existence is the same. You cannot separate the two any more than you can separate Alice's actions from the man's death.

This is also the view of most Jewish organizations.

@serge @rabbigabriel @pomerance and I would say it’s trauma on top of trauma.

Palestinians experienced horrible trauma since the Nakba. The creation of Israel may have been good for many Jews, but it’s been terrible for Palestinians.

They are acting from their trauma, yes, and not worrying about the people they experience as oppressors.

AND… Jewish people are a tiny minority and regularly have real reason to fear for safety.

Both are true.

@serge @pomerance But, again, the chant doesn’t refer to the erasure or anything. That’s an interpretation. Actually all it describes is freedom for the Palestinian people.
@rabbigabriel @serge This is like saying “there’s nothing wrong with ‘make America great again’” — yes and no. When I hear it, I hear “return to the times when you couldn’t marry who you wished and Black people weren’t allowed in certain neighborhoods.” And you know what? I think that’s EXACTLY what most of the MAGA chanters want
@pomerance @serge I think that’s a great example. And I think your condemnation is correctly phrased (whereas if you’d said, “MAGA intrinsically means black people’s rights should be taken away” I don’t think it would be).

@rabbigabriel @serge @pomerance

I think if you separate the meaning of words from the way the words are used, we aren't really talking about the same thing anymore.

In core, I agree with you that it doesn't necessitate calls for genocide. But by the same reasoning, strictly speaking, that would be similar to those who say things like "Palestinian used to refer to the Jewish residents. So, they now are free from River to Sea." as a means of sidestepping calls for human rights for Palestinians.

@rabbigabriel @serge @pomerance

All words are used in particular contexts and with particular meanings. Some are broad and some are general.

We can agree, for example, that "From River to Sea" is intended as a call for the rights of non-Jewish people in the land, whether they identify as Palestinian, Arab, Israeli, or Christian (sometimes Druze too).

I agree with entirely that it isn't useful to discuss it in the general sense, but rather specifics. But I know you and Serge so no harm here.

@imstilljeremy @serge @pomerance I think that’s a very good example, and it shows exactly why context is important

@rabbigabriel @serge @pomerance but the meaning of the words is their context. That’s what language is all about.

What I agree with is that some do not intend “death to jews” but it is clearly a call for the destruction of the state of Israel.

@devotaj @rabbigabriel @serge @pomerance

The preeminent view I have heard would probably be best described as "indifference" as to the implications towards Jews.

No ill will necessarily, but that any attempt to address that is necessarily not the same thing. I agree with the Rabbi that, married to an understanding and addressing of the dangers and needs of Jews, it need not be genocidal.

Unmoored from that, it is likely a hindrance (and danger to the diaspora). Which seems more important.

@devotaj @serge @pomerance Does freedom for Palestinians necessarily and intrinsically mean destruction of the State of Israel? I don’t think it does.

@rabbigabriel @serge @pomerance I don’t think freedom for Palestinians has to mean destruction of Israel.

However this phrase does mean that, as it’s saying all the land from the river to the sea is for Palestinians, which contextually does exclude Jews.

And based on the built up anger, also implies it.

Not caring what happens to the Jews in this scenario is the same thing that happened to Palestinians in the creation of Israel — the Nabka.

@devotaj @serge @pomerance Again, that’s interpretation. It doesn’t say that the land is “for Palestinians”. It says Palestinians in the land should have freedom.
@serge @rabbigabriel @devotaj To use your construction, respectfully master, you aren’t mistaken but I for one REALLY disagree.
@pomerance I hear that, though I don’t really know how you can disagree that the words don’t refer to Palestinians having exclusive political control over the land 🤷
Have a good afternoon.

@rabbigabriel @devotaj @pomerance

Members of the KKK do not chant anything against black people, they chant "White Power"

At the Unite the Right "Jews will not replace us!", they didn't chant anything about death or harm to Jews, only that they wouldn't be replaced by them

The various dog whistles on the ADL's database are dog whistles for a reason.

You can't remove these terms from their context, period.

@serge @rabbigabriel @devotaj @pomerance i mean if we're going by literal interpretation without context, the phrase 'blood and soil' can be construed as the assertion of ethnic identity and ties to the land
@rabbigabriel @devotaj @serge @pomerance But it says "Palestine will be free" and not "Palestinians will be free". In theory it could mean an equitable pluralistic society for all who live in I/P. But many senders at best don't care about Jews and many who hear it hear it like this. In this case language works that way that the meaning leaves the literal reading.
@chanele @devotaj @serge @pomerance Actually when I’ve heard it (in the UK) it says Palestinians - which is also what fits the scansion.
@rabbigabriel @devotaj @serge @pomerance Interesting. Despite the rhythm differences I rather hear the "Palestine" version when I hear that chant (with the last syllable lengthened to two beats of the rhythm to fit things in).
@chanele @rabbigabriel @devotaj @serge I’ve personally never heard that once in the US. It’s always “Palestine.”
@devotaj @rabbigabriel @serge It doesn’t HAVE TO but it does.

@pomerance @devotaj @rabbigabriel @serge @hebrewbyinbal

You guys, there is now a big block of Kahanist boot lickers in the Israeli government, they are bent on harming occupied Palestinians, and they are planning on destroying the high court and corrupting the IDF to achieve their goal. Many of us in Israel are seeing this as an end of our democracy.

Criticism of a horrible regime is not antisemitism.

