1/ I'd like to see those defending "river to the sea" as if it means nothing more than "one democratic state" be more forthright in acknowledging what it really means. To both proponents and critics.
2/ Both "river to sea" and "one democratic state" are slogans. The former is chanted more often by people who shake their fist, and latter by those who seek a more refined look, but both describe the same broader idea: Disempowering a historically oppressed people, the Jews.
3/ How is it that "one democratic state" amounts to disempowerment? It sounds so nice!
Because democracy isn't the end being demanded. When you understand that "one democratic state" is a euphemism for "one democratic Jewish-minority state" is the demand, the debate more sense.
4/ "One democratic state" here means the same as Palestinian control from "river to the sea," which means the same as "no room for such Jewish control anywhere." How so? Because virtually nobody who demands one state accepts that it could sustainably have a Jewish majority.
5/ There is today a democratic state where Jews and Arabs vote. Why isn't that okay with those who demand "one democratic state"? Precisely because it isn't a Palestinian-majority state.
The "one" in "one democratic state" means zero-sum. It means racial gerrymandering.
6/ That's why "one democratic state" is invariably coupled with a demand for the "return" of the grandchildren of Palestinian refugees from 1948. Again: "One democratic state" means "one democratic state IF AND ONLY IF democracy allows a Palestinian majority to rule everywhere."
7/ What's so wrong with a Palestinian majority? Aren't those upset by "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" bothered precisely because they want to keep the current democracy that has a Jewish majority?
Remember what I said above: "one" is meant as "zero sum."
8/ Those who advocate for two-states-for-two-peoples want two democratic states. Why two? To care for the aspirations of two peoples. There would be a Jewish majority. AND a Palestinian majority.
The "river-sea" and "one democratic state" folks reject that. Fundamentally.
9/ I'll fix the typos here for the sake of reiterating:
Democracy isn't the end being demanded. When you understand that "one democratic state" is a euphemism for "one democratic Jewish-minority state," the debate makes more sense.
10/ It depends on the speaker or the audience, but those who use the slogan "one democratic state" will sometimes be more explicit. Like when Omar Barghouti, a leader of the anti-Israel BDS movement, admitted "one state" is one where "BY DEFINITION Jews will be a minority."
11/ Barghouti is hardly the first to admit the implications and purpose of his desired demographic engineering. Note how leaders in the Arab world used to talk about the so called "right of return":
12/ The public relations value of those phrases today are, let's say, not so much. Today's audience calls for different messaging.
But to circle back around: If you want to be honest and discuss in good faith, be forthright about what the slogans mean, and how they're seen.
13/ To put it in terms that are easier for locals to relate to: Why don't the people of Ireland jump at the opportunity for "one democratic state" encompassing the British Isles? Because it's completely, utterly obvious that this amounts to their disempowerment.
14/ Do Canadians want to be part of one democratic state from the (Baffin) Bay to the Gulf (of Mexico)? Yeah, 0.11% of them do. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexatio…) Many more don't even want to be part of Canada!
15/ Do the people of Pakistan want to be part of "one democratic state" with India? Pass.
16/ It's easy to understand, then, why most Jews think it's immoral to insist that, against their wishes, they become part of "one democratic state" with neighbors who most recently voted into power a Holocaust revisionist and a virulently anti-Jewish terror organization.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Peter, who now embraces the "river/sea/free" rhyme, KNOWS it's tied to, dependent on, and entirely about Palestinians being a majority in the new state he demands.
It's a rhyme about making Jews a minority in a Palestinian state. Period.
2/ And of course, he knows that in the current existent state, Arabs and Jews do have the same rights under the same laws. He knows that by pretending the West Bank and Israel are one state, he can mislead the average reader.
3/ No. Jews don't like the slogan because, whether out of the mouth of Hamas or Tlaib, it means ending Israel, and ending it because a Jewish majority country is unacceptable to them.
Q: In what world does saying "kill the Jews wherever you find them" make you "against Zionism"… and demanding the ethnic cleansing of Jews in a "Palestine from the river to the sea" amount to a "dispute over land and maritime borders"?
1/ A thread on *framing* in NY Times coverage of Israel.
Let's look at yesterday's story on the UAE deal and Arab Israelis, to see how the words "many," "some," etc are funny — capable of rerouting a story into a narrow, preferred frame.
Here's the top of the story:
2/ It's already clear from the hed and dek how the piece is meant to come across.
We have at its heart a story about how Israel's growing relationship with the Arab opens opportunities for Israeli Arabs. But it's clearly framed as, mostly, a story about the "Palestinian cause."
3/ Note that subhead again: "MANY say they are loath to undercut the Palestinian cause."
But when you get to the actual story, "many" quickly becomes "SOME." Here's paragraph 2:
1) In line with its recently stated policy, @TwitterSafety did at least, in this case, delete the tweet mentioned below. It had said supporters of Israel deserve to die.
1/ I have to say, "don't worry so much about celebrities with millions of followers spewing and spreading rank antisemitism, because white nationalists elsewhere are a big problem" — as if we didn't know that — strikes me as a bad take.
2/ Identity politics at its worst treats certain antisemitism as a problem on its face and more as an inconvenient distraction from another cause, and sometimes sympathizes more with those antisemites than with their victims.
3/ Here's the thing: we have enough room in our minds to fear and oppose antisemitism from Farrakhan supporters with giant megaphones AND antisemitism from white supremacists, and maybe even hold other unrelated thoughts about politics, the environment, etc, all at the same time.
1/ Omar Shakir is Human Rights Watch's director in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Read his account. Then see the video, in the reply immediately below, of what actually happened -- an attempted murderer being shot in the course of his attack.
3/ Car ramming attacks like this have been a frequent tactic by Palestinian attackers, and sometimes involved the perpetrator leaving the vehicle and continuing the attack with crowbars or knives. You can see video of an older attack, for example, here: channel4.com/news/clashes-i…