Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Free speech no longer exists

By which i mean speech which isn’t approved by the hard right thought police.

Latest: The FA will consult the police if players use the phrase ‘from the river to the sea’.

wtf

what next? Having your collar felt by the thought police for advocating for a two-state solution?

this is a direct result of the hard right rhetoric coming from the home office.

Worrying times m6s

Footballers should stfu if they want to be paid obscenely large piles of cash for kicking a ball around. Free speech my hairy arse. Fvkc off you overpaid grifters. 

I remember absolute khunts saying Rashford should stfu if he wanted to be paid obscenely large piles of cash for kicking a ball around when he was advocating for kids to be fed. 

Hehe, now they’re coming for your side and you don’t like it.

We need it protected in primary legislation that can’t be derogated from, agreed.

not sure you’ve quite grasped how primary legislation works m7

You’re one of those “Parliament has unlimited sovereignty because it can repeal the Scotland Act if it want to” people aren’t you? How quaint.

Chanting from the river to the sea is patently antisemitic.

Eh, no, it's not.  But we long passed reached the stage in the UK when to say anything that Jewish community leaders don't like is considered per se antisemitic.  And to argue about it is even more antisemitic.  

I’m sorry but saying that it’s racist and genocidal to claim the land “from the river to the sea” on behalf of Palestine but fine to claim the land “from the river to the sea” on behalf of Israel is completely wacky.

In absolutely no circumstances* should anyone be chanting this. I won't even type it.

I am personally disgusted but not surprised that fans of certain clubs hate human rights. Anyone that supports those clubs needs to seriously question themselves 

As a reminder - free Palestine is fine. Killing all Israelis is not.

 

 

*You may be anti-Semitic and wish to chant this. Most people are deeply uncomfortable with this 

It is naive at best to claim otherwise. 
 

What’s “naive” is the idea that the prohibition on this phrase is at all even-handed. I’m sure Tzipi Hotovely will be hearing from Suella any day now.

it’s legitimate to claim the land from the river to the sea if you are an Israeli government official

CORRECT

IT IS ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE

FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA: ALL FOR ISRAEL

There are plenty of Jewish people on this board. Any of them willing to state it is not antisemitic?

You would not dream of referring to people of African descent using the n word. Nor would you attempt to draw a caricature of a certain religious figure. Both highly offensive acts. But when practically all Jewish people tell you that it is deeply offensive to them, you refuse to believe them?

"Davos- tell us more about the ‘final solution’ you spoke favourably of the other day."

This of course never happened and I think you are getting into risky territory here 

Perhaps you have been sportswashed by Abu Dhabi? No manc talks like this ffs 

Hobbes my friend, from the river to the sea was made by Palestinians for Palestinians. It’s now been appropriated for reasons- settler colonial anxiety or whatever- and is seen as problematic.

The n word and the caricature you talk of are deliberate racist provocations from outside of those communities and target those communities. 

But please, provide receipts

And whilst you are there please provide receipts of you standing up against what your football club believes in 

I'll wait for both 

There are plenty of Jewish people on this board. Any of them willing to state it is not antisemitic?

Jewish people can say whatever they think is antisemitic and get offended as much as they like.  I think Northern Ireland should be unified with the Republic of Ireland.  If I get offended when people disagree with that it's my problem if I think that means they're anti-Irish and I'm offended by them.  

 

"You would not dream of referring to people of African descent using the n word. Nor would you attempt to draw a caricature of a certain religious figure. Both highly offensive acts. But when practically all Jewish people tell you that it is deeply offensive to them, you refuse to believe them?"

This is my position and I am happy to endorse it whilst of course calling for a ceasefire and an end to all atrocities 

The point a lot of Roffers miss apparently (and perhaps because of other influences) is that if a body of people is telling you something is offensive it probably is!

I don't go into work calling everyone Ns, Ps, Hs etc 

Ffs 

This is really basic stuff 

What Davos says today:

The point a lot of Roffers miss apparently (and perhaps because of other influences) is that if a body of people is telling you something is offensive it probably is!

What Davos said previously:

I think once a nation has been cucked repeatedly - like the French and the Irish - they get a very warped view of the world.  