@I @rabbigabriel @devotaj @hebrewbyinbal @serge no one is saying that it is. Some say that chant is.
@pomerance @rabbigabriel @devotaj @hebrewbyinbal @serge which one? This thread talked about many quotes.
@rabbigabriel @devotaj @hebrewbyinbal @I @serge We’ve mostly been taking about this. Absolutely criticizing Israel is NOT antisemitic in and of itself. The post you were replying to had to do with this — and the fact that not caring what happens to Jews in the iteration following their definition of freedom is, in my opinion.

@pomerance @rabbigabriel @devotaj @hebrewbyinbal @serge

That was not me, It was Inbal who called it antisemitism.

as for the "River to sea" quote, the same was and is used by right wingers in Israel, I think Geula Cohen and Refael Eitan were the first to make it mainstream in the 1980s, though the Hitnakhluyot were happening since the late 1960s and early 70s, exactly with that idea in mind...

@pomerance @rabbigabriel @devotaj @serge ah, I see Inbal has removed it and then blocked me. Just as well. I think that that retoric she is using is causing Israel way more harm than good. However now it doesn't matter any more. The new government will hammer the final nail in the coffin of the admiration Israel used to have in the world ;( this is the real tragedy.
@I @devotaj @serge @rabbigabriel May their days be short, followed by reason, prudence, and dedication to equality.
@hebrewbyinbal @serge @rabbigabriel @I @devotaj well you did say that criticism of a horrible regime is not antisemitism. I was just agreeing and saying that wasn’t what was being discussed.
@serge @devotaj @rabbigabriel You don’t but I think they do.
@pomerance @serge @devotaj I think that’s an unhelpful racial stereotype.
@devotaj @rabbigabriel @serge Racist to whom? The Palestinian race? There is no such race. It’s not like we don’t have examples of areas controlled by Palestinians and description by their leadership. I’m basing my comment on that, and not their race. I find it strange that you would even bring up race in this discussion.
@devotaj @rabbigabriel @serge While I admit there is no real traction for Confederacy on the Jewish side, I don’t hear any Palestinians advocating for it either.
@pomerance @devotaj @serge Denial of the existence of the Palestinians as a racial/ ethnic group earns you a block. Sorry.
@rabbigabriel @serge @devotaj I’m sorry you feel that way. I do know they are a distinct ethnic group. They just aren’t a race.
@rabbigabriel @devotaj @serge They also deserve equal rights. And political autonomy.
@rabbigabriel @serge @devotaj Rabbi Kanter-Webber: If you haven’t blocked me yet, I would love to hear your thoughts on what “race” means. I have never heard of a distinct Palestinian race. The Scottish are a distinct culture from the English as Palestinians do visa vis say the Lebanese or Jordanians). But I have never heard them called a different race.
@pomerance @rabbigabriel @serge @devotaj Using "race" as noun looks difficult for me anyway. It's a social construct that varies with place and time. But you don't need race as noun/reified category to see that there's racist discrimination against Arabs and Palestinians in Israel. The term "ethnic group" feels different from "race" to me. I definitely see Palestinian ethnicity.

@rabbigabriel @pomerance @serge he was denying that they are a “race” not an ethnic group.

The two are not synonymous.

@devotaj According to the law of my country, the two are synonymous: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9
Equality Act 2010

An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to discrimination and harassment related to certain personal characteristics; to enable certain employers to be required to publish information about the differences in pay between male and female employees; to prohibit victimisation in certain circumstances; to require the exercise of certain functions to be with regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and other prohibited conduct; to enable duties to be imposed in relation to the exercise of public procurement functions; to increase equality of opportunity; to amend the law relating to rights and responsibilities in family relationships; and for connected purposes.

@rabbigabriel in the US, they are very different. I’m betting @pomerance was coming from a US perspective.
@rabbigabriel @devotaj Thank you. You’re right of course. Im a well-read and well-travelled New Yorker. I’ve heard of having pizza for tea but I’ve never heard of this. As far as I know we don’t have a governmental body which redefines words.
@devotaj @rabbigabriel So are Scots a different race to the Welch or the Cornish?
@pomerance @devotaj @rabbigabriel He’ll never answer the question, because to say they are all “White” would be admitting that northern Palestinians are no different from Jordanians, Lebanese, and Syrians and that southern Palestinians are no different from Egyptians.
@JDSBlueDevl @devotaj @rabbigabriel Well they are different they just aren’t another race.
@rabbigabriel @serge Well if we go down this road one could say it is free from the River to the sea now for women and queer people vs what it would be under Hamas or Fatah rule. I think enough of the chanters so mean the expulsion of Jews. But of course there are no real numbers so there’s no proof of either way.
@pomerance @serge We could definitely say that (subject to accepting that queer people are unable to marry in Israel). But again: is there any reason in principle why however many states there are between the river and the sea can’t be safe for Jews, Palestinians, women, queer people, etc etc etc? No.
@rabbigabriel @serge Not in principle but I just don’t believe that’s what they mean. As the old punchline goes “In theory we have two million dollars. In practice we live with a couple of wh0res.”
@pomerance @serge No doubt it is what they mean. But there are Palestinian voices explaining that they don’t mean that (happy to share some links if helpful).
@serge @rabbigabriel I’m sure any individual would say that. If you ask someone chanting “Gd hates fags” they are going to say “oh I have nothing against gay people as long as long as they don’t shove it down our throats.” Speaking of rhetorical devices: I think the allusion to the “sea” is no accident as it echoes the alleged Nassar statement of pushing Jews into the sea.
@pomerance @serge Quite hard to argue that that line doesn’t explicitly and literally evince a hatred of homosexuality.
@rabbigabriel @serge I apologize that the analogy doesn’t work. I was just saying that when you ask an individual they might not be honest