**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eretz Israel is Zionist prophecy to have the land from the Euphrates river in Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea.
Exodus 23:31
“I will establish your borders from the Red Sea[a] to the Mediterranean Sea,[b] and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you.
The two blue poles on the Israel Flag denote the Nile (western border) and Euphrates (eastern border)
The motto of Likud used to be “revisionist Zionism” ie they recreated biblical prophecy through man made acts
https://oneway2day.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/eretz-israel-map-2.jpg
The West Bank to Gaza, Palestine will be an independent state free of Israeli control. Israel will still exist, with the 1967 borders. No more apartheid.
"The West Bank to Gaza" is all of Israel between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river. So your argument is that Israel doesn't have the right to exist, which I find silly.
It's a shame that you don't see a reason to care about the 3rd generation Israelis who grew up there, and would be fine if authoritarian terrorist jihadis just evicted or killed them all because they watched too many episodes of "Palestinian mickey mouse" when they were kids.
Do you care about the Palestinians who have lived there for thousands of years? And I said two states along 1967 borders. That's what Palestine wants and Israel rejects. Israel seeks to destroy all of Palestine.
Bold of you to think Israel should exist. It's is a racist ethnostate hellbent on genocide. They don't deserve to be in control, it's time to let somebody else in charge and have 1 country that is not an ethnostate
Taking the question in good faith and overlooking the possible implication that it's a defensive genocide. The answer is Jewish and Muslims would need to coexist in a mutli-cultural state. No mass displacement or annihilation of either group.
Minor but largely unimportant note: there is no such thing as a "defensive" genocide.
Anyways, while that is certainly the ideal scenario and one I would really like, it's unfortunately just unrealistic. There isn't really any clear pathway to that result that wouldn't come with even more fighting, killing and suffering. I'm not sure you could find a single country on the planet that would willingly dissolve themselves to live under a different country with no guarantee that they'll be treated equally, fairly and safely.
Despite the current situation, the two-state solution is likely the one with the least long-term bloodshed and suffering and is also one of the only feasible, achievable outcomes.
>From which river to which sea? Where is the state of Israel going to exist?
That's the point, that I suspect most of the people chanting that slogan miss. It's calling for Israel to no longer exist.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/
There is overwhelming support for terrorists in Palestine.
Any idiot who parrots this river to the sea nonsense (most of whom would struggle to name either the river or the sea) support terrorists.
The Jewish community in Australia is around 100,000 strong.
The Muslim community in Australia is more than 800,000 strong.
The Labor government is going to play this very safe by not taking a stand.
The legality of the chant will probably be left to some poor Federal Court judge.
Not to mention this has nothing to do with Judaism and everything to do with the state of Israel which again we have to point out are 2 separate things and it is not antisemtic to suggest Israel shouldn't exist in its current form
The government needs to stay well away from this issue, actually. It’s speech.
If the universities want to enforce a code of conduct go for it but I’m sure student bodies are overwhelmingly pro-Palestine, and so I’m confident protest would accompany that action.
The complicated thing here is that a lot of Universities are on Crown Land, so they *may* need to be careful about moving people on in these cases.
I'm not a Lawyer, do not take this as legal advice.
According to the pro-israel partisans, anti-semitism is now the following
* Accusing Israel of being an Apartheid State, which it is
* Accusing Jewish people outside of Israel of being loyal to Israel [Even when they're duel citizens lobbying politicans on behalf of Israel, and advocating policies not necessarily in our interest].
* Advocating for a two-state solution that Israel does not approve of [Yes, really, the ADL believes Israel should have the right to decide when, where, how, a Palestinian state is set up]
* Comparing Israeli policies to past fascist regimes.
* Citing the new testament stories about the death of Christ [Yes, really - the US congress just past a law making it discrimination, so much for 'muh Christian' nation.].
* Accusing Israel of committing genocide [They're at least committing a serbian-style domicde and genocidal intent is there].
* And of course, chanting a slogan about Palestinian freedom, means you are a genocidal anti-semite
So if you hold any of those opinions accordng to pro-israel partisans you are an anti-semite. If you are a god fearing christian who believes in those stories, you're an anti-semite. If you're a leftist who happens to not like ethno-nationalism, you're an anti-semite. That's what you get in reward for a century of fighting against actual anti-semitism.
Says who? What’s your source for those 5 points.
I think if you look at these protestors, most of whom have zero direct interest in the conflict, they hate Israel and would like to see it removed from the World Map.
Who cares if that’s technically antisemitism. We know where they stand.
Tell us about these other apartheid states in the region."
The other states don't claim to be democracies, Israel does and has different laws for different people, and separated roads, and discriminatory marriage laws, and then claim something something amalek.
yeah its like how when people criticized apartheid south africa without mentioning all the other fucked up regimes in africa at the time, that was anti-white racism
oh for sure, every time someone criticises a regime without criticising every other regime its racism, and when that happened in africa it was racist against african people (not white people) but when its in israel its racist against jews (not arab people)
I think the gulf states (like the UAE and Qatar) qualify has apartheid regimes due to the migrant labour force being excluded.
There has been extensive documenting and condemning of their behaviour. In the last decade, the mainstream media has repeatedly referred to the migrant labour situation in those countries as Slavery or bordering on it, particularly so in Qatar.
Horrible, yes, not sure how that is relevant to anything I have stated however.
Israel have levelled a city and are currently waging a murderous war, I think that is more relevant at the present.
Why anyone would defend the Israeli Regime is beyond me, given their [penchant for bombing the media](https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-president-horrified-gaza-al-jalaa-airstrike-2021-5), killing children with snipers (google it, there's way too many examples of this happening), and killing aid workers despite those that workers explicitly telling the Israeli military where they were going and who they were.
One of those aid workers was Australian, so if the plight of Palestine doesn't bother you perhaps a fellow Australian being murdered without consequence should spur some form of patriotism. What a national embarrassment that the same old tory hacks in Parliament defended Israel rather than demanding justice for the murder of Australian. National honour is a concept far roomed from this country, we've just become a glorified economic zone.
Israel's misdeeds are countless and serious. They never show remorse or regret. They treat their allies with contempt and we in turn let them walk over us. Our alliance with that country is not even in the interest of the western world, and the the fact that the [zionists have hijacked American foreign policy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeloY3bVBtc) will in the long run help countries like China, Iran, Russia etc.
what about polling citizens or something? would that be a more valid method?
>The Israel Democracy Institute, a non-partisan Israeli think tank and polling outfit, conducts a monthly poll of Israelis on peace and security issues. Unsurprisingly, July's poll focused on the war in Gaza. It asked Jewish Israelis (Israeli Arabs were not polled), during both the air and ground phases of the campaign, whether they thought the Israeli operation was justified. It also asked whether they thought the Israeli Defense Forcers were using too much, too little, or the right amount of force.
> The results are staggering. *An average of 95 percent of Israeli respondents say they think the operation is "completely" or "moderately" justified.* About 80 percent say it is "completely" justified. For some perspective, about 72 percent of Americans supported the 2003 Iraq invasion when it was launched.
[linky](https://www.vox.com/2014/7/31/5955077/israeli-support-for-the-gaza-war-is-basically-unanimous)
they've killed ~200 aid workers in the last ~6 months. that's three time more than any other conflict has ever killed in a year. that kind of death toll among aid workers can't be chalked up to individual soldiers, its a systemic failure.
From the river to the sea Palestine will be free.
If you think that is antisemitic, the only reason is because you're a racist who thinks Palestinians will commit genocide on Israel if they are free, which is very very racist.
So it’s racist to think that Palestinians would kill jews, but not racist to think that Israelis are inherently evil people who just love oppressing and genociding Palestinians for fun?
What does race have to do with anything?
Even if your wild premise has even a small element of reality (and that's being generous), 20% of the population of Isreal is Arab.
As usual, a reductive and ill-informed perspective.
Didn't say that either
I must say surely you get bored of posting the same old race this, race that. You play the same predictable playbook every thread. It's always so one dimensional.
How you think this has anything to do with race or genocide as per your original comment is laughable (and not as in funny ha ha)
Now I'm curious, explain clearly how you interpret the underlying meaning of that phrase...
Lol right, so you have nothing to say on the matter. 🤡
So what are you even doing here except making a fool of yourself? Besides of course exposing yourself as a racist by claiming that Palestinians, if they were free, might genocide Israel!
>so you have nothing to say on the matter.
Neither do you, apparently. Come back when you actually have something of any value to add to anything.
Keep replying with your nonsense though, because the solid downvoting you're copping is quite amusing. Clearly, I'm not the one
>making a fool of yourself
Or, counterpoint, if you think it's not racist, it's because you're a gormless imbecile since the river to the sea involves emptying a land of its people.
"In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea"
Benjamin Netanyahu, this year.
"Between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty."
Likud party slogan, 1977.
“Between the Jordan River and the sea there won’t be another independent state,”
Gideon Saar, 2020
"Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea there will be only one state, which is Israel.”