Quite happy to endorse the idea that nobody should claim “from the river to the sea”, as clearly this is at odds with co-existence. It’s just a shame for those who want to claim that it’s beyond the pale to say it on behalf of Palestine that it is often said on behalf of Israel. From the Likud charter: 

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samariawill not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party

between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

CORRECT

BUT SAYING BETWEEN THE SEA AND THE RIVER IS VERY DIFFERENT TO SAYING BETWEEN THE RIVER AND THE SEA

"What Davos says today:

 

The point a lot of Roffers miss apparently (and perhaps because of other influences) is that if a body of people is telling you something is offensive it probably is!

 

What Davos said previously:

 

I think once a nation has been cucked repeatedly - like the French and the Irish - they get a very warped view of the world. "

This is, of course, entirely consistent with understanding why Jewish people might not want to be exterminated 

I am personally quite taken back but Roffers inconsistency

Happy to agree with ethnic minorities say is offensive 

Happy to agree with what trans people say is offensive

If an Israeli says something is offensive - DEATH OF FREE SPEECH 

Not entirely sure the manifesto of likud should be considered equivalent to the general views of the israeli population.

Of course not - but Likud is Netanyahu’s party, it is not a fringe group. This rhetoric is mainstream on the Israeli right, but unacceptable from Palestinians. It might be unacceptable from Palestinians but surely the same should apply on both sides. I don’t see much of that view.

Did anyone answer my question last night of the practical effect of this chant in real life.

Does Israel still exist if from the river to the sea etc actually happens?

And yes, the same question should be asked of that Israeli woman.

On the face of it, I don't see how Israel still exists if it happens? What am I missing?

The conservatives arent yet a fringe group either chimp and look at the level of support for them. I dont think anyone other than likud and the telegraph has indicated support for that position from an israeli standpoint unless ive missed something?

"On the face of it, I don't see how Israel still exists if it happens? What am I missing?"

You are missing nothing

It is not a peace chant 

It's an killing al Israeli chant

Just my opinion of course 

It completely depends on your interpretation of what “Palestine will be free” means, doesn’t it? Some of the people chanting it will mean Israel should be destroyed. Others will mean Palestinians should be able to live free from oppression.

On the face of it, I don't see how Israel still exists if it happens? What am I missing?

If Northern Ireland no longer exists - which is something contemplated as a matter of UK law - nobody suggests that it equates with 900,000 protestant/unionist/British people in Northern Ireland being forced to leave or, worse, having violence done to them.

Until the 1950s many Jewish institutions in the southern Levant used the name Palestine, e.g. Israel Electric Corporation, Israel's largest utility, was founded in 1926 under the name Palestine Electric Company.  Leading Israeli broadsheet The Jerusalem Post was founded in 1932 under the name "The Palestine Post" and changed its name only in 1950.

I dont think anyone other than likud and the telegraph has indicated support for that position from an israeli standpoint unless ive missed something?
 

Er; the Telegraph is just quoting what an Israeli government official said.

"Northern Ireland no longer exists - which is something contemplated as a matter of UK law - nobody suggests that it equates with 900,000 protestant/unionist/British people in Northern Ireland being forced to leave or, worse, having violence done to them."

This is, of course, an entirely irrelevant point as the brits aren't trying to kill them. Or are you suggesting we ship the Jews somewhere else?

And to be clear - the notion that Israel owns the land in question is very much the de facto position in Israel. That’s why the Israeli state provides tacit support to the illegal settlements - something else Hotovely is very much in favour of. 
 

In an inaugural address to Israeli diplomats, Hotovely said Israel has tried too hard to appease the world and must stand up for itself.

“We need to return to the basic truth of our rights to this country,” she said. “This land is ours. All of it is ours. We did not come here to apologise for that.”

Hotovely, an Orthodox Jew, laced her speech with biblical commentaries in which God promised the land of Israel to the Jews. Speaking later in English, she signalled that she would try to rally global recognition for West Bank settlements, which are widely opposed.

“We expect as a matter of principle of the international community to recognise Israel’s right to build homes for Jews in their homeland, everywhere,” she said.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/22/israels-new-deputy-foreign-minister-this-land-is-ours-all-of-it-is-ours

I.e. it doesnt appear to be a mainstream israeli view as far as i am aware and therefore the argument espoused above could, just potentially, be a false equivalence.

Is the assertion you make above that it is a de facto israeli position rather than a government one based on any objective data chimp?

