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

Buddha

Buddha

Vital Football Hero
I keep hearing different people asserting that this chant is anti-Semitic but I cannot understand how it possibly can be.

Don't get me wrong, it's obviously pro-Palestinian and I can totally see why it could or should be described as an anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist.

But can someone please explain to me, given Palestinians are Semites, how the fuck the chant can ever be accurately described as anti-Semitic?!
 
Last edited:
If I had the chance I would rather someone chant something that may or may not be offensive than bomb me while I was in hospital. Sticks and stones and all that.
 
Buddha said:
I keep hearing different people asserting that this chant is anti-Semitic but I cannot understand how it possibly can be.

Don't get me wrong, it's obviously pro-Palestinian and I can totally see why it could or should be described as an anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist.

But can someone please explain to me, given Palestinians are Semites, how the fuck the chant can ever be accurately described as anti-Semitic?!
Click to expand...
It's complicated. For example Hezbollah is multi-faith and declares its enemy to be Zionists not necessarily either all Jews or all Israelis. Many Israelis are not Jewish and even more are liberal Jews who despise Netanyahu.
The chant to which you refer is provocative to many Jews because it presupposes the elimination of the state of Israel.
This incursion into Gaza is not the first time Israel has had problems with global reaction. The illegal occupation of the West Bank following the six day war ( which they started ) and the continuing enforced settlements on Palestinian land have been almost universally condemned, with the very notable exception of the USA.
 
It's a slogan that can be and often is offensive to most Jews and some Palestinians. It's hard to see how it sits in any peaceful approach to a resolution unless you believe in a one state solution happily accepted and negotiated by both parties. They might then all sing it together.

Give over Bud it needs dumping.
 
Because most people don't know that Islam is an off shoot of judaism and are therefore semites. Lucky the media, organisations and actors from both sides keep us well informed.

Mind you if we all came from Adam and Eve and then the twelve tribes we must all be semites or semi semites or ....
 
Buddha said:
I keep hearing different people asserting that this chant is anti-Semitic but I cannot understand how it possibly can be.

Don't get me wrong, it's obviously pro-Palestinian and I can totally see why it could or should be described as an anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist.

But can someone please explain to me, given Palestinians are Semites, how the fuck the chant can ever be accurately described as anti-Semitic?!
Click to expand...
You've turned into Tarian!! Anti-semite is generally used to describe someone that is anti-jew, irrespective of the official meaning. Personally, I wouldn't use it. However, the important point is that that phrase is anti-Israel (see what I did there?) and refers to the destruction of Israel and it's inhabitants.
 
Breckland said:
The illegal occupation of the West Bank following the six day war ( which they started ).
Click to expand...

Bit more to it right? Arab states closed the Straits of Tiran to Israel shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba. They -Egypt, Syria, Iraqi volunteers and Saudi volunteers (not Jordan) then went to full mobilization in the Golan and Sinai -hostile armies piled up on the frontiers of a state with no strategic depth -nowhere to retreat. Then, just in case their intentions were not clear, Cairo ordered the 7000 strong UN Emergency Force which had been on the Israel Egypt border since the 1956 Suez crisis as a barrier between the two sides out immediately. Thanks to the Hammarskjold formula, it depended on host state consent to stay in place. The Israelis saw a preemptive attack as both a necessity -we can’t let them strike first- and an opportunity -we think we’ve got this. They had -a humiliating defeat for the Arab states who proceeded to argue that they’d just been kidding all along. The case for pre-emptive war has a high bar to pass, and rightly so, but if 1967 does not pass muster, it’s hard to imagine what does.
 
Every nation that starts a war feels it is justified in doing so - from Hitler to Saddam, US going to war in Vietnam, Putin invading Ukraine, Britain and France in Egypt the list is almost endless.
That doesn't mean I would rank the six day war as equal to all other conflicts, it's simply a statement of fact that they started the war and then continued to occupy Palestinian land illegally, according to UN resolutions.

I lived for sometime in the Golders Green area of London( actually at the time of the war) so I've been fairly well schooled in the claims and counter claims of both sides.