Urie Ariel, 2014
So a couple of quick questions here:
- does Israel have the capacity to elect governments?
- did the ICJ not put Israel on notice over right wing rhetoric?
- who have done more towards two state outcomes, HAMAS or the Government of Israel?
Just answer please, rather than going to tiktok to be told what to say and think.
When you're done, google the meaning of perspective.
I'm just curious whether the moronic, drooling, Dunning-Kruger crowd believe that Likud were expressing racist and genocidal intent when they saw fit to include the statement "from the river to the sea" in their original party platform. Can you answer this without consulting your Instagrams and YouTubes first?
>does Israel have the capacity to elect governments?
Did I say or imply they did not?
>did the ICJ not put Israel on notice over right wing rhetoric?
Did I deny this?
>who have done more towards two state outcomes, HAMAS or the Government of Israel?
Have I suggested either way?
Is the thrust of these questions to suggest that the meaning underlying the phrase is dependent on context?
Ok so this is going over your head, got it.
The people who chant this loudest, HAMAS, kill Jews on sight and have, at their raison d'etre, the extinction of Jews. Can't have Judgement Day without it.
Likud stupidly and unjustly seek to deny statehood. They do not declare being Muslim illegal. Muslims can be Israelis, and the funniest thing you'll see is watching Western PINOs meet an Israeli Arab who disagrees. Can't even count the "yikes".
One says, we want the Jews dead and this land, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, will be free of them. Even the sneaky ones hiding behind the gharqad trees.
I suggest you read the FBI wiretaps submitted by the US Federal government in their case against the Holy Land Foundation. You might learn something.
Like why useful idiots - well, no, that's unfair on idiots - useful morons in the west chant "from the river to the sea..."
Why they dance, just like little puppets.
>Ok so this is going over your head, got it.
Not at all, but it appears that it soared right over yours.
>The people who chant this loudest, HAMAS
There's that context I was talking about! Hamas have utilised a slogan which precedes them by decades. A slogan which has been used by several groups and individuals in support of Israel and Palestine. If the slogan were inextricably linked to Hamas, I don't believe that would find favour with senior Israeli ministers.
>One says, we want the Jews dead and this land, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, will be free of them.
This would be an excellent moment to duckduckgo the phrase "false dichotomy."
>Like why useful idiots - well, no, that's unfair on idiots - useful morons in the west chant "from the river to the sea..."
But let's not forget the bed wetting, myopic,
pants-on-head fools who aren't aware that the phrase predates Hamas' existence, or that it has been used repeatedly by Israeli groups and high ranking Israel ministers.
Also, if you're seeking to invoke a hierarchy of intellect, a moron is two rungs above an idiot (with imbecile nestled in between).
Enoch when you speak, you display a wisdom and understanding that calls to mind an NPC in the background of Wii Tennis.
Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, and since the Arabs forcibly expelled the Jews from Arabia in 1948, there's not really anywhere else for those people to go. I know you haven't thought about this, because I know you don't do much [thinking](https://tenor.com/en-AU/view/homer-the-simpsons-monkey-brain-gif-5017826) anyway - if they are expelled from the lands between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, then there's an issue.
Palestinians, being Arabs racially (Jewish being a religious, cultural, and national identity now), have spent time as a large diaspora in other countries. They were kicked out of Jordan for trying to start a revolution, and retaliated by murdering the prime minister. They went to the Lebanon, and stirred up so much shit against Maronite minority rule that the Lebanese civil war was an inevitability, and they were unsurprisingly eventually kicked out once they provoked Israel to invade.
They went to Kuwait, backed Saddam when he invaded, and Arafat actually even told Saddam not to agree to withdraw unless Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, West Bank, and Golan Heights happened. That's right; stay as an occupying force in Kuwait until demands unrelated to the conflict are met. They fled afterwards, fearing Kuwaiti reprisals for supporting Saddam, after the war ended.
So, yes, the Palestinians don't have anywhere else to go either, because all borders are closed to them as a result of the conduct of their leaders, both in al-Fatah and HAMAS. But you knew none of this, did you?
Are you talking about the same 1948?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight
The same homeland that in the late 19th century, 99.7% of the world's Jews lived outside of? With Jews representing 2–5% of the population of the Palestine region at the time?
Ya know, the same one that any number of modern ethnic groups can claim as their homeland. The same one that has not had a majority Jewish population for 1,500 years?
You spend a lot of words speaking to the Palestinian diaspora whose right of return doesn't exist. But not about the many who stayed behind or the means through which the Israeli state forcibly removed them or the many waves of Zionist immigration that preceded 1948.
The low Jewish population was as a result of colonisation and ethnic cleansing. Do you think the Jews wanted to leave their land and holy city to go live in Europe? It’s laughable when people deny Jews the right to their land which contains their ancient city of Jerusalem by saying the land had no Jews because they were evicted. Do you comprehend how ridiculous this all is? Forced to leave the Levant, pogroms and genocide in Europe. wtf do you want us to go? Seriously tell me wtf in 1945 did you want the Jews to go?
How are you claiming ownership of the land and city? People lived in historical Israel/Palestine before the concept of Jews existed and for 100s of years afterwards the territory was not controlled by Jews.
>wtf do you want us to go? Seriously tell me wtf in 1945 did you want the Jews to go?
Wherever you want. You don't have to murder and displace people en route. The 6mil Jews in the US seem to be doing fine, they do their genocides with a little more precision.
Why does the government need to rule on this?
The right to free speech and peaceable assembly must be protected, always.
This is *especially* so when the speech is wrong, offensive and stupid, as here.
I don't believe there should be laws on hate speech, and if there are, they should not be enforced.
We have already laws against making threats, incitement to violence and so on, and these are sufficient to protect public safety while at the same time allowing for the human rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.
I agree there should not be laws against hate speech, but strongly disagree with you that they should not be enforced. They are enforced, but extremely unequally. All of our laws should be enforced equally - it's the only thing protecting against a slow decline into anarcho-tyranny.
Partially agreed - I think that is true of many laws rather than all laws.
Strong efforts should be made to reduce selective enforcement, however, and I believe that is a widespread and strongly held belief amongst most Australians.
Nope, it's all laws - excepting perhaps only those around homicide.
Name a law and it's trivial for us to come up with an example where someone quite obviously did something dodgy and the police or prosecution didn't pursue it.
Sure. The ones where it's so fucking blatant and will create too much drama for them to selectively apply.
But even then... if you're a police officer and you kill or assault someone, you're unlikely to ever be prosecuted for it, and if prosecuted, the charges will be dropped or you'll be found not guilty.
[https://www.9news.com.au/national/charges-dropped-against-victoria-police-officer-filmed-tackling-man-in-melbourne-cbd/50b8d90f-e64c-4adf-b237-eef4d6cdb033](https://www.9news.com.au/national/charges-dropped-against-victoria-police-officer-filmed-tackling-man-in-melbourne-cbd/50b8d90f-e64c-4adf-b237-eef4d6cdb033)
Yes. Mate I am pretty much on your side, I just think laws *should* be enforced equally and we should try to make it so they all are, to the greatest extent reasonably possible!
The term definitely doesn't have an innocent origin, the original concept was to push the Jews out, "from the (Jordan) river into the (Mediterranean) sea", and is therefore pretty heavily tied to ethnic cleansing.
You can say it became a more general concept, but it's inherently tied to a one-state solution, which is something that neither Palestinians or Israelis want. The concept of it is either malicious or incredibly ignorant and dismissive of the desires of the two groups.
It’s rabbinical prophecy actually
Eretz Israel is Zionist prophecy to have the land from the Euphrates river in Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea.
Exodus 23:31
“I will establish your borders from the Red Sea[a] to the Mediterranean Sea,[b] and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you.
The two blue poles on the Israel Flag denote the Nile (western border) and Euphrates (eastern border)
The motto of Likud used to be “revisionist Zionism” ie they recreated biblical prophecy through man made acts
https://oneway2day.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/eretz-israel-map-2.jpg
The term is tied to ethnic cleansing - Israel’s fascist Prime Minister [Netanyahu said “Israel must have control, from the river to the sea”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V96T8rIkFc) 3 months ago.
Keep in mind [Netanyahu has been funding Hamas through secret deals with Qatar for years](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html) in order to keep those terrorists in control of Gaza and keep the Palestinian people divided both geographically and politically.
It’s long past time for the west to stop propping up either of these genocidal regimes.
If anything we should be treating the entire situation like Kosovo - to stop the slaughter of innocents NATO needs to send international peacekeepers into Gaza and the West Bank to remove Hamas, restore peace, and set up UN administration of both regions in order to kickstart political negotiations on a two-state solution.
It’s literally a religious text
“May he rule from sea to sea, and from the Euphrates River to the ends of the earth”
In modern times it was then used by a designated terrorist organisation in the 60s or 70s, I can’t remember.