Or maybe the uk's de facto position is actually that marches supporting a two state solution and a ceasefire are hate marches as per suella?

Well, that was exactly my question, though my emphasis would've been on the land in question.

Does it mean Palestine will be recognised equally and live side by side in harmony with Israel? Or does it mean something else?

Is the assertion you make above that it is a de facto israeli position rather than a government one based on any objective data chimp?
 

I’m not sure what you’re questioning exactly. What do you think the policy of support for settlement-building in the West Bank connotes if not the idea that Israel owns the land?

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-settlements-west-bank-biden-49c4788ffc5f5ee41d5c48365ac5395b

This is, of course, an entirely irrelevant point as the brits aren't trying to kill them. Or are you suggesting we ship the Jews somewhere else?

I'm sure that during the Troubles many from the protestant/unionist/British community in Northern Ireland would have said that the IRA was trying to kill them (and they would have had some basis for saying that, although its complicated). And yes, some from that community said at the time that rejection of Northern Ireland as a separate entity should be prohibited speech because it was calling for violence against them. 

However, it's fairly obvious that having a view on the existence of a state says nothing directly regarding your view of its population continuing to live the territory on which they live are not the same thing. The irony here is that the victims of ethnic cleansing in Israel/Palestine over the past 40 years have almost all been Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel, not Jewish Israelis.

"Does it mean Palestine will be recognised equally and live side by side in harmony with Israel? Or does it mean something else?"

Well no, it means Israel doesn't exist 

It's pretty clear 

Youre assuming an israeli claim from the jordan to the sea espoused, apparently, only by a far right nationalist government is actually a nationally held conviction. Suspect the actual position is more nuanced in practice, as it will be for the palestinian position (including the intent behind the words)

Sorry cannon, Ireland has no relevance here. The existence of those involved was never threatened, outside of those killed in the troubles 

Like NI could have joined Ireland and the UK would not have been threatened 

Youre assuming an israeli claim from the jordan to the sea espoused, apparently, only by a far right nationalist government is actually a nationally held conviction. 
 

Er, I’m not “assuming” any such thing. I’m pointing out that it is mainstream to say this in Israel, including by senior members of the government, and also that the actions taken by the Israeli state support the idea. I’m not sure what its being “a nationally held conviction” actually means.

Of course I accept that not all Israelis agree with the idea that Israel should have sovereignty from the river to the sea. But it’s disingenuous to act like it’s appalling when Palestinians say it and welcome the Israeli minister who says it as an ambassador.

Davos , ignoring Tom themes doesn’t mean they magically go away …you know like Israeli government ministers hope the Palestinians will from the occupied territories 

 

Not read thread but absolute LOLZ that Tom Linorder thinks saying a man is a man is hate speech but ResErVeS tHe AbSOlUtE rIgHT tO sHoUT AnTI-SEMitIC SlOGANs.

Free speech is just one of the issues that has been captured by the Hard Right and Hard Left to advance themselves in areas of which they know nothing. 

Linorder first in line to cancel and silence those he disagrees with

Also first in line to cry about being cancelled and silenced 

standard procedure for millenial cry-bullies

No, cookie you absolute moron, footballers should not shut the fvck up. They have absolutely the same right to free expression as any other adults.

How come you never learned to think?

Hobbes my friend, from the river to the sea was made by Palestinians for Palestinians. It’s now been appropriated for reasons- settler colonial anxiety or whatever- and is seen as problematic.

The n word and the caricature you talk of are deliberate racist provocations from outside of those communities and target those communities. 
 

Erm, yes. The phrase is an antisemitic chant started by Palestinians and now idiots around the world are using it as a deliberate racist provocation to target the Jewish community. Glad we agree.

’Linorder first in line to cancel and silence those he disagrees with’

receipts?

‘Also first in line to cry about being cancelled and silenced’

Ah I see you didn’t read my second post then

‘standard procedure for millenial cry-bullies‘

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Now toddle off back to your incel forums.

Following the Lawrence inquiry, a racist incident is considered to be 'any incident which is perceived to be racist by the subject. So if us Jews find a chant that originally calls for israel to be wiped off the map, then it is racist. Its not for non-jews to patronise us and tell us otherwise.  

So if us Jews find a chant that originally calls for israel to be wiped off the map, then it is racist.
 

Then I’ll ask you the same question.

