“From River to the Sea” vs “All Lives Matter”

Post Reply New Topic

We are told that many people when they chant “From River to the Sea” may mean an aspiration of one state where Jews and Palestinians live peacefully together not genocide or ethnic cleansing. We are told that “Globalize the Intifada” may mean in resistance in general not terrorism. We are being asked not to assume nefarious motivations. Fair enough.

Compare this with assumptions about people who said “All Lives Matter” a more unambiguous term. Long story short the usage of “All Lives Matter’ has been pretty much canceled.

I think most of us can agree that from depending on the person using “From River to the Sea” the motive be a wish for one state with both Palestinians and Jews or one state without Jews.

I think a lot of people do understand that many who use the expression “All Lives Matter” mean it literally but are still glad it has been drummed out of usage because people did use it to deflect from their racism and more importantly so many innocuous terms over the centuries have been used as euphemisms to deflect from racist intent. Another way of putting it is that blacks have good reasons to be upset by “All Lives Matter” so it is a good thing it was kicked out.

It is not working out and will not work out that way for Jews that favor banning “From River to the Sea”. In this case the historical reasons for fearing that expression are dismissed often for whataboutism reasons. Not only that but the “Globalize the Intifada” chant has been added. One way that can be interpreted is saying “you think you were frightened by ‘From River To the Sea’ which you think is referencing genocide. We are going to add ‘Globalize the Intifada’ which takes that genocide not thousands of miles away but to your doorstep. You are owned.”

Personally I do not think the majority of demonstrators chanting these expressions are chanting it to own zionists never mind cleansing Jews. While most these double standards are not antisemitic they are very tone deaf.