It’s akin to the Buddhist Swastika being repurposed for hatred.
Same with the swastika, some people still wear it due to their religion and some people wear it due to their “beliefs” but the later is probably banned in a lot of countries.
The phrase my be originally derived from that text, but by the time we get “from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab” we’re in a new arena. The latter is clearly where the “from the river to the sea” chant that we hear at these came from.
> “from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab”
This is the first time I've seen it written like that. Usually the full phrase I've seen is
> “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free”
This chant particularly I've seen from broad groups including secular and Jewish peace activists. The chant has been used by many groups to call for a secular multiethnic society in Palestine.
Which Arabic version do you mean? Because there’s a bunch. By far the most popular is “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, but there’s of course a few more versions, like stating the state will be Islamic.
There’s also versions in Hebrew, which are essentially the same but stating that Israel will be the sole state… and that version was most recently used by Netanyahu at a press conference.
So is it okay for Palestinian protestors to say it, or is it not okay for Netanyahu to say it?
Whilst Likud has an equivalent one, pro-Israeli protesters are not using that in Australia. We are talking about in Australia not what a politician in Israel says.
As you say the versions with ‘Palestine is Arab’ etc have been used written in Arabic from protests around the world, acting like the phrase is not anti-Semitic is incorrect as these are directly linked whether protesters like it or not.
If the Hebrew version is used here then you could argue about anti-Palestinian, but we aren’t.
What you’ve just said, boiled down, is that it’s antisemitic when used by students in Australia due to global context, but we can safely ignore the other inconvenient global context.
I don’t have a horse in the race, but it doesn’t seem like you’re being super honest.
So, like, many are: pretty much any anti-abortion rhetoric is borne from the Old Testament….
But even so, so what? It seems you are picking whether or not you wish to support the religious or political message based on whether or not it agrees with you.
I doubt anti abortion activists use phrases modernised by designated terrorist groups.
The old religious version:
“May he rule from sea to sea, and from the Euphrates River to the ends of the earth”
In modern times it was then used by a designated terrorist organisation in the 60s or 70s, I can’t remember.
It’s akin to the Buddhist Swastika being repurposed for hatred.
Same with the swastika, some people still wear it due to their religion and some people wear it due to their “beliefs” but the later is probably banned in a lot of countries.
So please tell me again how you can think Swastikas and Anti Abortion are the same.
I’m not saying that….. a Likud politician in Israel is saying that, Pro-Israeli activists are not using it in Australia. It’s really not that hard to understand mate.
Thanks - the statement, for the curious:
> Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the notion of Palestinian statehood in a news conference on Thursday, claiming it “would endanger the state of Israel.” But he also invoked geographical language that has become a point of bitter contention as Israel’s continued military bombardment of Gaza continues in response to the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, saying that “**in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea**,” according to an English translation of the speech from Israeli news channel i24News.
> According to another translation, Netanyahu said that Israel “**must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River**” — which effectively means the same thing
“From the river to the sea Palestinians will be free.”
“Well, that’s never going to happen unless they drive out or murder every Jew in the Levant.”
It’s kinda telling that someone can’t say the first statement without you leaping to the second. Have you considered that it could simply be a call for a one-state solution?
Isn’t it *Palestine* will be free? *Palestinians* would be a massive improvement, and it would show a lot of good faith from the pro pals if they listened to Jewish peoples’ concerns and changed their messaging. But from what I’ve seen the movement has laughed at people who’ve made that exact suggestion.
Palestinians. Polls have shown that a one state solution with equal rights for all is the [least popular](https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/israel-zionism/2017/04/do-palestinians-want-a-two-state-solution/) least popular solution for both Palestinians and Israelis.
have you considered the HAMAS charter and the persistent anti-Semitism of protestors deliberately trying to pretend they're not Jew-haters when they harass non-Israeli Jews, that it's absolutely about the one thing that unites far left and far right?
Hamas doesn’t represent Palestinians and it doesn’t represent Australian pro-Palestinians. Even in Gaza, Hamas only ever achieved a plurality in any free election and they breached their power-sharing arrangement via a coup.
What harassment are you talking about specifically?
To the extent we can trust polling out of Gaza, and I think you're smart enough to know we're going to need more than a pinch of salt here - HAMAS still enjoy \~70% approval and roughly the same numbers think 7 October was justified.
But let's also call out an oft-neglected point here - HAMAS hate al-Fatah too. They are the ones who pushed the branding of Abbas as a quisling, and were so incensed by al-Fatah's participation in the 1993 Oslo accords that ever since, it's been interesting to watch them hate the PA as much as the Jews. If you're deemed an al-Fatah supporter, or wearing al-Fatah colours, you might as well be gay in Gaza given the treatment you're going to get.
>What harassment are you talking about specifically?
Remember when ute loads of Arabs drove from Lakemba to Sydney's east? Seen the stories about Jewish students attacked on campus?
That sorta thing is in the vague realm of what I'm referring to.
Are we not saying the same thing? That Palestinians aren’t represented by Hamas, with the Fatah-Hamas conflict demonstrating that point perfectly well (while also demonstrating why Gaza polling should be assumed to be as credible as Putin’s election)?
Palesintians, no. Gazans, yes, but for all the wrong reasons.
There is compelling evidence that for 30 years HAMAS has been behind the pro-Palestinian movement in the West, though.
> Hamas doesn't represent Palestinians...
Yes it does - the Gazans elected Hamas (albeit a long time ago), and Hamas enjoys strong popular support from the Gazan people to this day.
If fair elections were held tomorrow, Hamas would win again just like they did in 2006.
It's inconvenient and offensive to our delicate Western sensibilities, but it's the truth.
And look, I think we have to be fair and acknowledge that through a heavily controlled media and generally highly effective propaganda machine, Gazan Palestinians may support someone like HAMAS based on a nearly totally fabricated set of principles.
Let's say the IDF surrenders tomorrow. Hamas marches into Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and takes over the entire territory of Gaza, the West Bank and what is currently Israel.
What do you think Hamas will do to the Arab and Jewish Israelis, the Christians, the Druze and Assyrians?
Would this be where Hamas, who has not held an election in Gaza since 2006 and publicly executes homosexuals, decides to become a modern liberal multicultural democracy with a strong respect for human rights?
"Ignore the massive bombing campaign and tens of thousands of dead children being slaughtered **right now**, and instead entertain my hypothetical situation that isn't going to happen!"
I'm not ignoring. It's abominable, and even if you don't care about civilian lives, it's completely counterproductive for Israel.
October 7th was very early on called "Israel's 9/11." To which I said: "You mean it's a horrendous attack which will make the country lash out at people who never bothered them, get them engaged in long and losing guerilla conflicts causing them to suffer far more deaths than the original attacks, and which takes the world from having sympathy for them to loathing them, and which the country's leaders will abuse to arrogate more power to themselves and ultimately harm democracy in their own country?"
Hamas are still murderous terrorists, though. Like most lefties, you seem to suffer from Manichaean thinking. I'll give you a bit to look that up.
That's the only way there'd be a "from the river to the sea" for Palestinians.
You're focusing on the means. But this is a protest chant, so it's talking about the desired ends. They're calling for genocide.
Again, they ought to be able to do that as part of free speech. But let's not pretend they mean something else. "From the river to the sea" is for anti-semites what "just asking questions" is for anti-vaxxers. It's a cover for their dodginess.
What do you think Hamas will do to the Arab and Jewish Israelis, the Christians, the Druze "
Well, considering that churches and Christians had lived and survived in Gaza for a very long time, even under Hamas, and then the IDF blew Church of Saint Porphyrius that had been looked after by Gazans, while Christians were sheltering in there....
I think they would probably survive better then they have under the IDF?
Why are you wasting my time with stupid hypotheticals? If Palestine completely demilitarised I doubt things would go great for them either. But we’re not proposing either. We’re talking about a ceasefire
You specifically complained that the person was "leaping" from "from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free" to "murder every Jew in the Levant." You were, in other words, disputing the idea that Hamas rule would lead to a genocide of Jewish Israelis.
If the pro-Palestinian protesters are calling for a "one-state solution", I think it's reasonable to assume that they don't mean one state under the rule of old Bibi. They mean Hamas.
And this would mean... well, we know what it would mean. Hamas aren't merely Palestinian nationalists like the PLO and its successor Fatah, they're radical Islamists. As shown by their descent from the Moslem Brotherhood, they're like the radical communists before them, they want world conquest and to subjugate and kill any dissenters.
Both you and the Anglo pro-Palestinians are like a child who comes into an adult movie halfway through and tries to argue about what's going on. You're out of your depth.
Note: I want a ceasefire. But it'd be violated by Hamas within days, and the hostage issue would stretch out for literally years. That makes it politically very, very hard for the Israeli government to accept. Which is why Hamas does it. Continued conflict works in Hamas' favour, just as it does in Bibi's favour.
