Laws to be introduced this week include up to two years in prison for distributing, displaying or reciting prohibited phrases to harass or offend
I suggest anti occupation and genocide people to not post content about Palestine in communities that allow zionists propaganda expending like this one
I feel sorry that Queensland has to suffer such stupid, pro-genocide politicians.
Yep because not wanting a bunch of people gunned, blown up, starved, or worse, is hate speech.
How long until “please stop killing innocent people” is also considered hate speech.
Stupid ass government
The fuck?
I don’t understand all of the connotations of the phrase, (I doubt queensland parliamentarians do either). I do understand palestinians ancestral land is bordered by the river and the sea.
That said, this sounds very much like making wrong think a crime. Nobody is allowed to acknowledge that Israel used to be Palestine because that would upset the Israelis.
In Australia in the last decade there has been a movement towards recognising first australians as the traditional owners of the land on which we live and work. It’s often mentioned in podcasts, emails, public announcements et cetera. More and more signage has both European and Aboriginal place names.
The term “truth telling” has emerged to describe the practice of acknowledging historical facts rather than pretending they didn’t happen.
If a group of indigenous Australians chanted “from the desert to the sea”, would that be hate speech ?
and nobody is allowed to acknowledge that Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem used to be the kingdoms of Israel and Judah because that would upset the lemmings
No, you’re allowed to say that. I’m also allowed to say that I’m pro babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar did nothing wrong.
Nobody is allowed to acknowledge that Israel used to be Palestine because that would upset the Israelis.
It never existed as a state. It was “The British Mandate of Palestine”.
Am not saying it shouldn’t exist as a state in future, just being pedantic with the history.
Jordan is effectively a Palestinian state.
The whole debate is dumb. There was people living in the land then foreigners came to force a state on those people and ethenically cleansing them.
This dumb debate try to make the zionist colonialism a matter of opinion when it is not
Palestine As A Name Commonly Used Throughout Ancient History
First documented in the late Bronze Age, about 3200 years ago, the name Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη; Arabic: , Filastin), is the conventional name used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and various adjoining lands. This work explores the evolution of the concept, histories, identity, languages and cultures of Palestine from the Late Bronze Age to the modern era. Moreover, Palestine history is often taught in the West as a history of a land, not as Palestinian history or a history of a people. This book challenges colonial approach to Palestine and the pernicious myth of a land without a people (Masalha 1992, 1997) and argues for reading the history of Palestine with the eyes of the indigenous people of Palestine. The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine; their local roots are deeply embedded in the soil of Palestine and their autochthonous identity and historical heritage long preceded the emergence of a local Palestinian nascent national movement in the late Ottoman period and the advent of Zionist settler-colonialism before the First World War.
- Palestine, A Four Thousand Year History - - Nur Masalha Introduction
From Philistia To Provincia ‘Syria Palaestina’ (135 AD‒390 AD)
The administrative province of Roman Palestine During Roman rule in Palestine, and more specifically between 135 AD and 390 AD, Palestine became one of the Provincias of the empire. This is also a period from which many written records were preserved in a variety of languages – Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew –and also covered in the annals and texts of the new religion of Christianity. By this time the name ‘Palestine’ was more than a millennium old and had substantial currency. During the Roman period the official/administrative name of ‘Palestine’ was consolidated and popularised in Latin and Greek, which were the two lingua francas of the Roman Empire and Eastern Mediterranean. These two languages affected trade, administration, education, religion, architecture, diplomacy, coinage and key place names throughout the Eastern Mediterranean.
- Palestine, A Four Thousand Year History - - Nur Masalha Chapter 3
between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River
Careful there, mate… /s
No, I’m not going to apologize for supporting emancipation
Nah just reflecting on the absurdity that the mere mention of river and sea may be criminalised by the Queensland government soon.
It wasn’t a self-governing state was my point.
Again, wrong. Maybe do so reading.
