201d
@sh76 said""The Likud Party's founding charter reinforces this vision in its statement that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."... During the mid-1960s, the PLO embraced the slogan, but it meant something altogether different from the Zionist vision of Jewish colonization. Instead, the 1964 and 1968 charters of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety" and the restoration of land and rights-including the right of self-determination-to the indigenous population. In other words, the PNC was calling for decolonization, but this did not mean the elimination or exclusion of all Jews from a Palestinian nation-only the settlers or colonists. According to the 1964 Charter, "Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.' Following the 1967 war, the Arab National Movement, led by Dr. George Habash, merged with Youth for Revenge and the Palestine Liberation Front to form the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The PFLP embraced a Palestinian identity rooted in radical, Third World-oriented nationalism, officially identifying as Marxist-Leninist two years later. It envisioned a single, democratic, potentially socialist Palestinian state in which all peoples would enjoy citizenship. Likewise, Fatah leaders shifted from promoting the expulsion of settlers to embracing all Jews as citizens in a secular, democratic state. As one Fatah leader explained in early 1969, "If we are fighting a Jewish state of a racial kind, which had driven the Arabs out of their lands, it is not so as to replace it with an Arab state which would in turn drive out the Jews.. We are ready to look at anything with all our negotiating partners once our right to live in our homeland is recognized." Thus by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel."
Okay, so you found one case where the phrase was used in that context.
When the people are marching through the streets, yelling "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free!" do you really think they mean a democratic state with equal rights and representation for all?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea Footnote 2 from "Kelley, Robin (Summer 2019). "From the River to the Sea to Every Mountain Top: Solidarity as Worldmaking". Journal of Palestine Studies. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 48 (4). JSTOR 26873236."
201d
2 edits
@no1marauder said
""The Likud Party's founding charter reinforces this vision in its statement that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."... During the mid-1960s, the PLO embraced the slogan, but it meant something altogether different from the Zionist vision of Jewish colonization. Instead, the 1964 and 1968 charters of the Palestine National Council (PN ...[text shortened]... arity as Worldmaking". Journal of Palestine Studies. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 48 (4). JSTOR 26873236."
In other words, the PNC was calling for decolonization, but this did not mean the elimination or exclusion of all Jews from a Palestinian nation-only the settlers or colonists.
Who are the "settlers or colonists"? I bet Ashkenazim born in Israel are considered "settlers or colonists" in this context.
"Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.
Sounds like they want to deport the Ashkenazim and only keep "Jews who are of Palestinian origin"
and the restoration of land and rights-including the right of self-determination-to the indigenous population
Who do they think are the indigenous population of Judah and Israel?
201d
@athousandyoung saidIf you read a bit further, you'll see that that distinction was abandoned by 1969 by the primary Palestine leadership under Fatah.In other words, the PNC was calling for decolonization, but this did not mean the elimination or exclusion of all Jews from a Palestinian nation-only the settlers or colonists.
Who are the "settlers or colonists"? I bet Ashkenazim born in Israel are considered "settlers or colonists" in this context.
"Jews who are of Palestinian origin sh ...[text shortened]... ndigenous population
Who do they think are the indigenous population of Judah and Israel?
201d
Now the discussion is interesting, but I cannot participate as I am pretty incompetent in Israel's and Palestine's history.
If the arguments from historical justice are involved, everything becomes obscure.
For example, if such arguments are allowed to be used, then they should be applied universally, not selectively.
For example, if the Jews had a historical right to their land in Palestine, then why not argue that Russia had a historical right to Crimea?
I have to stress that one ultra-zionist in the present discussion has again and intentionally distorted my arguments. I have not argued above that on 07. October the civilians were murdered by Israel. I said something else, but the genocidal maniacs supporting Israel's current policy distort absolutely everything that their opponents say. It seems to be some kind of psychosis or mass psychosis or indoctrination, therefore, it is absolutely meaningless to argue with such propagandists or dispute their idea fixes.
201d
1 edit
@eintaluj saidBecause the Russians are not indigenous to Crimea. The Greeks were there first.
Now the discussion is interesting, but I cannot participate as I am pretty incompetent in Israel's and Palestine's history.
If the arguments from historical justice are involved, everything becomes obscure.
For example, if such arguments are allowed to be used, then they should be applied universally, not selectively.