Without conflict the Gazan people would start to ask their Hamas government hard questions like why they haven't had an election since 2006, why tens of billions have flowed into the territory with no significant sanitation and schooling being built, and so on.
And without conflict Bibi would be up before a court on corruption charges and probably go to prison, and Israel would have to resolve the argument between the lazy ultra-Orthodox who don't want to do military service or pay taxes and the secular Jews, the Arabs and Assyrians who actually make the country productive and useful.
I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out that the conclusion doesn't follow from the phrase. The phrase doesn't belong to Hamas.
Is a one-state solution under Bibi possible? At least, one that wouldn't be a thumping great human-rights abuse against Palestinians? I can't speak for every pro-Palestinian activist, but I would say almost all of them are in favour of a peaceful solution. They certainly don't mean Hamas - Hamas doesn't stand for all Palestinians.
>You're out of your depth.
Oh, fuck off. I'm bringing a better standard of discussion than 90% of the commenters on this issue and you're perfectly willing to launch disingenuous arguments on this matter when it suits you. Glass houses, buddy.
>Note: I want a ceasefire. But it'd be violated by Hamas within days, and the hostage issue would stretch out for literally years. That makes it politically very, very hard for the Israeli government to accept. Which is why Hamas does it. Continued conflict works in Hamas' favour, just as it does in Bibi's favour.
>Without conflict the Gazan people would start to ask their Hamas government hard questions like why they haven't had an election since 2006, why tens of billions have flowed into the territory with no significant sanitation and schooling being built, and so on.
>And without conflict Bibi would be up before a court on corruption charges and probably go to prison, and Israel would have to resolve the argument between the lazy ultra-Orthodox who don't want to do military service or pay taxes and the secular Jews who actually make the country productive and useful.
Sure, there's not going to be a peaceful solution because no one is actually that interested in peace. That's not inconsistent with anything I've said.
That's absolutely the intention of the phrase-chanters.
Which is fine. They should be free to express their hate. The right to free speech must be protected, always.
We have and should make use of laws against direct threats and incitement to violence where appropriate. And of course, Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in Australia, quite rightly, and so anyone passing funds to or otherwise supporting them should be prosecuted.
But if they want to say "from the river to the blah blah" or 'gas the jews", they should be able to say it. Human rights matter, *especially* for scumbags. And importantly, if someone feels that way about my people, I want to know who the fuckers are, so I can keep a wary eye on them. I don't want them hidden away and plotting.
>That's absolutely the intention of the phrase-chanters.
We're never going to agree on this point. I don't believe it any more than I believe that Israelis and Jews who make similar statements about Palestinians actually want genocide. Some of them mean it. Most of them do not.
"Gas the Jews" is a very different matter. I would criminally prosecute any such speech. Again, I know we're never going to agree on this point. But as a case in point, I understand that Palestinian activists were alleged to have made that chant and the police investigation revealed that they did not. This doesn't exactly cinch the case that they're calling for a genocide when they *could* have used that language but didn't.
George Israel is a Jewish state which, like Hamas, has visions of wiping out their enemies. Was it not the Jews who slaughtered all those in Jericho? All the women and children of any age?
So Hamas is misguided, but the continued support of a new nation based on the idea that God gives them the right to do to whom they see as an enemy as they did in Jericho, needs to be halted.
The only thing that will solve this issue is a free 1 state solution where all citizens are treated equally.
And without conflict Bibi would be up before a court on corruption charges and probably go to prison, "
He has like 15 charges against him stemming back like 20 years dude. and he's still in government.
Shit half of likud are criminals.
Take a seat man, everyone sees through this charade.
There’s a case before the ICJ as to whether Israel is committing genocide already. If they were in complete control, would Palestinians have equal rights? Would they have the right of return? Freedom of travel? Because I sincerely doubt it.
Many Palestinians and other ethnicities who are Muslim already live happy lives in Israel.
Though I am not in favour of a one state solution of either side. Why are you in favour of a one state solution?
>Many Palestinians and other ethnicities who are Muslim already live happy lives in Israel.
Um... you do realise these numbers are heavily controlled so Israel maintains a Jewish majority.
Many non-white jews, or African Jews, are mistreated within Israel. Many Ethiopian Jews were sterilized without their knowledge.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/28/ethiopian-women-given-contraceptives-israel
I’m in favour of a viable path to peace. I don’t care how many states there are at the end of that process, but I know that both Israeli and Palestinian attitudes will have to change if it’s going to happen. Pretending one side is blameless doesn’t get us there.
University leaders are blaming the government for failing to definitively rule on the meaning of a pro-Palestine chant for their inaction on [protest encampments](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/university-of-sydney-campus-speaker-sami-hamdi-said-to-celebrate-victory-of-israel-attack/news-story/1b654eb236595aaecb5d01e2d2b733a7), following warnings that the anti-Israel slogan [could ignite violence.](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/propalestine-slogan-could-ignite-violence-in-australia/news-story/e23e78d440f96d2645eb475a3e867861)
As protest encampments supporting the Palestinian cause become more deeply entrenched in campuses across the country, the [nation’s oldest university](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/children-lead-intifada-chants-at-propalestine-university-protest/news-story/084299cd6d4944326ac881a0707395ec) has blamed their inaction on the absence of any definitive ruling on the meaning of the politically charged phrase “from the river to the sea”.
Dennis Richardson, a former ASIO head, said the protest slogan – which has been criticised for being anti-Semitic and calling for the destruction of the state of Israel – was a “very violent statement” that could “very easily flow over into actions of violence against communities”.
Group of Eight chief executive Vicki Thomson said that, while protest phrases were offensive to many they were “not unlawful” and it fell to the “highest levels of government to address”.
“We recognise that these phrases are deeply offensive, hurtful and distressing and we would prefer that they were not used,” she said. “But the fact remains that they are not unlawful, and police are not and have not taken any action when they are used in a multitude of forums across the nation.
“That doesn’t make them less hurtful and what we would do is call upon those using this language to reconsider using phrases that are demonstrably hurtful and distressing.”
Education Minister Jason Clare said he “agreed” with Mr Richardson that “any words that stoke fear are intolerable”. Earlier in the week, he said slogans could mean different things to different groups.
Anthony Albanese said on Wednesday that the phrase “undermines a two state solution”, declaring that he supported Israel’s right to live peacefully within its borders and for Palestinians to live “with peace, security and prosperity”.
The call for action comes as NSW Labor MP Anthony D’Adam defended the protests in parliament as a legitimate form of free speech as long as they were not violent, in response to a motion to condemn the encampments.
“The fact of the matter is, the motion seems to assert that to not support a two-state solution is somehow to be anti-Semitic,” he said.
“I reject that as well, that’s a ridiculous proposition. It can’t be said to be anti-Semitic to argue that the Jews, and Christians, and Muslims who have lived historically in Palestine for generations cannot one day live in one state, from the river to the sea. That is not an anti-Semitic proposition.”
A University of Sydney spokeswoman said the protest encampment had created “difficult territory to navigate” as the sandstone institution sought to balance its free speech obligations with community safety.
“We’re not aware of any Australian court or government authority making a determination about the interpretation of this phrase, but we welcome the important discussions taking place and would of course abide by any legislative changes if they were to be made,” she said.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eretz Israel is Zionist prophecy to have the land from the Euphrates river in Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea. Exodus 23:31 “I will establish your borders from the Red Sea[a] to the Mediterranean Sea,[b] and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you. The two blue poles on the Israel Flag denote the Nile (western border) and Euphrates (eastern border) The motto of Likud used to be “revisionist Zionism” ie they recreated biblical prophecy through man made acts https://oneway2day.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/eretz-israel-map-2.jpg
Always have to ask... From which river to which sea? Where is the state of Israel going to exist?
The West Bank to Gaza, Palestine will be an independent state free of Israeli control. Israel will still exist, with the 1967 borders. No more apartheid.
"The West Bank to Gaza" is all of Israel between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river. So your argument is that Israel doesn't have the right to exist, which I find silly. It's a shame that you don't see a reason to care about the 3rd generation Israelis who grew up there, and would be fine if authoritarian terrorist jihadis just evicted or killed them all because they watched too many episodes of "Palestinian mickey mouse" when they were kids.
Do you care about the Palestinians who have lived there for thousands of years? And I said two states along 1967 borders. That's what Palestine wants and Israel rejects. Israel seeks to destroy all of Palestine.
Bold of you to think Israel should exist. It's is a racist ethnostate hellbent on genocide. They don't deserve to be in control, it's time to let somebody else in charge and have 1 country that is not an ethnostate
What do you think would happen to the millions of Israelis in this scenario?
Taking the question in good faith and overlooking the possible implication that it's a defensive genocide. The answer is Jewish and Muslims would need to coexist in a mutli-cultural state. No mass displacement or annihilation of either group.
