Figma balls
-
It doesn't help that "from the river to the sea" is a phrase calling for genocide. It would be way easier to gather support to stop Israeli genocide on Palestinians if so many activists claiming to be pro-Palestinian didn't call for genocide on Israel.
I didn't know, so I looked it up. Apparently, the interpretation is debated:
In the 1960s, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) used it to call for what they saw as a "decolonized" state encompassing the entirety of Mandatory Palestine. By 1969, after several revisions, the PLO used the phrase to call for one-state solution, that would mean "one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".
Many pro-Palestinian activists consider it "a call for peace and equality" after decades of military rule over Palestinians, while for many Jews it is seen as a call for the destruction of Israel. Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Usage of the phrase by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to say that it advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and the removal or extermination of its Jewish population.
It's pretty clear that once a symbol has been successfully co-opted, and that original meanings have not been vigorously defended, the best option is to cede the use and find a different slogan. That term, originally secular and peaceful, has been co-opted, and even if Pro-Palestine, non-antisemitic groups would like it to adhere to the original meaning, the cause is lost and they can only harm their cause by continuing to use it.
The Swastika may be the best example of this. You can only carefully use it, despite the origins having nothing to do with Nazis, and it being an important symbol to many religions around the world. The Nazis fucked up the symbol for everyone and railing against that and insisting on using it only causes trouble.
I agree with you: it seems that, despite the benign origins of the phrase, it's been successfully co-opted by extremists and is now only divisive.
TIL
-
It doesn't help that "from the river to the sea" is a phrase calling for genocide. It would be way easier to gather support to stop Israeli genocide on Palestinians if so many activists claiming to be pro-Palestinian didn't call for genocide on Israel.
Why parrot the Zionist talking point that it’s a call for genocide? It’s a call for liberation from colonialism. Jews lived alongside Christians and Arabs in Palestine prior to the partition of Palestinian land to create the nation of Israel. Take that Zionist propaganda out of here. No nation has a right to exist as an ethnocentric and theocratic apartheid system. IDF are worse than Al Qaeda.
-
It doesn't help that "from the river to the sea" is a phrase calling for genocide. It would be way easier to gather support to stop Israeli genocide on Palestinians if so many activists claiming to be pro-Palestinian didn't call for genocide on Israel.
wrote last edited by [email protected]"You deserve to be genocided because I misunderstand your slogan"
Interesting take.
This is some wild victim blaming. You're making it the victims' fault that you don't support helping them. Perhaps you should oppose all genocide, period. There are no slogans or actions that can make genocide deserved or acceptable.
The children that are being starved should have been more polite about being ethnically cleansed??
-
I didn't know, so I looked it up. Apparently, the interpretation is debated:
In the 1960s, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) used it to call for what they saw as a "decolonized" state encompassing the entirety of Mandatory Palestine. By 1969, after several revisions, the PLO used the phrase to call for one-state solution, that would mean "one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".
Many pro-Palestinian activists consider it "a call for peace and equality" after decades of military rule over Palestinians, while for many Jews it is seen as a call for the destruction of Israel. Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Usage of the phrase by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to say that it advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and the removal or extermination of its Jewish population.
It's pretty clear that once a symbol has been successfully co-opted, and that original meanings have not been vigorously defended, the best option is to cede the use and find a different slogan. That term, originally secular and peaceful, has been co-opted, and even if Pro-Palestine, non-antisemitic groups would like it to adhere to the original meaning, the cause is lost and they can only harm their cause by continuing to use it.
The Swastika may be the best example of this. You can only carefully use it, despite the origins having nothing to do with Nazis, and it being an important symbol to many religions around the world. The Nazis fucked up the symbol for everyone and railing against that and insisting on using it only causes trouble.
I agree with you: it seems that, despite the benign origins of the phrase, it's been successfully co-opted by extremists and is now only divisive.
TIL
wrote last edited by [email protected]Language is flexible.
Just like reappropriation, it's not hard to reclaim signs if a concerted group of people persist at it.
Relenting to opponents is capitulation. -
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Figma reminds me of ligma & needs a dirty pun (that makes sense).
-
Language is flexible.
Just like reappropriation, it's not hard to reclaim signs if a concerted group of people persist at it.
Relenting to opponents is capitulation.Reclamation is an effort, though. If all you're doing is adding symbols as a tag line, there's no qualification and readers can't tell what your Swastika means; and since it's also concurrently being used by Nazis for their meaning, it's leaving the interpretation to the reader.
I'm not trying to argue that it's right. I'm saying that it's unproductive to simply obstinately keep using it and let people associate you with extremists.
-
Language is flexible.
Just like reappropriation, it's not hard to reclaim signs if a concerted group of people persist at it.
Relenting to opponents is capitulation.All I'll say is that there are hills that are not worth dying on.
-
Reclamation is an effort, though. If all you're doing is adding symbols as a tag line, there's no qualification and readers can't tell what your Swastika means; and since it's also concurrently being used by Nazis for their meaning, it's leaving the interpretation to the reader.
I'm not trying to argue that it's right. I'm saying that it's unproductive to simply obstinately keep using it and let people associate you with extremists.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Opponents do the exact same thing.
They organize online and spread it like a meme.
It's really not that hard.The boogaloo boys & proud boys made hawaiian print shirts &
hate signs.
MAGA contorted the meaning of fake news.
Everyone else acquiesced like weak-willed bitchasses who don't know how the game is played as if they're powerless to do the exact same thing.The only thing stopping anyone is shame or cowardice.
-
All I'll say is that there are hills that are not worth dying on.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's not really a hill.
There's enough people to go around online to take multiple fronts & make anything go viral.
People give up too easily & don't push back.Acting like bitchass candyasses who give up easy fights doesn't exactly inspire confidence to join a cause.
-
Why parrot the Zionist talking point that it’s a call for genocide? It’s a call for liberation from colonialism. Jews lived alongside Christians and Arabs in Palestine prior to the partition of Palestinian land to create the nation of Israel. Take that Zionist propaganda out of here. No nation has a right to exist as an ethnocentric and theocratic apartheid system. IDF are worse than Al Qaeda.
You think anyone in Hamas wants to live alongside Israelis? The phrase is literally a call to reclaim all of the territory, and make sure there is no more Israel. It's not necessarily a call for genocide, but it is used by people who are calling for genocide.
As always, the truth remains between the opposing talking points. Holy wars don't leave much room for compromise or forgiveness, but that's what is always required to achieve peace.