For example, if the Jews had a historical ...[text shortened]... herefore, it is absolutely meaningless to argue with such propagandists or dispute their idea fixes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_Kingdom
200d
@athousandyoung saidWhen you say first do you mean the first recorded civilisation
Because the Russians are not indigenous to Crimea. The Greeks were there first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_Kingdom
200d
@eintaluj saidA man of integrity would have had the balls to refer to me by name. You are lacking knowledge and you start a thread on a topic that requires a solid understanding of the history of this conflict. Its fine that you think this Spanish womans opinion is worth anything, but then you come and say this:
Now the discussion is interesting, but I cannot participate as I am pretty incompetent in Israel's and Palestine's history.
If the arguments from historical justice are involved, everything becomes obscure.
For example, if such arguments are allowed to be used, then they should be applied universally, not selectively.
For example, if the Jews had a historical ...[text shortened]... herefore, it is absolutely meaningless to argue with such propagandists or dispute their idea fixes.
.... there is clear and solid evidence that Israel is massively killing civilians in the Gaza Strip, but it is still controversial whether, on 07 October, all these civilians were really killed by Hamas. There have been some Jewish witnesses who have publicly claimed that Israel's Defence Forces killed the civilians.
Here is a serious accusation [without supporting evidence] against the Jews that they killed their own people on Oct 7th. I asked you before, where is the evidence. Please provide some.
200d
@kevcvs57 saidNo, you don’t need to be civilized to be indigenous. The Australian Aborigines weren’t civilized when the Brits discovered it. Likewise there are people living in the Natural State in the Amazon. Indigenous but not civilized.
When you say first do you mean the first recorded civilisation
199d
@athousandyoung saidHow in geographies name can Greeks be the original indigenous population of Crimea?
No, you don’t need to be civilized to be indigenous. The Australian Aborigines weren’t civilized when the Brits discovered it. Likewise there are people living in the Natural State in the Amazon. Indigenous but not civilized.
The Greeks as a sea going trading peoples got to a lot of places and settled but they were not indigenous to them there were people already there when they arrived, like when they arrived in Sicily
@kevcvs57 saidThe Greeks have been in Crimea since 500 BC.
How in geographies name can Greeks be the original indigenous population of Crimea?
The Greeks as a sea going trading peoples got to a lot of places and settled but they were not indigenous to them there were people already there when they arrived, like when they arrived in Sicily
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Greek_Colonization_Archaic_Period.svg
Phoenicia made it to Sicily before Greece did but not Crimea.
198d
@athousandyoung saidYour missing the point though it would have been inhabited when the Greeks got there, that’s what sea faring mercantile states do, they go where there are people to trade with and often end up turning it into a colony . A bit like the British in India or any number of European states in any given part of the world.
The Greeks have been in Crimea since 500 BC.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Greek_Colonization_Archaic_Period.svg
Phoenicia made it to Sicily before Greece did but not Crimea.
198d
2 edits
@kevcvs57 saidExcept there is no evidence of such a population. We have lots of evidence for the Dravidian and Aryan populations of India. We know all about the Aztecs and Incas. We know about the Australian Aborigines. We know about the Ainu in Japan. But who was in Crimea before 500 BC?
Your missing the point though it would have been inhabited when the Greeks got there, that’s what sea faring mercantile states do, they go where there are people to trade with and often end up turning it into a colony . A bit like the British in India or any number of European states in any given part of the world.
You can see here that the Greeks (and other Aryan populations) came from Ukraine before they came to what we now call Greece.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migrations#/media/File%3AIndo-European_expansions.jpg
The Turks smashed the Greek World which is why the Greeks are confined to their small peninsula but before that happened 500 years ago Crimea had been Greek for millennia.
198d
@athousandyoung saidAnatomically modern human remains were found in the Crimea which date to 32000 BC.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea
Except there is no evidence of such a population. We have lots of evidence for the Dravidian and Aryan populations of India. We know all about the Aztecs and Incas. We know about the Australian Aborigines. We know about the Ainu in Japan. But who was in Crimea before 500 BC?
You can see here that the Greeks (and other Aryan populations) came from Ukraine befo ...[text shortened]... to their small peninsula but before that happened 500 years ago Crimea had been Greek for millennia.
198d
@no1marauder saidThat doesn’t rule out the Greeks or their ancestors. Greeks are anatomically modern humans.
Anatomically modern human remains were found in the Crimea which date to 32000 BC.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea