The 'From the River to the Sea' chant (n/g) | Page 3 | Vital Football

The 'From the River to the Sea' chant (n/g)

mehmets_curlies said:
I see the Israelis have managed to release some hostages. Unfortunately they're dead. Shame the Palestinians didn't free them when they were alive. The more of these marches I see, the more it becomes obvious that the 1200 murdered and 240 kidnapped on Oct 7th count for nothing for people on these marches.
Click to expand...

It's quite absurd and ridiculous for you to suggest that all the people who are marching in solidarity with Palestine think that the innocent Israelis murdered by Hamas count for nothing.

It would be similarly absurd and ridiculous for me to suggest that all those (including you and I) who were sickened and appalled by the murderous actions of Hamas on October 7th believe that the Israeli government's response is justified and proportionate.

I share your anger with the murderous Hamas. The kidnapping and killing of all those innocent Israelis must be (and generally have been) condemned.

But the scale of the Israeli government's murderous response is neither justified nor proportionate. More than 10,000 Palestinians have been killed, over 4,000 of these are innocent children. More will die because of disease as there is now no clean water or functioning hospitals in Gaza.

I have now marched in solidarity with Palestine in three different cities (Bristol, London and Dublin) and I am utterly convinced that the overwhelming majority of those participating in these demonstrations have been doing so because they simply want the killing to stop immediately.

Of course, there are some people on both sides who want vengeance and more killing. Those people are motivated by hate and by anger but such people, at least on the marches, are few and far between.

How can it be "obvious" to you that those marching think the innocent Israelis who were kidnapped and killed "count for nothing"? Have you been on any of the marches? What evidence do you have to make such a bold (and frankly, quite preposterous) claim?

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. Even if that were not the truth, the Israeli government has gone well beyond an eye for an eye. The killing needs to stop. There is no justification for it to continue.

Your assertion about those marching for Palestine is inaccurate. You are wrong.
 
Buddha said:
I have now marched in solidarity with Palestine in three different cities (Bristol, London and Dublin) and I am utterly convinced that the overwhelming majority of those participating in these demonstrations have been doing so because they simply want the killing to stop immediately.
Click to expand...
But why are you marching in solidarity with the Palestinians, rather than with the victims of the terrorist attack or the kidnapped children? If people want the killing to stop, they should be trying to get the terrorists to release the hostages in the first instance.

The people in this video seem to have no idea what they are supporting

 
jogills said:
Sort of but a number of states have been described as terrorist, Russia for starters. It wouldn't be too difficult to build a case of war crimes against Netanyahu even before the current conflict. Israel's current behaviour is indefensible in my opinion. While ever Hama's hold hostages Netanyahu has cover and survives. We can go on and on like this trading wrongs and rights.

A couple of things at least explode the claim that Corbyn stands only for justice The first his relentless refusal to acknowledge and condemn the crimes of Hamas. The second his feigned ignorance of the behaviour of his supporters. Many of them are worthy of right wing media stereotypes, truly horrible and they reference him continually.

Corbyn's current article in Tribune suggests he may finally have realised his old position is no longer tenable. I think positions are very slowly shifting and hope events allow better people to prevail.
Click to expand...
Its the twisting of the term terrorist. Nations have never in general been termed terrorist no matter what they have done. Otherwise every war or actions of empires etc would make most nations terrorist.
Denoting Russia as terrorist is just a political ploy and even then they were called 'state sponsors of terrorism', strange that term has not been given to the us and uk as well.

You can only be done for war crimes if you signed up to belong to the convention. Israel and the US refused to sign the Convention.

Corbyn and Livingston could be the worst people in history but the two comments they made were fact.
 
ThreeSixes said:
But why are you marching in solidarity with the Palestinians, rather than with the victims of the terrorist attack or the kidnapped children? If people want the killing to stop, they should be trying to get the terrorists to release the hostages in the first instance.

The people in this video seem to have no idea what they are supporting

Click to expand...

Probably because it's now the Palestinians who are suffering the most and Israel already has the support of the US and UK governments.

If it were the other way round and Israel was being occupied and thousands upon thousands were suffering whilst Western governments turned a blind eye, I'd be out on the streets demonstrating solidarity with Israel.
 
Jerryattrick said:
Its the twisting of the term terrorist. Nations have never in general been termed terrorist no matter what they have done. Otherwise every war or actions of empires etc would make most nations terrorist.
Denoting Russia as terrorist is just a political ploy and even then they were called 'state sponsors of terrorism', strange that term has not been given to the us and uk as well.

You can only be done for war crimes if you signed up to belong to the convention. Israel and the US refused to sign the Convention.

Corbyn and Livingston could be the worst people in history but the two comments they made were fact.
Click to expand...

WAR IS TERRORISM ON A BIGGER BUDGET.
 
