this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
120 points (99.2% liked)
Australia
4830 readers
170 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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,”
https://www.palquest.org/en/historictext/16211/palestine-national-council-5th-session-political-statement
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.
https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/from-the-river-to-the-sea-is-a-call-to-genocide/
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.
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.
There is an genocide in Gaza not Israel. Despite hamas genocide intent they have no power to do so and like I said in my other comment. A west backed PA would be in charge of destroying hamas in exchange of the end of occupation.
You don't want that because you are a liar. You want israel to continue colonization
Just because one side is committing genocide doesn't excuse the other side's genocidal intent. Genocide is wrong on both sides, and saying more power should be given to one genocidal organization because it's currently the one losing is an asinine take.
The slogan in question in this post isn't a Palestinian Authority slogan. It's a slogan Hamas uses to advocate for ethnic cleansing. Stop deflecting.
That's the idea with the two-state solution favored by the UN, but having an idea and actually implementing it are two different things. It's much more geopolitically complex than simply "the west should play kingmaker and then the PA can destroy Hamas." Hamas is entrenched in the governance of Gaza, and they won't hand over the reins to PA peacefully.
Strawman. "Anyone who doesn't support hamas is a zionist." Yawn.
You never called people to boycott Israel; you never asked your trashy country to stop supporting Israel with diplomatic cover; you keep voting for trashy politicians supporting the genocide. You are just a hypocrite, that's all. Your country is hosting a war criminal who said there are no innocent Palestinians, and you have the audacity to claim that you oppose genocide and occupation; you do not; you are a hypocrite. All talk, no action.
The slogan in question is a call for a one-state solution with equal rights. Just because Hamas uses it with an ulterior motive does not mean nobody can use it. You are using the same rhetoric as authoritarian regimes; for example, Mali recently arrested an opponent for saying the words "by all means necessary." There are people who, when they say that, really mean all means necessary including terrorism, but it is not enough to ban those words.
The UN has stated that Israel should unconditionally end the occupation. Your rhetoric is that it is too complex, so let's do nothing except keep selling weapons to Israel and do business with them like usual. You are just a hypocrite who supports occupation and genocide.
You would have used the same excuse during apartheid South Africa. You would have talked about how the ANC wanted to exterminate white people because they committed some acts of terrorism, and you would have defended crushing anti-apartheid protests and been silent about your trashy country backing up the supremacist regime.
You think Hamas can survive with no popular support because the occupation would end and the whole West would back the PA with money and arms. Or are you one of those racists who think most Palestinians support genociding Israelis?
Not true. I do not consider anybody who opposes Hamas a Zionist.
Anybody who says Zionists who came from Europe had the right to force a state on the local people which included Palestinian Jews and then ethnically cleansed them are themselves Zionists.
You're making a lot of fucking assumptions about me, including what I have or haven't done, what I do or don't support, what opinions I hold, and even what country I'm from. It's all so you can set up some convenient strawman arguments that you can shoot down, by putting words in my mouth and claiming I said things that I didn't say. So I'm not going to take you seriously.
I said I support the UN's position, but that there's a difference between stating what should be done and actually implementing it. If it wasn't complex, the problem would already be solved. I never said we should do nothing and keep selling weapons to israel. Strawman.
I said Hamas supports genociding israelis, and I also said Hamas holds de facto power in Gaza. Both of which are true statements. I've also said that I can discern between Hamas and Palestinians, which you apparently can't, so by your own logic you're the one who's racist and you're making accusations in a mirror.
Everybody history is public. There is no assumptions. All you do is to pretend to oppose occupation while only attacking anti occupation people.
Again I said the solution is complex but logical . You couldn't give a single valid argument besides racism and antisemitism.
The UN position is unconditional ending of the occupation.
I am the one who say that Palestinians and Israelis can live together at some point while I acknowledge it will take time and won't be easy. You are the one who said they can't live together so the racist and antisemite is you .
Can you answers those questions ?
Do you agree that the occupiers and occupied do not hold the same level of responsibility?
Do you support Palestinians right to return to israel if they want to in case it is the two state solution is the one they succeed?
Do you support Palestinians right to all the recognized Palestinians areas? Which is all Gaza, all the west bank and all east Jerusalem?
Does an independent Palestinian state has the right to an army to defend itself?
Did you vote for people who support unconditional end of settler colonialism done by Israel, support bans of all arms on Israel and sanctions on the state of Israel itself not just one or two ministers and 1 or 2 settler terrorists?
All you're doing is moving goalposts, twisting the things I've said, and pretending you're the one being rational. Calling me racist and anti-semitic isn't going to change the complexity of the situation, and trying to force your overly simplistic solutions is only going to complicate things further.
There's no point answering any questions you ask if you're only going to take everything I say in the most uncharitable light because you're allergic to nuance. I'm done with you.
You avoid those questions because you are a hypocrite claiming to be against genocide and occupation while denying every single palestinian right
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.
Hamas has no defacto power outside of Gaza. Pa had no power because of israel and the west support for israel.
Here what should happen. The west and the usa should stop siding with israel. Israel should have cuba style sanctions to force them to end the occupation of the west bank , hamas should be asked to surrender in exchange of ending the blockade. If hamas refuse , the west should provide the PA all it needs to to destroy Hamas.
Of course it is not easy but it is logical
Their de facto power in Gaza is nearly absolute (at least in the parts they still hold). The slogan in question in this post is about extending their hold to the rest of the land. It implies genociding Israelis.
No fucking shit. And when they refuse?
If it were that simple, they would have already been rooted out.
Like explained in y other comment it is not
I never said it is simple but when things are hard you makes more effort and not like you saying there is nothing we can do.
It may already rooted out if the political will was there but no all the western countries and in fact ever China and Russia that pretend to care about Palestinians are supporting effectively Israel while pretending not not .
The fact that you think forcing hamas to surrender is as simple as simply having the UN vote on it and the West getting involved would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Even if they did all that, people would raise a fuss about foreign intervention and western-backed influence. Hamas would still be hiding beneath hospitals and schools, using human shields, and there would still be brutal fighting in an attempt to root them out.
Israel's response has been completely disproportionate and counter to international law and human rights, but just because you suddenly support someone else with the stated purpose of eliminating hamas doesn't immediately neutralize the complex realities of modern warfare.
I said a million time that it is not simple. Was is so laughtable and sad is that you pretend you want a solution but still we should simply keep selling weapons to israel and have good economical and diplomatical relation with them
This you?
You