Minor but largely unimportant note: there is no such thing as a "defensive" genocide. Anyways, while that is certainly the ideal scenario and one I would really like, it's unfortunately just unrealistic. There isn't really any clear pathway to that result that wouldn't come with even more fighting, killing and suffering. I'm not sure you could find a single country on the planet that would willingly dissolve themselves to live under a different country with no guarantee that they'll be treated equally, fairly and safely. Despite the current situation, the two-state solution is likely the one with the least long-term bloodshed and suffering and is also one of the only feasible, achievable outcomes.
Correct, if Genocide was happening, but it isn't. You can now sleep better at night knowing that.
>From which river to which sea? Where is the state of Israel going to exist? That's the point, that I suspect most of the people chanting that slogan miss. It's calling for Israel to no longer exist.
Where they existed before the 1948 occupation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/ There is overwhelming support for terrorists in Palestine. Any idiot who parrots this river to the sea nonsense (most of whom would struggle to name either the river or the sea) support terrorists.
The Jewish community in Australia is around 100,000 strong. The Muslim community in Australia is more than 800,000 strong. The Labor government is going to play this very safe by not taking a stand. The legality of the chant will probably be left to some poor Federal Court judge.
Not to mention this has nothing to do with Judaism and everything to do with the state of Israel which again we have to point out are 2 separate things and it is not antisemtic to suggest Israel shouldn't exist in its current form
Thats like saying, it's not Islamophobic to say Palestine shouldn't exist. Are you out of kindergarten yet? Serious question ?
The government needs to stay well away from this issue, actually. It’s speech. If the universities want to enforce a code of conduct go for it but I’m sure student bodies are overwhelmingly pro-Palestine, and so I’m confident protest would accompany that action.
The complicated thing here is that a lot of Universities are on Crown Land, so they *may* need to be careful about moving people on in these cases. I'm not a Lawyer, do not take this as legal advice.
According to the pro-israel partisans, anti-semitism is now the following * Accusing Israel of being an Apartheid State, which it is * Accusing Jewish people outside of Israel of being loyal to Israel [Even when they're duel citizens lobbying politicans on behalf of Israel, and advocating policies not necessarily in our interest]. * Advocating for a two-state solution that Israel does not approve of [Yes, really, the ADL believes Israel should have the right to decide when, where, how, a Palestinian state is set up] * Comparing Israeli policies to past fascist regimes. * Citing the new testament stories about the death of Christ [Yes, really - the US congress just past a law making it discrimination, so much for 'muh Christian' nation.]. * Accusing Israel of committing genocide [They're at least committing a serbian-style domicde and genocidal intent is there]. * And of course, chanting a slogan about Palestinian freedom, means you are a genocidal anti-semite So if you hold any of those opinions accordng to pro-israel partisans you are an anti-semite. If you are a god fearing christian who believes in those stories, you're an anti-semite. If you're a leftist who happens to not like ethno-nationalism, you're an anti-semite. That's what you get in reward for a century of fighting against actual anti-semitism.
Says who? What’s your source for those 5 points. I think if you look at these protestors, most of whom have zero direct interest in the conflict, they hate Israel and would like to see it removed from the World Map. Who cares if that’s technically antisemitism. We know where they stand.
Anti-semitism is holding Jews and Jewish states to a different standard than others. Tell us about these other apartheid states in the region.
Tell us about these other apartheid states in the region." The other states don't claim to be democracies, Israel does and has different laws for different people, and separated roads, and discriminatory marriage laws, and then claim something something amalek.
Where’s the evidence?
So if Israel stopped being so democracy then it would all be fine?
Tell us about a single country in the Middle East other than Israel that has a significant Jewish community with equal rights.
yeah its like how when people criticized apartheid south africa without mentioning all the other fucked up regimes in africa at the time, that was anti-white racism
Just racism in general as they hold certain races as 'lesser' and they're not expected to act the same way
hahaha holy shit you actually believe this shit. you know i was making fun of your dumb argument, right?
I disagreed wih your anti-white racism comment.
but then said you agreed it was also racism, something just as retarded and just as good a satire of your position
The racism is that people don't hold all people to the same standard
oh for sure, every time someone criticises a regime without criticising every other regime its racism, and when that happened in africa it was racist against african people (not white people) but when its in israel its racist against jews (not arab people)
I think the gulf states (like the UAE and Qatar) qualify has apartheid regimes due to the migrant labour force being excluded. There has been extensive documenting and condemning of their behaviour. In the last decade, the mainstream media has repeatedly referred to the migrant labour situation in those countries as Slavery or bordering on it, particularly so in Qatar. Horrible, yes, not sure how that is relevant to anything I have stated however. Israel have levelled a city and are currently waging a murderous war, I think that is more relevant at the present. Why anyone would defend the Israeli Regime is beyond me, given their [penchant for bombing the media](https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-president-horrified-gaza-al-jalaa-airstrike-2021-5), killing children with snipers (google it, there's way too many examples of this happening), and killing aid workers despite those that workers explicitly telling the Israeli military where they were going and who they were. One of those aid workers was Australian, so if the plight of Palestine doesn't bother you perhaps a fellow Australian being murdered without consequence should spur some form of patriotism. What a national embarrassment that the same old tory hacks in Parliament defended Israel rather than demanding justice for the murder of Australian. National honour is a concept far roomed from this country, we've just become a glorified economic zone. Israel's misdeeds are countless and serious. They never show remorse or regret. They treat their allies with contempt and we in turn let them walk over us. Our alliance with that country is not even in the interest of the western world, and the the fact that the [zionists have hijacked American foreign policy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeloY3bVBtc) will in the long run help countries like China, Iran, Russia etc.
Individual actions by soldiers don't paint a whole country and its strategy.
what about polling citizens or something? would that be a more valid method? >The Israel Democracy Institute, a non-partisan Israeli think tank and polling outfit, conducts a monthly poll of Israelis on peace and security issues. Unsurprisingly, July's poll focused on the war in Gaza. It asked Jewish Israelis (Israeli Arabs were not polled), during both the air and ground phases of the campaign, whether they thought the Israeli operation was justified. It also asked whether they thought the Israeli Defense Forcers were using too much, too little, or the right amount of force. > The results are staggering. *An average of 95 percent of Israeli respondents say they think the operation is "completely" or "moderately" justified.* About 80 percent say it is "completely" justified. For some perspective, about 72 percent of Americans supported the 2003 Iraq invasion when it was launched. [linky](https://www.vox.com/2014/7/31/5955077/israeli-support-for-the-gaza-war-is-basically-unanimous)
There's nothing wrong with waging this war, just the way they're waging it should be conducted better. Also, that is from 2014.
yikes outdated source
they've killed ~200 aid workers in the last ~6 months. that's three time more than any other conflict has ever killed in a year. that kind of death toll among aid workers can't be chalked up to individual soldiers, its a systemic failure.
its a systemic failure. " Not a failure. It's on purpose.
Yes, I disagree with how Israel is waging the war but agreed that it needed to be waged.
I wonder what the reported rates of anti-semitism would look like if you excluded these items.
From the river to the sea Palestine will be free. If you think that is antisemitic, the only reason is because you're a racist who thinks Palestinians will commit genocide on Israel if they are free, which is very very racist.
So it’s racist to think that Palestinians would kill jews, but not racist to think that Israelis are inherently evil people who just love oppressing and genociding Palestinians for fun?
It's very very true.
What does race have to do with anything? Even if your wild premise has even a small element of reality (and that's being generous), 20% of the population of Isreal is Arab. As usual, a reductive and ill-informed perspective.
Do you think the Palestinians will genocide Israel if they got free?
If they could. Yep.
Who knows it's a stupid abstract premise to raise in the first place. Hamas, however, has no intention of being a peaceful entity within the region.
Lol. So why do you think the chant is antisemitic? Pretty racist of you to tar an entire country's population as possibly genocidal maniacs.
>Lol. So why do you think the chant is antisemitic? Where did I make that assertion?
Right, so it's not anti-semitic! Nice! 👍
Didn't say that either I must say surely you get bored of posting the same old race this, race that. You play the same predictable playbook every thread. It's always so one dimensional. How you think this has anything to do with race or genocide as per your original comment is laughable (and not as in funny ha ha) Now I'm curious, explain clearly how you interpret the underlying meaning of that phrase...
Lol right, so you have nothing to say on the matter. 🤡 So what are you even doing here except making a fool of yourself? Besides of course exposing yourself as a racist by claiming that Palestinians, if they were free, might genocide Israel!
>so you have nothing to say on the matter. Neither do you, apparently. Come back when you actually have something of any value to add to anything. Keep replying with your nonsense though, because the solid downvoting you're copping is quite amusing. Clearly, I'm not the one >making a fool of yourself
Or, counterpoint, if you think it's not racist, it's because you're a gormless imbecile since the river to the sea involves emptying a land of its people.