Unless you mean state as in nationalism, wasn’t a thing until the 19th century. Where Palestine was self-governing under the ottoman empire until British occupation began.
From the Introduction
Conventional wisdoms are often articulated by powerful elites; they are not always based on facts. The conventional wisdom is that Palestine never in its history experienced self-government, political or cultural autonomy, not to mention practical sovereignty and actual statehood. Nothing is further from the truth. As we shall amply demonstrate in this work, over three millennia from the late Bronze Age and until the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948, Palestine enjoyed a great deal of social, political and economic autonomy and also experienced statehood through six distinct, though not mutually exclusive, ways – ways which had a profound impact on the evolution of the ideas of Palestine across the millennia:
• Autonomous economic and monetary systems and the issuing of Palestinian currency: the institution of independent monetary policies and the minting of distinct Palestinian currency were evident in the cases of the coinage of Philistia or Philisto-Arabian in the 6th‒4th centuries BC (discussed in chapter one) and the minting of Arab currency ‘in Filastin’ throughout early Islam (discussed in chapter six).
• Imperial patron‒protégé systems: the construction of patron‒client systems and the rise of local and autonomous regional and urban elites in Palestine, as was in the case of the ‘urban notables’ of Ottoman Palestine. But ultimately, as we shall see in chapter eight, these Ottoman urban elites in Palestine were rule-takers not rule-makers and rule-breakers.
• Administrative, provincial and military autonomy: this is evident throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods in what became widely known as Provincia Palaestina or the Dux Palaestinae, the ‘military commander of Palestine’ (discussed in chapter four), Mutawalli Harb Filastin (“ ”, Military Governor of Palestine) (discussed in chapter six) and in late Ottoman period Palestine with the creation of the autonomous administrative Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem as the key province of Palestine (discussed in chapter nine).
• Palestinian client states: the emergence and creation of several Palestinian client states, partly based on the same patron‒client relationships. Although the types of client states in Palestine and the degree of their subordination to imperial or powerful states varied significantly, the kings of Philistia throughout much of the Iron Age, the client King Herod the Great under the Romans in the 1st century AD (discussed in chapter four), the Ghassanid tribal Arab federate kings (supreme phylarchs) of Palaestina Secunda, Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Tertia in the 6th and early 7th centuries (discussed in chapter five) and to a lesser extent the autonomous regime of Ahmad Pasha al-Jazzar in the 18th century were cases in point.
• Palestinian practical sovereignty and statehood: this was achieved by Daher al-‘Umar following his successful rebellion against Ottoman rule in the middle of the 18th century (discussed in chapter eight).
• Ecclesiastical independence and autocephaly: this was achieved by the Church of Aelia Capitolina and Provincia Palaestina from the mid-5th century following the Council of Chalcedon (discussed in chapter four).
Nation state. It was never a nation state nor a Kingdom. It was always under the control of someone else.
Today the idea of a country is often conflated with the modern concept of ‘nation-state’, but this was not always the case and countries existed long before nationalism or the creation of metanarratives for the nation-state. The conception of Palestine as a geo-political unit and a country (Arabic: bilad or qutr), with evolving boundaries, has developed historically and continues to do so. The identity and cultures of Palestine are living organisms: they change, evolve and develop. This work explores the representation of Palestine over time as a mixture of the perceived and conceived and the lived realities of the country.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
You’re going to have to elaborate on how “from the desert to the sea” implies genocide.
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.
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,”
The objective of the Palestinian people behind the bitter struggle in which it is engaged for the liberation of and the return to its land is to set up a free and democratic society in Palestine for all Palestinians, including Muslims, Christians and Jews, and to liberate Palestine
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.Sure. But at some point the symbol takes on a new meaning. No one (in the west) is wearing a hindu peace symbol, thats no longer the intent/meaning of that symbol.
And I’d say 99% of people in Australia saying river to the sea aren’t supporting the original intent of the Hamas documents and ideals.
They know the connotation. They are supporting Hamas. If they had an aversion to supporting Hamas, they’d steer clear of it. It’s clear dog whistling.
