How should social media handle the slogan "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free."
A Response to Meta's Query about hate speech.
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," is a loose translation of the original slogan, "From the water to the water, Palestine will be Arab," which is now being “taught” to submissive Harvard and Columbia students. It is deceptive in that, as the Arabic source and inspiration indicates, it’s not about “freedom,” but Arab dominion, and therefore the destruction of the Jewish – or any infidel – State in the land twixt river and sea.
Even from an empirical point of view, so far, very little in the current Arab political culture suggests that Arab sovereignty brings freedom: there is no extent Arab-majority government that grants freedom to its people, and the behavior of the current crop of Palestinian leaders, almost guarantees that this liberation will not bring freedom, not to the Muslim majority, and not to minorities, a fortiori, to those deemed threats.
The slogan restates the medieval triumphalist notion that an autonomous infidel state is an unthinkable blasphemy in Muslim-majority lands (Dar al Islam), where Muslims must rule. Today, both religious zealots and “secular Arab nationalists” share the same triumphalist demand, that the only acceptable outcome is Arab dominion. Thus, the slogan’s broader meaning: “From the River to the Sea Palestine will be an Arab-Muslim dominion.” As Hamas makes clear: “not a grain of sand…”
If there is a close parallel to this irredentist, imperial territorial claim, it would be “Manifest Destiny,” the slogan of Westward expansionists of 19th century, which even though not as inherently genocidal as the hadith of the rocks and trees, was used by some Americans to justify genocide against the indigenous populations who stood in the way of “progress.”
If the slogan itself is not hate speech, it unquestionably inspires hatred in its implementation. With its remorseless aspiration to have it all, those who proclaim it as the goal, do the equivalent of taunting Blacks with the return of slavery. If such taunts would be considered hate-speech, then this surely should be. Is the slogan associated with dangerous groups that directly threaten the social fabric of democratic life? Definitely. Does it incite violence? Easily.
(Serious peacemakers who wanted to succeed in bringing real peace here really do need to pay attention to the relationship between this outright religious imperialism and the Arab-Palestinian rejection of every possibility of neighboring statehood… for all our selves here, but also for the health of their own civil societies.)
Progressives and liberals in the West, whatever they think of Israel’s response, need to consider the evidence of 7/10. It is not often in history when an apocalyptic army reveals its most ferocious face before it even has power. On that day in October, in their unspeakably sadistic deeds, Hamas (the current leader in the movement for the “liberation” of Palestine according to the “progressive” script), revealed its true identity: an apocalyptic jihad bringing the genocidal hadith of the rocks and trees down on the Jews and anyone friendly with them, including Muslims. Their motto: “From the River to the Sea will be the capital of the Global Caliphate!” After the extermination of the Jews.
That parts of the Western “progressive sphere” could and can still rejoice in the savage victories of a jihad that targets them as well, suggests a disastrous lack of relevant information, and a terrible, possibly lethal, moral disorientation in the Western public sphere.
I am not in favor of censure, but I am in favor of clarification: any use of this term, especially when invoking “freedom” in progressive circles, needs to come with a warning label, and a link to some of the important background to understand its meaning, so participants in the public sphere can evaluate its invocation of “freedom” and note its incitement of violence.
Maybe also a link to a discussion of totalitarian Newspeak.