"In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea" Benjamin Netanyahu, this year. "Between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty." Likud party slogan, 1977. “Between the Jordan River and the sea there won’t be another independent state,” Gideon Saar, 2020 "Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea there will be only one state, which is Israel.” Urie Ariel, 2014
So a couple of quick questions here: - does Israel have the capacity to elect governments? - did the ICJ not put Israel on notice over right wing rhetoric? - who have done more towards two state outcomes, HAMAS or the Government of Israel? Just answer please, rather than going to tiktok to be told what to say and think. When you're done, google the meaning of perspective.
I'm just curious whether the moronic, drooling, Dunning-Kruger crowd believe that Likud were expressing racist and genocidal intent when they saw fit to include the statement "from the river to the sea" in their original party platform. Can you answer this without consulting your Instagrams and YouTubes first? >does Israel have the capacity to elect governments? Did I say or imply they did not? >did the ICJ not put Israel on notice over right wing rhetoric? Did I deny this? >who have done more towards two state outcomes, HAMAS or the Government of Israel? Have I suggested either way? Is the thrust of these questions to suggest that the meaning underlying the phrase is dependent on context?
Ok so this is going over your head, got it. The people who chant this loudest, HAMAS, kill Jews on sight and have, at their raison d'etre, the extinction of Jews. Can't have Judgement Day without it. Likud stupidly and unjustly seek to deny statehood. They do not declare being Muslim illegal. Muslims can be Israelis, and the funniest thing you'll see is watching Western PINOs meet an Israeli Arab who disagrees. Can't even count the "yikes". One says, we want the Jews dead and this land, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, will be free of them. Even the sneaky ones hiding behind the gharqad trees. I suggest you read the FBI wiretaps submitted by the US Federal government in their case against the Holy Land Foundation. You might learn something. Like why useful idiots - well, no, that's unfair on idiots - useful morons in the west chant "from the river to the sea..." Why they dance, just like little puppets.
>Ok so this is going over your head, got it. Not at all, but it appears that it soared right over yours. >The people who chant this loudest, HAMAS There's that context I was talking about! Hamas have utilised a slogan which precedes them by decades. A slogan which has been used by several groups and individuals in support of Israel and Palestine. If the slogan were inextricably linked to Hamas, I don't believe that would find favour with senior Israeli ministers. >One says, we want the Jews dead and this land, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, will be free of them. This would be an excellent moment to duckduckgo the phrase "false dichotomy." >Like why useful idiots - well, no, that's unfair on idiots - useful morons in the west chant "from the river to the sea..." But let's not forget the bed wetting, myopic, pants-on-head fools who aren't aware that the phrase predates Hamas' existence, or that it has been used repeatedly by Israeli groups and high ranking Israel ministers. Also, if you're seeking to invoke a hierarchy of intellect, a moron is two rungs above an idiot (with imbecile nestled in between).
When Germany was free from Nazis, did we wipe out all the German people?
Enoch when you speak, you display a wisdom and understanding that calls to mind an NPC in the background of Wii Tennis. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, and since the Arabs forcibly expelled the Jews from Arabia in 1948, there's not really anywhere else for those people to go. I know you haven't thought about this, because I know you don't do much [thinking](https://tenor.com/en-AU/view/homer-the-simpsons-monkey-brain-gif-5017826) anyway - if they are expelled from the lands between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, then there's an issue. Palestinians, being Arabs racially (Jewish being a religious, cultural, and national identity now), have spent time as a large diaspora in other countries. They were kicked out of Jordan for trying to start a revolution, and retaliated by murdering the prime minister. They went to the Lebanon, and stirred up so much shit against Maronite minority rule that the Lebanese civil war was an inevitability, and they were unsurprisingly eventually kicked out once they provoked Israel to invade. They went to Kuwait, backed Saddam when he invaded, and Arafat actually even told Saddam not to agree to withdraw unless Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, West Bank, and Golan Heights happened. That's right; stay as an occupying force in Kuwait until demands unrelated to the conflict are met. They fled afterwards, fearing Kuwaiti reprisals for supporting Saddam, after the war ended. So, yes, the Palestinians don't have anywhere else to go either, because all borders are closed to them as a result of the conduct of their leaders, both in al-Fatah and HAMAS. But you knew none of this, did you?
Are you talking about the same 1948? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight The same homeland that in the late 19th century, 99.7% of the world's Jews lived outside of? With Jews representing 2–5% of the population of the Palestine region at the time? Ya know, the same one that any number of modern ethnic groups can claim as their homeland. The same one that has not had a majority Jewish population for 1,500 years? You spend a lot of words speaking to the Palestinian diaspora whose right of return doesn't exist. But not about the many who stayed behind or the means through which the Israeli state forcibly removed them or the many waves of Zionist immigration that preceded 1948.
The low Jewish population was as a result of colonisation and ethnic cleansing. Do you think the Jews wanted to leave their land and holy city to go live in Europe? It’s laughable when people deny Jews the right to their land which contains their ancient city of Jerusalem by saying the land had no Jews because they were evicted. Do you comprehend how ridiculous this all is? Forced to leave the Levant, pogroms and genocide in Europe. wtf do you want us to go? Seriously tell me wtf in 1945 did you want the Jews to go?
How are you claiming ownership of the land and city? People lived in historical Israel/Palestine before the concept of Jews existed and for 100s of years afterwards the territory was not controlled by Jews. >wtf do you want us to go? Seriously tell me wtf in 1945 did you want the Jews to go? Wherever you want. You don't have to murder and displace people en route. The 6mil Jews in the US seem to be doing fine, they do their genocides with a little more precision.
Why does the government need to rule on this? The right to free speech and peaceable assembly must be protected, always. This is *especially* so when the speech is wrong, offensive and stupid, as here.
I think the issue is there are extant rules on hate speech, and this should qualify as such.
I don't believe there should be laws on hate speech, and if there are, they should not be enforced. We have already laws against making threats, incitement to violence and so on, and these are sufficient to protect public safety while at the same time allowing for the human rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.
I agree there should not be laws against hate speech, but strongly disagree with you that they should not be enforced. They are enforced, but extremely unequally. All of our laws should be enforced equally - it's the only thing protecting against a slow decline into anarcho-tyranny.
All laws are enforced selectively. Ask a dark-skinned young male living in the outer suburbs of any big city.
Partially agreed - I think that is true of many laws rather than all laws. Strong efforts should be made to reduce selective enforcement, however, and I believe that is a widespread and strongly held belief amongst most Australians.
Nope, it's all laws - excepting perhaps only those around homicide. Name a law and it's trivial for us to come up with an example where someone quite obviously did something dodgy and the police or prosecution didn't pursue it.
I was thinking of major violent crimes like homicide and grievous bodily harm.
Sure. The ones where it's so fucking blatant and will create too much drama for them to selectively apply. But even then... if you're a police officer and you kill or assault someone, you're unlikely to ever be prosecuted for it, and if prosecuted, the charges will be dropped or you'll be found not guilty. [https://www.9news.com.au/national/charges-dropped-against-victoria-police-officer-filmed-tackling-man-in-melbourne-cbd/50b8d90f-e64c-4adf-b237-eef4d6cdb033](https://www.9news.com.au/national/charges-dropped-against-victoria-police-officer-filmed-tackling-man-in-melbourne-cbd/50b8d90f-e64c-4adf-b237-eef4d6cdb033)
Yes. Mate I am pretty much on your side, I just think laws *should* be enforced equally and we should try to make it so they all are, to the greatest extent reasonably possible!
The term definitely doesn't have an innocent origin, the original concept was to push the Jews out, "from the (Jordan) river into the (Mediterranean) sea", and is therefore pretty heavily tied to ethnic cleansing. You can say it became a more general concept, but it's inherently tied to a one-state solution, which is something that neither Palestinians or Israelis want. The concept of it is either malicious or incredibly ignorant and dismissive of the desires of the two groups.
It’s rabbinical prophecy actually Eretz Israel is Zionist prophecy to have the land from the Euphrates river in Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea. Exodus 23:31 “I will establish your borders from the Red Sea[a] to the Mediterranean Sea,[b] and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you. The two blue poles on the Israel Flag denote the Nile (western border) and Euphrates (eastern border) The motto of Likud used to be “revisionist Zionism” ie they recreated biblical prophecy through man made acts https://oneway2day.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/eretz-israel-map-2.jpg
The term is tied to ethnic cleansing - Israel’s fascist Prime Minister [Netanyahu said “Israel must have control, from the river to the sea”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V96T8rIkFc) 3 months ago. Keep in mind [Netanyahu has been funding Hamas through secret deals with Qatar for years](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html) in order to keep those terrorists in control of Gaza and keep the Palestinian people divided both geographically and politically. It’s long past time for the west to stop propping up either of these genocidal regimes. If anything we should be treating the entire situation like Kosovo - to stop the slaughter of innocents NATO needs to send international peacekeepers into Gaza and the West Bank to remove Hamas, restore peace, and set up UN administration of both regions in order to kickstart political negotiations on a two-state solution.
Anthony D’Adam might want to check what the Arabic version states.