What is so difficult to accept is the refusal of Israel to comprehend that what Palestinians want now is no different to what Israelis craved in 1948 - an independent nation of their own.

The Israelis claim that Palestinians deny the right of Israel to exist -and that's somewhat ironic given the circumstances. I've no sympathy with those who send rockets into `Israel, neither have I for those orchestrating the mass killing of civilians in Palestine.

We knew that the IRA was 'hiding in plain sight when they were bombing both sides of the border and also on the mainland of Britain - we never resorted to indiscriminate bombing of the catholic ghettoes to decimate the innocent along with the guilty.
 
jogills said:
It's a slogan that can be and often is offensive to most Jews and some Palestinians. It's hard to see how it sits in any peaceful approach to a resolution unless you believe in a one state solution happily accepted and negotiated by both parties. They might then all sing it together.

Give over Bud it needs dumping.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree, Jo.

But you haven't answered my question.

Hitler's misuse and misappropriation of the term 'Ayrian' means that most people don't actually understand what the term means. It seems the same is becoming true about the term 'Semite'.

Ayrian doesn't mean "blue eyed, blonde haired and white skinned', and 'Semite' doesn't mean 'Jew' or 'Israeli'. Rather, both terms related not to race but to language groups. Palestinians are Semites so the chant is, correct me if I am wrong, clearly not anti-Semitic.

It may well be offensive and you may be right that it needs dumping, but it ain't anti-Semitic and those who describe it as such are at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous.
 
Last edited:
mehmets_curlies said:
You've turned into Tarian!! Anti-semite is generally used to describe someone that is anti-jew, irrespective of the official meaning. Personally, I wouldn't use it. However, the important point is that that phrase is anti-Israel (see what I did there?) and refers to the destruction of Israel and it's inhabitants.
Click to expand...

I haven't turned into Tarian.

The chant is anti-Israeli, yes. But it certainly is not anti-Semitic.

I've heard some commentators describe Palestinians as being anti-Semitic but how can this possibly be so? Unless these anti-Semitic Palestinians are anti-themselves!

Your point that it is, "generally used to describe someone who is anti-Jew", is exactly what I am talking about. It simply doesn't mean that - Palestinians are Semites too. And just because a great number of people are ignorant of this fact that simply does not make it mean something that it does not.

Or should we just give up on language being meaningful all together?
 
Last edited:
Buddha said:
I haven't turned into Tarian.

The chant is anti-Israeli, yes. But it certainly is not anti-Semitic.

I've heard some commentators describe Palestinians as being anti-Semitic but how can this possibly be so? Unless these anti-Semitic Palestinians are anti-themselves!

Your point that it is, "generally used to describe someone who is anti-Jew", is exactly what I am talking about. It simply doesn't mean that - Palestinians are Semites too. And just because a great number of people are ignorant of this fact that simply does not make it mean something that it does not.

Or should we just give up on language being meaningful all together?
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with any of that, tbh, Bud. I tend to think people use anti-semitic because it's not as harsh as saying anti-jew....it sounds "nicer".
 
jogills said:
It's a slogan that can be and often is offensive to most Jews and some Palestinians. It's hard to see how it sits in any peaceful approach to a resolution unless you believe in a one state solution happily accepted and negotiated by both parties. They might then all sing it together.

Give over Bud it needs dumping.
Click to expand...

Pretty certain I’ve heard Buddha and others who seem OK with the anti-Israel/Jewish chants, throwing their toys out of the trolly, because England football fans sing chants basically stating that they don’t want to surrender to a terrorist organisation.

Seems quite selective their offence and maybe they should employ the sticks and stones approach they preach towards those expousi f support of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism…
 
mehmets_curlies said:
I can't disagree with any of that, tbh, Bud. I tend to think people use anti-semitic because it's not as harsh as saying anti-jew....it sounds "nicer".
Click to expand...

Anti-Semitic can be used to mean anti-Jew if the person expressing the anti -Jewishness is themselves not a Semite.

But if someone is themselves a Semite - or is not a Semite but is expressing a pro-Semite (pro-Palestinian) viewpoint (i.e. the 'River to the Sea' chant) - then they cannot accurately be described as anti -Semitic.

