Laws to be introduced this week include up to two years in prison for distributing, displaying or reciting prohibited phrases to harass or offend

Laws to be introduced this week include up to two years in prison for distributing, displaying or reciting prohibited phrases to harass or offend

  • AudaciousArmadillo@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    840·
    5 days ago

    If your slogan implies genocide, as your example also does, yes it is hate speech. You cannot undo colonization by disposing the occupiers. Any nation is occupying some native land in one form or another.

    • fizzle@quokk.auEnglish
      291·
      5 days ago

      You’re going to have to elaborate on how “from the desert to the sea” implies genocide.

      • Miles O'Brien@startrek.websiteEnglish
        242·
        5 days ago

        It doesn’t, any more than “from the river to the sea”.

        The only way you can think “river to sea” slogan implies genociding the Israeli occupiers is if you can’t possibly imagine any other way to transfer ownership than brutal imperialistic colonizer-like expansion. You know, like what Israelis are currently doing to Palestinians.

        Framing it as “you’re calling for genocide” is just another way zionists try to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

        It seems to me like people like this are telling on themselves that they’re stuck in Colonial/imperial mindsets and lack imagination.

        • sqgl@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          55·
          4 days ago

          In the 1960s and 70s it became the signature phrase of the Palestine Liberation Organization to indicate the replacement of the State of Israel with a State of Palestine extending “from the river to the sea,” including the expulsion of Jews.

          Hamas have since called for the expulsion of all Jews.

          Hamas proclaims it in its 1988 founding, charter document, The Hamas Covenant. The second paragraph declares to all the world that, “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” The introduction section promises “[o]ur struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious” and will only end when “the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realized,”

        • CannonFodder@lemmy.worldEnglish
          316·
          5 days ago

          It refers to genociding the Jews to get back the area. Technically it doesn’t, like saying ‘all lives matter’ isn’t technically anti-black, but it is. Wearing a swastika might mean you support the Hindu notion of well-being, but it doesn’t.
          Symbols have meaning and hiding behind technicalities allows dog whistling and regressive behavior.
          Yes, Israel is abhorrent in its actions in Gaza, and a form of shared peaceful cohabitation in the area would be ideal. But allowing slogans that are known to represent genocide, doesn’t help.

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        58·
        4 days ago

        It means there won’t be any Israelis left between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

        Hamas’s stated purpose for existing is to vanquish not only the state of Israel, but all Israelis and more broadly all Jews. That’s overtly genocidal.

        And before you call me a zionist, I don’t support the Israeli government. What it’s doing to Palestinians is atrocious. But I’m capable of discerning between Israelis and the the Israeli government, just like I’m capable of discerning between Palestinians and Hamas.

        Israelis and Palestinians alike deserve peace, justice, security, autonomy, and self-determinism, just like every other human being in the world deserves these things.

        The Israeli government and Hamas, on the other hand, are both genocidal organizations and need to be replaced with something more civilized.

          • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            45·
            4 days ago

            And what do you think the plan is for all the Israeli civilians who are currently living there?

            Do you expect a Hamas-led government to treat them with basic dignity and respect for human rights?

            • mrdown@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              2 days ago

              Do you realize that the majority of people agree that the palestinian autority will be who rule palestine for a white, PA recognize israel and abandonned armed resistance . You just hide behind hamas war crimes to justify occupation

              • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                11·
                2 days ago

                The Palestinian Authority who have no de facto power and whom Hamas despised almost as much as they despise Israel?

                You think what Hamas means when they say “From the river to the sea” is that the Palestinian Authority will run a civil government with universal respect for human rights?

                I’m not “hiding behind hamas war crimes,” you’re writing off hamas war crimes and trying to hide them behind a veneer of the Palestinian Authority’s nominal claim to power.

                • mrdown@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  Hamas has no defacto power outside of Gaza. Pa had no power because of israel and the west support for israel.

                  Here what should happen. The west and the usa should stop siding with israel. Israel should have cuba style sanctions to force them to end the occupation of the west bank , hamas should be asked to surrender in exchange of ending the blockade. If hamas refuse , the west should provide the PA all it needs to to destroy Hamas.

                  Of course it is not easy but it is logical

                  • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                    11·
                    2 days ago

                    Hamas has no defacto power outside of Gaza

                    Their de facto power in Gaza is nearly absolute (at least in the parts they still hold). The slogan in question in this post is about extending their hold to the rest of the land. It implies genociding Israelis.

                    hamas should be asked to surrender

                    No fucking shit. And when they refuse?

                    the west should provide the PA all it needs to to destroy Hamas

                    If it were that simple, they would have already been rooted out.

        • fizzle@quokk.auEnglish
          3·
          4 days ago

          The history of harassment, Palestine, and israel is largely irrelevant.

          If a law prescribes (proscribes?) specific phrases regadless of intent and context, they should be chosen very, very carefully.

          Im not an expert, but i think other states require a context like “intended to incite hatred”.

          By prescribing this particular phrase, even if you are correct, it allows harassment to portray Palestine as ignored and persecuted - the very intention of terrorism.

          • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            34·
            4 days ago

            Should people be allowed to use nazi slogans at protests? What about racist slogans?