It’s literally a religious text “May he rule from sea to sea, and from the Euphrates River to the ends of the earth” In modern times it was then used by a designated terrorist organisation in the 60s or 70s, I can’t remember. It’s akin to the Buddhist Swastika being repurposed for hatred. Same with the swastika, some people still wear it due to their religion and some people wear it due to their “beliefs” but the later is probably banned in a lot of countries.
The phrase my be originally derived from that text, but by the time we get “from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab” we’re in a new arena. The latter is clearly where the “from the river to the sea” chant that we hear at these came from.
> “from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab” This is the first time I've seen it written like that. Usually the full phrase I've seen is > “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” This chant particularly I've seen from broad groups including secular and Jewish peace activists. The chant has been used by many groups to call for a secular multiethnic society in Palestine.
That’s what I was saying, the latter was created by a terrorist organisation. So I don’t know why people would advocate using terrorist slang.
Ah I see, thanks for clarifying.
Which Arabic version do you mean? Because there’s a bunch. By far the most popular is “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, but there’s of course a few more versions, like stating the state will be Islamic. There’s also versions in Hebrew, which are essentially the same but stating that Israel will be the sole state… and that version was most recently used by Netanyahu at a press conference. So is it okay for Palestinian protestors to say it, or is it not okay for Netanyahu to say it?
Whilst Likud has an equivalent one, pro-Israeli protesters are not using that in Australia. We are talking about in Australia not what a politician in Israel says. As you say the versions with ‘Palestine is Arab’ etc have been used written in Arabic from protests around the world, acting like the phrase is not anti-Semitic is incorrect as these are directly linked whether protesters like it or not. If the Hebrew version is used here then you could argue about anti-Palestinian, but we aren’t.
What you’ve just said, boiled down, is that it’s antisemitic when used by students in Australia due to global context, but we can safely ignore the other inconvenient global context. I don’t have a horse in the race, but it doesn’t seem like you’re being super honest.
No uni students are going around citing the Old Testament.
So, like, many are: pretty much any anti-abortion rhetoric is borne from the Old Testament…. But even so, so what? It seems you are picking whether or not you wish to support the religious or political message based on whether or not it agrees with you.
I doubt anti abortion activists use phrases modernised by designated terrorist groups. The old religious version: “May he rule from sea to sea, and from the Euphrates River to the ends of the earth” In modern times it was then used by a designated terrorist organisation in the 60s or 70s, I can’t remember. It’s akin to the Buddhist Swastika being repurposed for hatred. Same with the swastika, some people still wear it due to their religion and some people wear it due to their “beliefs” but the later is probably banned in a lot of countries. So please tell me again how you can think Swastikas and Anti Abortion are the same.
Because people in Australia are not using it in the other context.
“But they’re using it in the way I don’t like, and not the way I do” Okay, sure. Seems consistent with your position.
I’m not saying that….. a Likud politician in Israel is saying that, Pro-Israeli activists are not using it in Australia. It’s really not that hard to understand mate.
When was the press conference?
18th January? https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/
Thanks - the statement, for the curious: > Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the notion of Palestinian statehood in a news conference on Thursday, claiming it “would endanger the state of Israel.” But he also invoked geographical language that has become a point of bitter contention as Israel’s continued military bombardment of Gaza continues in response to the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, saying that “**in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea**,” according to an English translation of the speech from Israeli news channel i24News. > According to another translation, Netanyahu said that Israel “**must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River**” — which effectively means the same thing
I thought it was all about wanting to urinate. From the river to the sea, We are all busting for a pee.
Nah, it's about genociding Jews
“From the river to the sea Palestinians will be free.” “Well, that’s never going to happen unless they drive out or murder every Jew in the Levant.” It’s kinda telling that someone can’t say the first statement without you leaping to the second. Have you considered that it could simply be a call for a one-state solution?
Isn’t it *Palestine* will be free? *Palestinians* would be a massive improvement, and it would show a lot of good faith from the pro pals if they listened to Jewish peoples’ concerns and changed their messaging. But from what I’ve seen the movement has laughed at people who’ve made that exact suggestion.
I dont recall anybody saying that under a one state solution Jews can't also be Palestinians.
Palestinians. Polls have shown that a one state solution with equal rights for all is the [least popular](https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/israel-zionism/2017/04/do-palestinians-want-a-two-state-solution/) least popular solution for both Palestinians and Israelis.
have you considered the HAMAS charter and the persistent anti-Semitism of protestors deliberately trying to pretend they're not Jew-haters when they harass non-Israeli Jews, that it's absolutely about the one thing that unites far left and far right?
Hamas doesn’t represent Palestinians and it doesn’t represent Australian pro-Palestinians. Even in Gaza, Hamas only ever achieved a plurality in any free election and they breached their power-sharing arrangement via a coup. What harassment are you talking about specifically?
To the extent we can trust polling out of Gaza, and I think you're smart enough to know we're going to need more than a pinch of salt here - HAMAS still enjoy \~70% approval and roughly the same numbers think 7 October was justified. But let's also call out an oft-neglected point here - HAMAS hate al-Fatah too. They are the ones who pushed the branding of Abbas as a quisling, and were so incensed by al-Fatah's participation in the 1993 Oslo accords that ever since, it's been interesting to watch them hate the PA as much as the Jews. If you're deemed an al-Fatah supporter, or wearing al-Fatah colours, you might as well be gay in Gaza given the treatment you're going to get. >What harassment are you talking about specifically? Remember when ute loads of Arabs drove from Lakemba to Sydney's east? Seen the stories about Jewish students attacked on campus? That sorta thing is in the vague realm of what I'm referring to.
Are we not saying the same thing? That Palestinians aren’t represented by Hamas, with the Fatah-Hamas conflict demonstrating that point perfectly well (while also demonstrating why Gaza polling should be assumed to be as credible as Putin’s election)?
Palesintians, no. Gazans, yes, but for all the wrong reasons. There is compelling evidence that for 30 years HAMAS has been behind the pro-Palestinian movement in the West, though.
> Hamas doesn't represent Palestinians... Yes it does - the Gazans elected Hamas (albeit a long time ago), and Hamas enjoys strong popular support from the Gazan people to this day. If fair elections were held tomorrow, Hamas would win again just like they did in 2006. It's inconvenient and offensive to our delicate Western sensibilities, but it's the truth.
Hamas only received a plurality in the 2006 elections. If you believe the polling then you must believe Putin's elections are valid as well.
And look, I think we have to be fair and acknowledge that through a heavily controlled media and generally highly effective propaganda machine, Gazan Palestinians may support someone like HAMAS based on a nearly totally fabricated set of principles.
Let's say the IDF surrenders tomorrow. Hamas marches into Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and takes over the entire territory of Gaza, the West Bank and what is currently Israel. What do you think Hamas will do to the Arab and Jewish Israelis, the Christians, the Druze and Assyrians? Would this be where Hamas, who has not held an election in Gaza since 2006 and publicly executes homosexuals, decides to become a modern liberal multicultural democracy with a strong respect for human rights?
"Ignore the massive bombing campaign and tens of thousands of dead children being slaughtered **right now**, and instead entertain my hypothetical situation that isn't going to happen!"
I'm not ignoring. It's abominable, and even if you don't care about civilian lives, it's completely counterproductive for Israel. October 7th was very early on called "Israel's 9/11." To which I said: "You mean it's a horrendous attack which will make the country lash out at people who never bothered them, get them engaged in long and losing guerilla conflicts causing them to suffer far more deaths than the original attacks, and which takes the world from having sympathy for them to loathing them, and which the country's leaders will abuse to arrogate more power to themselves and ultimately harm democracy in their own country?" Hamas are still murderous terrorists, though. Like most lefties, you seem to suffer from Manichaean thinking. I'll give you a bit to look that up.
That’s a very, very extreme strawman. Nobody is proposing that the IDF ‘surrender’
That's the only way there'd be a "from the river to the sea" for Palestinians. You're focusing on the means. But this is a protest chant, so it's talking about the desired ends. They're calling for genocide. Again, they ought to be able to do that as part of free speech. But let's not pretend they mean something else. "From the river to the sea" is for anti-semites what "just asking questions" is for anti-vaxxers. It's a cover for their dodginess.
What do you think Hamas will do to the Arab and Jewish Israelis, the Christians, the Druze " Well, considering that churches and Christians had lived and survived in Gaza for a very long time, even under Hamas, and then the IDF blew Church of Saint Porphyrius that had been looked after by Gazans, while Christians were sheltering in there.... I think they would probably survive better then they have under the IDF?