I don't think people misusing the term anti -Semitic has anything to do with 'niceness'. I think it has everything to do with ignorance or deliberate obfuscation.
 
SteveTreacle said:
Pretty certain I’ve heard Buddha and others who seem OK with the anti-Israel/Jewish chants, throwing their toys out of the trolly, because England football fans sing chants basically stating that they don’t want to surrender to a terrorist organisation.

Seems quite selective their offence and maybe they should employ the sticks and stones approach they preach towards those expousi f support of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism…
Click to expand...

Who said I was ok with the chant?

I definitely DO NOT support Islamic fundamentalism - I think Islamists are fascists and I am an anti-fascist. And neither do I support terrorism. Quite the reverse , I completely reject and abhor both Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. So although we rarely agree, on this issue we stand shoulder to shoulder.

Nevertheless, i reckon you are one of the ignorant ones, Steve. Tell us, what do you think Semite means?
 
Last edited:
SteveTreacle said:
Pretty certain I’ve heard Buddha and others who seem OK with the anti-Israel/Jewish chants, throwing their toys out of the trolly, because England football fans sing chants basically stating that they don’t want to surrender to a terrorist organisation.

Seems quite selective their offence and maybe they should employ the sticks and stones approach they preach towards those expousi f support of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism…
Click to expand...
Some England fans.
 
SteveTreacle said:
Pretty certain I’ve heard Buddha and others who seem OK with the anti-Israel/Jewish chants, throwing their toys out of the trolly, because England football fans sing chants basically stating that they don’t want to surrender to a terrorist organisation.

Seems quite selective their offence and maybe they should employ the sticks and stones approach they preach towards those expousi f support of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism…
Click to expand...
I am no supporter of any hate chanting and I do agree that language can be dangerous. Dialling down the rhetoric and looking for common ground rather than points of difference may be part of the solution. What happened in Israel was truly awful and so is what is happening in Gaza. Let us hope that there is peace soon.
 
Buddha said:
Who said I was ok with the chant?

I definitely DO NOT support Islamic fundamentalism - I think Islamists are fascists and I am an anti-fascist. And neither do I support terrorism. Quite the reverse , I completely reject and abhor both Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. So although we rarely agree, on this issue we stand shoulder to shoulder.

Nevertheless, i reckon you are one of the ignorant ones, Steve. Tell us, what do you think Semite means?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure of the semantics of what Semite is and don’t really care. I don’t think it signifies ignorance not knowing what it means. I didn’t mention anti-semitism in my post, but anti-Israel/Jewish.
 
Buddha said:
Anti-Semitic can be used to mean anti-Jew if the person expressing the anti -Jewishness is themselves not a Semite.

But if someone is themselves a Semite - or is not a Semite but is expressing a pro-Semite (pro-Palestinian) viewpoint (i.e. the 'River to the Sea' chant) - then they cannot accurately be described as anti -Semitic.

I don't think people misusing the term anti -Semitic has anything to do with 'niceness'. I think it has everything to do with ignorance or deliberate obfuscation.
Click to expand...
Ahem. Are you just making points, or are you really serious. Semite as a term originates from groups of people that were joined by language rather than tribe or ethnicity. It therefore has little use or meaning in relation to the current conflicts.

I note that you employ the construction anti-semitism which has fallen out of favour for the reason discussed above. It is more usually rendered as antisemetism, to denote anti Jewishness.

On a separate note the extreme Zionist settlers believe that the god granted them the right to all the land from the Jordan to the sea. It's a rotten slogan that brings no good.
 
Buddha said:
I keep hearing different people asserting that this chant is anti-Semitic but I cannot understand how it possibly can be.

Don't get me wrong, it's obviously pro-Palestinian and I can totally see why it could or should be described as an anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist.

But can someone please explain to me, given Palestinians are Semites, how the fuck the chant can ever be accurately described as anti-Semitic?!
Click to expand...
It's context. You can make a similar argument about the chant "aint no black in the Union Jack" -that's a statement of fact, the Union Jack is red white and blue. It's the context of the chant that makes it offensive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.