Meanwhile, TikTok and Instagram accounts repackage eliminationist slogans, advocating the end of the state of Israel – “from the river to the sea,” “glory to the resistance” – as mainstream progressive content, reaching millions of young users whose algorithmic feeds reward outrage over nuance.

“From The River To The Sea” is not a radical call for violence, it is utterly disengenous to say it is for 99.9% of people who use this statement.

“Civic Uses” From Wikipedia

The phrase has been used widely in pro-Palestinian protest movements.[75] It has often been chanted at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, usually followed or preceded by the phrase “Palestine will be free” (the phrase rhymes in English, not Arabic).[76][77][78] Interpretations differ amongst its supporters. In a survey conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development on 14 November, 74.7% Palestinians agreed that they support a single Palestinian state “from the river to the sea”, while only 5.4% of respondents supported a “one-state for two peoples” solution.[79][80][81]

Civic figures, activists, and progressive publications have said that the phrase calls for a one-state solution: a single, secular state in all of Historic Palestine where people of all religions have equal citizenship.[82] This stands in contrast to the two-state solution, which envisions a Palestinian state existing alongside a Jewish state.[83][84][85][86] This usage has been described as speaking out for the right of Palestinians “to live freely in the land from the river to the sea”, with Palestinian writer Yousef Munayyer describing the phrase as “a rejoinder to the fragmentation of Palestinian land and people by Israeli occupation and discrimination.”[16] Others have said it stands for “the equal freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people.”[85][9] Elliott Colla traces the first evidence of use of the phrase in Palestinian protest culture to the First Intifada (1987–1993), with documentation in graffiti from the period.[24][87][29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

back to article slop

I assert that multiple ideological movements targeting Jews reflect a deeper structural alignment between political Islam and segments of the progressive left.

Superficially, the two camps could hardly appear more different. Contemporary left-wing activism champions LGBTQ rights, environmentalism, social and economic equality, human rights and government transparency. Radical Islamist movements reject most of these commitments outright.

Beneath these contradictions appears to exist a shared ideological architecture powerful enough to sustain cooperation: anti-globalization, anti-imperialism, rejection of the Western nation-state, the primacy of collective identity over individual rights, a revolutionary vision and, most critically, a common set of enemies.

…

One observation that our research demonstrates is that today’s antisemitism may not come from the political fringes but from within progressive movements themselves. Much of progressive ideological frameworks tend to divide the world into oppressors and oppressed. Because Jews are often seen as white, wealthy and well connected, they can get placed on the oppressor side of that line.

Intersectionality – a concept originally designed to show how different forms of disadvantage overlap – is now regularly used to justify shutting Jews out of progressive coalitions and solidarity campaigns.

Evidence? What!? This is baby talk, dangerous baby talk.

There are a handful of leftwing people who have done antisemitic attacks, there are bad people everywhere but this article dangerously implies there are legions of radical leftwing antisemites in the US and there just… aren’t. Also notice the way in which normal Islam is invisibilized, only the Radical flavor seems to be emphasized here making it easy to forget ~2 Billion people practice the mild kind. It is reasonable to wonder when the author employs “Political Islam” that there must be a twin “Political Judaism”? Or here is a thought maybe neither makes sense?

The article doesn’t cite any real evidence because there isn’t any. Leftwing movements in the US reject the kind of thinking that judges based on a religion or ethnicity, full stop. Organizations that push that kind of ideology tend to get shamed by other leftist organizations, loudly.

If the Democratic Socialists Of America started arguing in public press releases that jews were lesser than other people the rest of the US leftwing would turn around and flip a shit. The idea that people wouldn’t in the US on the left is absurd. This is a dangerous false equivalency, as extremist rightwing groups are genuinely and openly antisemitic in the US.

A coalition of progressive California Democratic delegates pushed a resolution that opponents described as a Zionism “litmus test,” effectively requiring that delegates reject Zionism to be considered legitimate progressives. The D.C. chapter of the Sunrise Movement, an influential progressive climate group, boycotted a voting rights rally because of “the participation of a number of Zionist organizations.”

Such dynamics reflect that there is little room in this framework for the complexity of Jewish history, people who have been both persecuted and resilient.

Trash trash trash. There is little room in the framework of Zionism for true Jewish history, a history of people who have been both persecuted and resilient. Otherwise how could Zionism endorse Genocide so gleefully? Is that not an offense to the history of the Jewish people?