Jerryattrick said:
Its the twisting of the term terrorist. Nations have never in general been termed terrorist no matter what they have done. Otherwise every war or actions of empires etc would make most nations terrorist.
Denoting Russia as terrorist is just a political ploy and even then they were called 'state sponsors of terrorism', strange that term has not been given to the us and uk as well.

You can only be done for war crimes if you signed up to belong to the convention. Israel and the US refused to sign the Convention.

Corbyn and Livingston could be the worst people in history but the two comments they made were fact.
Click to expand...
Circular stuff Jerry, it's always political plots.

I don't think Corbyn, or Livingstone are especially bad people. They are canny enough to know the import of statements they make to friend and foe and how to fence off criticism. It's often difficult to distinguish sharply between fact and propaganda. Livingstone has returned to the nazi/Zionist theme many times. That in itself suggests a theme and he hasn:t always been careful how he couched it.

My point about Livingstone in particular is that he sees some groups as just, oppressed and therefore beyond criticism. It has led to both awful consequences and the discrediting of worthy causes and positions
 
I don't agree with your definition of what you term Anti- semitism. It strikes me as so tight as to defy any use or meaning.

I do believe the chant is antisemitic when used by pro Palestinian protesters. I don't see most of those protesters as antisemites.

For the record I find this phrase equally reprehensible when used to express the belief that lands have been biblically promised to the jews.

It is surely dawning that we need to move away from slogans that inflame and divide. Arguing about the precise and exact meaning of words and statements gets us nowhere.
 
jogills said:
I do believe the chant is antisemitic when used by pro Palestinian protesters. I don't see most of those protesters as antisemites..
Click to expand...

That's quite a nuanced position to take. Fair play to you. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

jogills said:
It is surely dawning that we need to move away from slogans that inflame and divide. Arguing about the precise and exact meaning of words and statements gets us nowhere.
Click to expand...

Well in that case you'll probably have no sympathy for any of the other chants that I've heard on the demonstrations. Though maybe I'm wrong. How do you feel about the following?:

"Ceasefire Now!"

"Gaza Gaza Don't You Cry, Palestine Will Never Die."

"Netenyahu You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide / Joe Biden You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide / Rishi Sunak You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide."

"1-2-3-4, Occupation No More, 5-6-7-8, Israel Is A Terror State."

And my own personal favourite:

"One Solution, Intifada Revolution!"
 
Last edited:
Buddha said:
That's quite a nuanced position to take. Fair play to you. I'm happy to agree to disagree.



Well in that case you'll probably have no sympathy for any of the other chants that I've heard on the demonstrations. Though maybe I'm wrong. How do you feel about the following?:

"Ceasefire Now!"

"Gaza Gaza Don't You Cry, Palestine Will Never Die."

"Netenyahu You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide / Joe Biden You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide / Rishi Sunak You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide."

"1-2-3-4, Occupation No More, 5-6-7-8, Israel Is A Terror State."

And my own personal favourite:

"One Solution, Intifada Revolution!"
Click to expand...
Think they would need to explain the sunak one.
 
Jerryattrick said:
Think they would need to explain the sunak one.
Click to expand...

I expect that the explanation would include reference to his position as UK Prime Minister, his refusal to back a ceasefire, and the continued supply of arms to Israel from Britain.

These things, in the eyes of many, make him complicit in the attempted ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinian people.

Of course, many (including possibly yourself) will not agree with the accusation that he is complicit but not agreeing with that accusation doesn't negate the explanation.
 
Last edited:
Buddha said:
That's quite a nuanced position to take. Fair play to you. I'm happy to agree to disagree.



Well in that case you'll probably have no sympathy for any of the other chants that I've heard on the demonstrations. Though maybe I'm wrong. How do you feel about the following?:

"Ceasefire Now!"

"Gaza Gaza Don't You Cry, Palestine Will Never Die."

"Netenyahu You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide / Joe Biden You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide / Rishi Sunak You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide."

"1-2-3-4, Occupation No More, 5-6-7-8, Israel Is A Terror State."

And my own personal favourite:

"One Solution, Intifada Revolution!"
Click to expand...
The first I can go with happily. Any charges of genocide need handling by a.court and I don:t see third parties in the dock.

Oh heck I',m old and less sure all round so I'll just go with an old favourite and leave it there:

Peace. Now!
 
Buddha said:
That's quite a nuanced position to take. Fair play to you. I'm happy to agree to disagree.



Well in that case you'll probably have no sympathy for any of the other chants that I've heard on the demonstrations. Though maybe I'm wrong. How do you feel about the following?:

"Ceasefire Now!"

"Gaza Gaza Don't You Cry, Palestine Will Never Die."

"Netenyahu You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide / Joe Biden You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide / Rishi Sunak You Can't Hide, We Charge You With Genocide."

"1-2-3-4, Occupation No More, 5-6-7-8, Israel Is A Terror State."