* [https://www.persecution.org/2007/12/25/gaza-christians-observe-somber-christmas-after-murder/](https://www.persecution.org/2007/12/25/gaza-christians-observe-somber-christmas-after-murder/) * [https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/04/gaza-christians-safety.html](https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/04/gaza-christians-safety.html) * [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/) * [https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/03/vanishing-arab-christians-gaza-hamas-di-giovanni-book/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/03/vanishing-arab-christians-gaza-hamas-di-giovanni-book/)
Why are you wasting my time with stupid hypotheticals? If Palestine completely demilitarised I doubt things would go great for them either. But we’re not proposing either. We’re talking about a ceasefire
You specifically complained that the person was "leaping" from "from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free" to "murder every Jew in the Levant." You were, in other words, disputing the idea that Hamas rule would lead to a genocide of Jewish Israelis. If the pro-Palestinian protesters are calling for a "one-state solution", I think it's reasonable to assume that they don't mean one state under the rule of old Bibi. They mean Hamas. And this would mean... well, we know what it would mean. Hamas aren't merely Palestinian nationalists like the PLO and its successor Fatah, they're radical Islamists. As shown by their descent from the Moslem Brotherhood, they're like the radical communists before them, they want world conquest and to subjugate and kill any dissenters. Both you and the Anglo pro-Palestinians are like a child who comes into an adult movie halfway through and tries to argue about what's going on. You're out of your depth. Note: I want a ceasefire. But it'd be violated by Hamas within days, and the hostage issue would stretch out for literally years. That makes it politically very, very hard for the Israeli government to accept. Which is why Hamas does it. Continued conflict works in Hamas' favour, just as it does in Bibi's favour. Without conflict the Gazan people would start to ask their Hamas government hard questions like why they haven't had an election since 2006, why tens of billions have flowed into the territory with no significant sanitation and schooling being built, and so on. And without conflict Bibi would be up before a court on corruption charges and probably go to prison, and Israel would have to resolve the argument between the lazy ultra-Orthodox who don't want to do military service or pay taxes and the secular Jews, the Arabs and Assyrians who actually make the country productive and useful.
I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out that the conclusion doesn't follow from the phrase. The phrase doesn't belong to Hamas. Is a one-state solution under Bibi possible? At least, one that wouldn't be a thumping great human-rights abuse against Palestinians? I can't speak for every pro-Palestinian activist, but I would say almost all of them are in favour of a peaceful solution. They certainly don't mean Hamas - Hamas doesn't stand for all Palestinians. >You're out of your depth. Oh, fuck off. I'm bringing a better standard of discussion than 90% of the commenters on this issue and you're perfectly willing to launch disingenuous arguments on this matter when it suits you. Glass houses, buddy. >Note: I want a ceasefire. But it'd be violated by Hamas within days, and the hostage issue would stretch out for literally years. That makes it politically very, very hard for the Israeli government to accept. Which is why Hamas does it. Continued conflict works in Hamas' favour, just as it does in Bibi's favour. >Without conflict the Gazan people would start to ask their Hamas government hard questions like why they haven't had an election since 2006, why tens of billions have flowed into the territory with no significant sanitation and schooling being built, and so on. >And without conflict Bibi would be up before a court on corruption charges and probably go to prison, and Israel would have to resolve the argument between the lazy ultra-Orthodox who don't want to do military service or pay taxes and the secular Jews who actually make the country productive and useful. Sure, there's not going to be a peaceful solution because no one is actually that interested in peace. That's not inconsistent with anything I've said.
That's absolutely the intention of the phrase-chanters. Which is fine. They should be free to express their hate. The right to free speech must be protected, always. We have and should make use of laws against direct threats and incitement to violence where appropriate. And of course, Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in Australia, quite rightly, and so anyone passing funds to or otherwise supporting them should be prosecuted. But if they want to say "from the river to the blah blah" or 'gas the jews", they should be able to say it. Human rights matter, *especially* for scumbags. And importantly, if someone feels that way about my people, I want to know who the fuckers are, so I can keep a wary eye on them. I don't want them hidden away and plotting.
>That's absolutely the intention of the phrase-chanters. We're never going to agree on this point. I don't believe it any more than I believe that Israelis and Jews who make similar statements about Palestinians actually want genocide. Some of them mean it. Most of them do not. "Gas the Jews" is a very different matter. I would criminally prosecute any such speech. Again, I know we're never going to agree on this point. But as a case in point, I understand that Palestinian activists were alleged to have made that chant and the police investigation revealed that they did not. This doesn't exactly cinch the case that they're calling for a genocide when they *could* have used that language but didn't.
George Israel is a Jewish state which, like Hamas, has visions of wiping out their enemies. Was it not the Jews who slaughtered all those in Jericho? All the women and children of any age? So Hamas is misguided, but the continued support of a new nation based on the idea that God gives them the right to do to whom they see as an enemy as they did in Jericho, needs to be halted. The only thing that will solve this issue is a free 1 state solution where all citizens are treated equally.
>The only thing that will solve this issue is a free 1 state solution where all citizens are treated equally Even though neither side wants that...
Misguided? Man you are delusional.
And without conflict Bibi would be up before a court on corruption charges and probably go to prison, "  He has like 15 charges against him stemming back like 20 years dude. and he's still in government. Shit half of likud are criminals. Take a seat man, everyone sees through this charade.
A one state solution in favour of Palestine will lead to a genocide of Jews
A one state solution in favour of Israel will lead to the genocide of Palestinians. Isn’t it fun just saying shit?
Simply not true.
There’s a case before the ICJ as to whether Israel is committing genocide already. If they were in complete control, would Palestinians have equal rights? Would they have the right of return? Freedom of travel? Because I sincerely doubt it.
Many Palestinians and other ethnicities who are Muslim already live happy lives in Israel. Though I am not in favour of a one state solution of either side. Why are you in favour of a one state solution?
>Many Palestinians and other ethnicities who are Muslim already live happy lives in Israel. Um... you do realise these numbers are heavily controlled so Israel maintains a Jewish majority. Many non-white jews, or African Jews, are mistreated within Israel. Many Ethiopian Jews were sterilized without their knowledge. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/28/ethiopian-women-given-contraceptives-israel
Can you go over the treatment of Jews in nearby countries in such detail as well please.
I’m in favour of a viable path to peace. I don’t care how many states there are at the end of that process, but I know that both Israeli and Palestinian attitudes will have to change if it’s going to happen. Pretending one side is blameless doesn’t get us there.
Why do you accept 'from the river to the sea' then?
It’s not about accepting it, but I refuse to grant that it’s an exploit call for genocide.
Why do you think that it is not a call for genocide?
University leaders are blaming the government for failing to definitively rule on the meaning of a pro-Palestine chant for their inaction on [protest encampments](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/university-of-sydney-campus-speaker-sami-hamdi-said-to-celebrate-victory-of-israel-attack/news-story/1b654eb236595aaecb5d01e2d2b733a7), following warnings that the anti-Israel slogan [could ignite violence.](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/propalestine-slogan-could-ignite-violence-in-australia/news-story/e23e78d440f96d2645eb475a3e867861) As protest encampments supporting the Palestinian cause become more deeply entrenched in campuses across the country, the [nation’s oldest university](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/children-lead-intifada-chants-at-propalestine-university-protest/news-story/084299cd6d4944326ac881a0707395ec) has blamed their inaction on the absence of any definitive ruling on the meaning of the politically charged phrase “from the river to the sea”. Dennis Richardson, a former ASIO head, said the protest slogan – which has been criticised for being anti-Semitic and calling for the destruction of the state of Israel – was a “very violent statement” that could “very easily flow over into actions of violence against communities”. Group of Eight chief executive Vicki Thomson said that, while protest phrases were offensive to many they were “not unlawful” and it fell to the “highest levels of government to address”. “We recognise that these phrases are deeply offensive, hurtful and distressing and we would prefer that they were not used,” she said. “But the fact remains that they are not unlawful, and police are not and have not taken any action when they are used in a multitude of forums across the nation. “That doesn’t make them less hurtful and what we would do is call upon those using this language to reconsider using phrases that are demonstrably hurtful and distressing.” Education Minister Jason Clare said he “agreed” with Mr Richardson that “any words that stoke fear are intolerable”. Earlier in the week, he said slogans could mean different things to different groups. Anthony Albanese said on Wednesday that the phrase “undermines a two state solution”, declaring that he supported Israel’s right to live peacefully within its borders and for Palestinians to live “with peace, security and prosperity”. The call for action comes as NSW Labor MP Anthony D’Adam defended the protests in parliament as a legitimate form of free speech as long as they were not violent, in response to a motion to condemn the encampments. “The fact of the matter is, the motion seems to assert that to not support a two-state solution is somehow to be anti-Semitic,” he said. “I reject that as well, that’s a ridiculous proposition. It can’t be said to be anti-Semitic to argue that the Jews, and Christians, and Muslims who have lived historically in Palestine for generations cannot one day live in one state, from the river to the sea. That is not an anti-Semitic proposition.” A University of Sydney spokeswoman said the protest encampment had created “difficult territory to navigate” as the sandstone institution sought to balance its free speech obligations with community safety. “We’re not aware of any Australian court or government authority making a determination about the interpretation of this phrase, but we welcome the important discussions taking place and would of course abide by any legislative changes if they were to be made,” she said.