I didn’t see any anti Hamas sentiment at the Harbour Bridge march.
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.
No it doesn’t. It means the land won’t be owned by Israel.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
When you want to prevent terrorist incidents but all you have is a can of guzzoline.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free
From the Indian to the Pacific Australia will be Aboriginal specific.
⬛
🟡
🟥Get packing, Whitey🧨 💥
Waow
what river, what sea, free from what, how is that to be done, free to do what?
Palestine will be free from the Jordan to the mediterranean by globalizing the intifada for the people to return to their home and have autonomy over their society and culture.
what river
The Jordan
what sea
the Atlantic
free from what
Oppression by Israel
how is that to be done
Not this, that’s for sure.
free to do what
Not be killed by the IDF.
Where’s all the people that were saying that these laws only would apply if the people involved were part of a recognised hate group?
That is a recognized hate slogan. Western activists claim it is ambiguous. Discuss.
Recognized by who, dumbass?
Recognized by historians, recognized by PLO and by Hamas.
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/23659778
No need to have Redditor teenager style swearing here.
The objective of the Palestinian people behind the bitter struggle in which it is engaged for the liberation of and the return to its land is to set up a free and democratic society in Palestine for all Palestinians, including Muslims, Christians and Jews, and to liberate Palestine
You didn’t answer my question, and you are a dumbass. The “proof” you linked is just more baseless assertions, and none of them support the idea that any slogan calling for a free Palestine is actually coded language that actually refers to expelling all the Jews.
Really, it’s just projection. The Israeli project is the expulsion of all Arabs from Gaza and the West Bank, and they’ve said it openly. To quote Yoav Gallant, “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly… There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed.” That quote encapsulates both statement of intent to commit genocide, as well as genocidal dehumanization. Yet it’s always pro-Palestinian speech that’s suppressed and criminalized - pro-Israel speech is not subjected to the same “actually, this means this” standard, despite how the Israeli state is both genocidal in intent and actively undertaking genocide.
I stopped reading after “dumbass”. Good luck in your bullying bubble.
Rot in hell you Nazi freak
You do not question slogans historically used by groups (PLO, Hamas) calling for extermination of Jews from the Levant but I am the Nazi?
Do you always rely on bullying to get your way?
dumb as fuck
The same activists who claim this is a totally peaceful statement claim “From the river to the Sea, Israel will be free” is appalling and horrifying.
They know what they are doing.
Yeah no shit, one’s a colonised people being subjected to a genocide, the other is an ethnonationalist settler-colonial project committing said genocide. Are you for real or are you just pretending to be this stupid???
Ha. “Between river and sea” is the motto of Mosman Park council in WA.
Hate crime?“🎵 FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA, ISRAEL WILL BE FREE 🎶”
What… You are outraged by this song ? Why?
because there is a difference between “From the wolga to the rhine germany will be free”, and the settlers being forced back to the west of the Oder.
Israel is a genocidal fascist ethnostate and it should be dissolved and their government arrested, tried for crimes against humanity, and executed. This is the absolute bear minimum any human should accept. We should not tolerate these actions.
Sounds wild to claim that the side, a secular democracy that has regular elections, and guarantees equal rights to all its citizens, who are made up of multiple ethnic groups, is a “fascist ethnostate”, while the other side is an ethnically homogenous one party state run by a government who’s founding charter invokes nazi-era antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Ah yes, “wild” to claim that the country ran by fascists, actively undertaking a genocide to ethnically cleanse arabs and muslims from their holy land is a fascist ethnostate. Also, it is a well known fact that Israeli Arabs are second class citizens. Their politicians literally call out for purges. Dunno if you’re in denial, just not aware due to the propaganda (totally not your fault if so) or if you’re a zionist spreading lies and misinformation.
So what are Israeli Arab citizens not allowed to do that Jewish ones are? Given that its a “well known fact” they’re second class citizens?