            I understand it’s dicey to draw a line somewhere, but do you really believe hate speech should be protected as political speech? It’s a slippery slope either way, the trick is to find the point of balance.

            And repeating a phrase which initial intent is to call for the eradication of an entire ethnic group is, in my opinion, on the side of the line that should be considered hate speech, promoting violence, and shouldn’t be protected.

            The history of the conflict is indeed relevant. And the proscription of the phrase isn’t being done “regardless of intent and context.”

            (By the way, ‘proscribe’ means to condemn something; ‘prescribe’ means doctor’s orders)

            I’m not following the logic of your last paragraph.

            • mrdown@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              2 days ago

              Holding a flag of a state committing genocide and is the one who is currently trying to exterminate Palestinians on the ground is what should be compared to nazi slogans

              • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                11·
                2 days ago

                That’s a bit of a strawman. Who’s holding an Israeli flag here?

                Genocide is atrocious, whether committed by the IDF or Hamas. Hamas’s stated purpose is a complete ethnic cleansing of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

                I can say “genocide is wrong” and apply that to both sides, without favoring one over the other. The fact that you can’t is part of the problem.

                • mrdown@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  Hypocrites favourite words are strawman and whataboutism

                  There is an genocide in Gaza not Israel. Despite hamas genocide intent they have no power to do so and like I said in my other comment. A west backed PA would be in charge of destroying hamas in exchange of the end of occupation.

                  You don’t want that because you are a liar. You want israel to continue colonization

                  • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                    11·
                    2 days ago

                    Just because one side is committing genocide doesn’t excuse the other side’s genocidal intent. Genocide is wrong on both sides, and saying more power should be given to one genocidal organization because it’s currently the one losing is an asinine take.

                    The slogan in question in this post isn’t a Palestinian Authority slogan. It’s a slogan Hamas uses to advocate for ethnic cleansing. Stop deflecting.

                    A west backed PA would be in charge of destroying hamas in exchange of the end of occupation.

                    That’s the idea with the two-state solution favored by the UN, but having an idea and actually implementing it are two different things. It’s much more geopolitically complex than simply “the west should play kingmaker and then the PA can destroy Hamas.” Hamas is entrenched in the governance of Gaza, and they won’t hand over the reins to PA peacefully.

                    You don’t want that because you are a liar. You want israel to continue colonization

                    Strawman. “Anyone who doesn’t support hamas is a zionist.” Yawn.

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      71·
      4 days ago

      It is an emancipatory slogan that calls for an end to apartheid and for equal rights.

      Yousef Munayyer, head of the Palestine-Israel program at the Arab Center Washington D.C., has written extensively about the meaning of the slogan before and since Hamas’s attacks on Oct. 7, which led to Israel’s current bombardment of the Gaza Strip.

      “It’s an expression of Palestinian nationalism and it’s an expression of a demand for Palestinian freedom or self-determination,” said Waxman. “I think Palestinian self-determination need not come at the expense of Jewish self-determination. Nor do I think Palestinian freedom has to be considered a threat to Jewish rights.”

      Simply put, the majority of Palestinians who use this phrase do so because they believe that, in 10 short words, it sums up their personal ties, their national rights and their vision for the land they call Palestine. And while attempts to police the slogan’s use may come from a place of genuine concern, there is a risk that tarring the slogan as antisemitic – and therefore beyond the pale – taps into a longer history of attempts to silence Palestinian voices.

      The use of the phrase “from the river to the sea” has come under particular scrutiny in the last three months. When Palestinians, or anyone on the left, has used the phrase to demand a free Palestine—as in the popular chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”—those on the right have disingenuously argued that it is calling for the death of all Jewish people in Israel.

      In 2021, the Palestinian-American writer Yousef Munayyer argued that those who saw genocidal ambition in the phrase, or indeed an unambiguous desire for the destruction of Israel, did so due to their own Islamophobia.

      It was instead, he argued, merely a way to express a desire for a state in which “Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating them”.

      Preventing any possibility of a Palestinian state has always been Israel’s policy, one that the settlement building in the Occupied Territories is meant to ensure. This policy has been intensified under Benjamin Netanyahu, who in January 2024 publicly vowed to resist any attempt to create a Palestinian state and to maintain Israeli control from the river to the sea.

      It is often maintained that the slogan ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ expresses a genocidal and antisemitic intention. But this is generally not the case. On the contrary, the slogan has historically been used to articulate a wide variety of political strategies for Palestinian liberation

      Denying such demands seems as self-evident to most Israeli Jews as the air they breathe. It is this denial that has led to the dehumanization of Palestinians and has culminated in the genocidal mood that is prevailing in Israeli Jewish society today and in the assault taking place now in Gaza. This should be viewed as the real problem and not the legitimate chant of ‘from the river to the sea: Palestine will be free’.

      • AudaciousArmadillo@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        33·
        4 days ago

        If you want to say “Free Palestine”, you could say “Free Palestine”. “From the river to the sea” is also used by Israel and I bet I don’t have to convince you as hard that they aren’t talking about peaceful co-existance.

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          4 days ago

          See here

          Yeah, it’s not a surprise that ethnosupremacist fascists dedicated to ethnic cleansing use their twisted version as a call for even more ethnic cleansing.