And my own personal favourite:

"One Solution, Intifada Revolution!"
Click to expand...
At 9.20am you posted that.you thought the vast majority of people were marching simply because they wanted the killing to stop. Did you get any sense on how this vast majority felt towards the (presumably small minority) of people that were doing these chants?
 
jogills said:
The first I can go with happily. Any charges of genocide need handling by a.court and I don:t see third parties in the dock.

Oh heck I',m old and less sure all round so I'll just go with an old favourite and leave it there:

Peace. Now!
Click to expand...

Oh heck, it's this or marking so I'll do this. Odd isn't it, how arguments and claims around "people are dying right now" devolve into discussions about having a pint, watching the football, has-been Labour dogmatists and populists, slogans and, in my case, putting off getting to work.

I have no doubt that most of the marchers and many more people think in terms of people are dying right now and that the first priority is to just stop it. It's a good sentiment and it is often the right one. With the benefit (if such it is) of history and distance, for example, we find it easier and easier to ask what on earth were people fighting about and how could they imagine that it was worth the cost.

But obviously, not always. To take a tired trope, Chamberlain's Munich Agreement. He wasn't a fool. He knew there was a possibility that Hitler would break his word. He knew there was a possibility that events would knock the deal sideways. But he also knew two certainties: he knew from direct experience what war was like; and he knew that thanks to the deal, thousands of people would stay alive over the next few months who would otherwise be dead.

Most people think he got it wrong and made things worse. Most people, in this case, can see the limits to a policy based purely on "just stop the killing" or making sure it doesn't get started. After all, if the priority is just stop the killing, this is a message that can go out to all parties. In the current case, if Hamas hoisted white flags and marched out to surrender, then the killing would stop. But nobody expects that. Nobody marches for "Hamas, turn yourself in now," and many people think it would not be right.

They think this because, no matter what people say, there is always a political context to the kind of killing we are talking about, and thus there are always judgements about where the balance of justice and wickedness lie in the case under consideration. This being so, the call to "just stop the killing" always has a political dimension as well as a humanitarian one and, indeed, it is often used as a political weapon-particularly by a party which is beginning to lose, but which to that point had no objection to killing and, indeed, relished, celebrated and publicized its efforts in that regard. Had Hamas's strategy of drawing in its Iranian and Arab allies to the conflict worked, for example, I don't think they would be asking for a ceasefire, and, insofar as they think their strategy might yet work, I don't think they're sure they want a ceasefire at this point.

Back to the demonstrations then. The fuel for most marching is "just stop the killing." But the form of the protests (they are clearly against one of the parties to the killing and not the other), the objectives of the organizers (putting pressure on their governments and gaining support for their own organizations and ways of seeing things) and, should they be successful (which I doubt), the outcome of the marches is highly political. We can argue about those outcomes -but to slide back and forth between the "simple" humanitarian claim "just stop the killing" and the various demands embodied in the slogans the marchers are chanting is, itself, a very political move and should be recognized as such.

Which is to say, that were many of the marchers better informed about the history of this whole sorry business, they'd stop home and watch the football.

Back to marking.
 
ThreeSixes said:
At 9.20am you posted that.you thought the vast majority of people were marching simply because they wanted the killing to stop. Did you get any sense on how this vast majority felt towards the (presumably small minority) of people that were doing these chants?
Click to expand...

The marches I've been on have all been quite different.

The one in Bristol was very sombre and there wasn't loads of chanting. There was a few choruses of "From the River to the Sea" but many, including myself didn't join in. The most popular chant was, "Ceasefire Now!" Not everyone joined in but most did.

The London protest was absolutely huge. There was more chanting but given the size of the march it was difficult to get much of an idea of what was being chanted and by how many other than in my immediate vicinity.

In both of these UK demonstrations I didn't get any feeling that those not chanting were offended by those who were.

The Dublin demo yesterday was quite different and I think that had much to do with the demographics. Both Bristol and London (though remember that the London demo was a national demo with people coming from all over the country) have large Muslim communities and there were lots of people Muslims participating in both. Having said that there were just as many non-Muslims also present, including Jewish blocs on both. Dublin appeared to me to have less Muslims (though still quite a few) and the atmosphere was far less sombre and there seemed to be more anger and a lot more volume. There was loads of chanting and most people were joining in.

On none of the demos did I feel that anybody on the demo was offended by any of the chanting, though of course this was just an impression and there's no way that I could know this for sure. Your guess that, "only a small minority" were chanting is wide if the mark though. Sure, not everyone was chanting all the time, but most were at least some of the time.

I think that the vast majority of those people who find the chanting offensive don't go on the marches. After all, anybody who has ever been on a protest will know that chanting and displaying banners/placards is pretty much always features.

Maybe I was wrong to suggest that most people were there SIMPLY because they want the killing to stop. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that the overriding motive of most people on the marches is a desire for the killing and suffering to stop. On all three marches the "Ceasefire Now!" chant was the one that the most people joined in with, myself included.

Do you want the killing to stop? Would you join in with the "Ceasefire Now!" chant, and if not, why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.