I’ll give you that Smotrich and Ben Gvir are fascists if that’s who you’re referring to but it’s hardly accurate to claim they “run the country”, nor are their views representative of the average Israeli given they get a pretty small percentage of the vote.
Also- nothing I said was a lie or misinformation as far as I’m aware but feel free to point out where you disagree.
Can you admit that Israel is conducting a genocide?
I’d prefer if you can address what I’ve already said and answer my question first? Then we can change the subject and talk about that.
You said I’m either a liar or misinformed and I’m still waiting to hear why you think that too.
Hahah yeah, no, fuck off, that’s the bare minimum to interact with me, I’m not gonna waste my time with some genocide denier. Bye.
Wasn’t the USA a democracy when they was murdering Vietnameses, Afghans and Iraqis? Netanyahu said that Gazans are Amalek which mean Israelis should murder all Palestinians including infants. The war criminal Australia is hosting also said there is no innocent Palestinians
Look at that amazing democracy Israel is and how they love protecting jews
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qNFcgpx4YF0
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Yq6K7fmjVx0
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Cb0d1fz2rC0
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/28/ethiopian-women-given-contraceptives-israel
They also bulldozered a cemetery hosting allies soldiers who died and contributed to saving Jews from the holocaust
What do you think should happen to Hamas?
Do you mind telling the audience what your plan entails for all the Israeli civilians living in Israel, many of whom don’t approve of their government or its actions?
Israel has fair elections they chose genocidal prime ministers for 78 years
Israel
doesdid not have fair elections. The ultra-orthodox political elite were extremely privileged in Israel’s elections. Something like 15% of the population was responsible for an 80% share-by-weight of the electoral outcome.This has recently changed, so it’s expected that Israel’s next election (this year) will be more fair, and it’s likely that the ultra-orthodox faction will lose power. However, they know this quite well and are likely to try to use the war in some way to maintain their hold on power. Time will tell.
If it is not rigged it is fair. Nice deflection from the fact that israelis keep voting for genocidal and pro colonization prime ministers. And since there is a lot of bad actors in lemmy I have to say the obvious, this do not justify killing innocents israeli civilians
It is rigged though. You’re the one deflecting.
this do not justify killing innocents israeli civilians
That’s literally what “From the river to the sea means.” If you would just say that, we would be in agreement. But no, you deflect and accuse me of being a zionist because I say “ethnic cleansing is wrong no matter what side is doing it, and simply changing the hands of power between two genocidal organizations is not a viable solution.”
Only if the likud are the ones saying it.
We antizionists mean “from the river to the sea” as a call to liberate the entire country of Palestine, including at the bare minimum the right to return. The settlers can go back to where they came from or integrate. It’s not a call to kill every man, woman or child in the illegaly occupied areas that’s hasbara.
It is like saying that usa elections are rigged and not fair because lobbies and oligargh. Anyway Netenyahu is not an ultraorthodox and israel voted for that genocidal monster, israeli president is not either and said there is no innocent Gazans yet your trashy racist country still host him and you prefer to portray anti occupstion protesters as antisemite and pro genoice instead of condemning that visit
They would become citizens of the state formed after the dissolution of Israel with the same, full rights and protections, as Palestinians. There would no doubt need to be a whole denazification campaign that might take many years, as well as a very comprehensive period of truth and reconciliation.
So you’re in favor of a one-state solution?
Who do you think will govern that state?
Israelis and palestinians
Two-state solution is better. Otherwise you’ll always have a dominant majority marginalizing the other, or at best you would have a political stalemate incapable of getting anything done.
The two state solution is definitely not better. It would mean both side ethenic cleansing because of the whole world allowed isrsel to build colonies all over the west bank. Thinking that israeli and palestinians can never live together is racist and antisemitic
I’m just simply stating the simple facts that Israel must be dissolved and everyone who had a hand in the genocide must face justice. The actual process of determining the governance etc. should be determined by those who are going to actually live there.