If it’s racist when Palestinians claim the land from the river to the sea, what is it when Israelis do it?

So if us Jews find a chant that originally calls for israel to be wiped off the map, then it is racist.
 

Then I’ll ask you the same question.

If it’s racist when Palestinians claim the land from the river to the sea, what is it when Israelis do it?

Heh, it's not "whataboutery"! Come on - I'm making the point that people on both sides use the exact same phrase. But on one side it's unjustifiable, racist and genocidal. On the other side, it's government policy. Surely you understand that this is hard to sustain.

Wot wombats said. Issues like this really are ‘bring out your dead’ clarion calls for the hard of thinking. What do you think was the purpose of those stencils in Paris? Israel is being played, just as we were played in 2016. Resist.

Its exactly whataboutery. 

The chant of "from the rivers to the sea, Palestine will be free" is a call for the extermination of israel. Its from the same playbook as the hamas charter that states "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

The quote from the Likud MP (which i dont agree with), is , "The international community deals with considerations of morality and justice. Facing this, we have to return to the basic truth of our right to this land. This entire land is ours. All of it, from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, and we are not here to apologise for this.” 

 

Yes, thank you. Like I said upthread:

Quite happy to endorse the idea that nobody should claim “from the river to the sea”, as clearly this is at odds with co-existence. It’s just a shame for those who want to claim that it’s beyond the pale to say it on behalf of Palestine that it is often said on behalf of Israel.

I'm sorry Wombats but saying it is "from the same playbook" is a massive reach. Just because people use a phrase does not mean that they endorse everything said by someone else who also used that phrase. If you are happy to condemn when either side makes territorial claims that are incompatible with co-existence, then we agree.

Doom: 

You appear to be looking for « whatabout » issues, try this.

« Free Palestine » is another chant, is this also offensive ?

capable of being chanted by terrorist sympathisers ? Tick

capable of inferring a fair settlement of the dispute for Palestinians and Israeli alike? Tick

I accept that the  « From the river… » phrase has been said by appalling people (on both sides) but it looks to me like the vast majority of people using it in the UK now are not conjuring up the destruction of Israel 

if there’s any hope for a future where it’s not endless conflict there needs to be language used that allows both sides to express past hurts and future hopes that doesn’t constantly require approval by one « side » in that multi party conversation 

I am not Team Hamas or frankly even Team Palestinian but by trying to shut down everyone who expresses sympathy or concerns (even one sided concerns ) you are self isolating from erstwhile allies 

Both "This land is ours. All of it, from the Sea to the River" and "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" raise the question of what happens to the people who are inconveniently in the way of this ambition. One difference is that Israel is actually in a position to carry out a programme of asserting control over the land, and indeed is vigorously doing so, while for the Palestinians it is a slogan without a real chance of coming about.

But on one side it's unjustifiable, racist and genocidal. 

YES, IT IS CLEARLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, RACIST AND GENOCIDAL: THE CONCEPT OF A FREE PALESTINIAN IS INHERENTLY ANTI-SEMITIC

On the other side, it's government policy.

YES OF COURSE, AS IT IS AN ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE CLAIM AND A BASIC TRUTH

Ignoring the trolling from brexit, if you are chanting from the rivers to the sea, you are calling for the destruction of the jewish homeland. Its that simple. You might equivocate and go oh but thats not what i mean, but thats what we jews hear. 

Ive experienced low level anti semitism in the uk my entire life, its now just a lot less low level. 

 

 

 

 

OK Wombats, I can see we won't agree that if it is unacceptable for people on one side of the dispute to say it, then it is also unacceptable for people on the other side of the dispute to say it. I am not in a position to tell you you are wrong about what hearing the chant means to you - but I do wonder if we could ask Palestinians what seeing Tzipi Hotovely say the same thing before being appointed as ambassador to the UK means to them what they would say.

I agree with this in terms of people chanting it in the UK, I suspect many of them see it as a song in support of the Palestinian people and nothing mire than that.

Asti, as ever, more considered than most of this board

I think the selective nature of being in support of the Palestinian people as virtue signalling cause of the week and the rhetoric used is what makes it about hating Jews.

 

You can call opposition to collective punishment of civilians, supported by the UK government, "virtue signalling cause of the week" if you like. I might suggest that reflects your position in the debate rather than being a fair assessment.

Join the discussion

Login Register