One thing that the automatic summary missed is this important paragraph:
However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party also echoed “river to the sea” phrasing in its founding charter as a way to say his government doesn’t recognize Gaza or the West Bank, according to Dr. Dagher, who was a Canadian government analyst overseeing Ottawa’s international aid to those occupied territories from 2007 to 2011. Still, she acknowledged that the phrase can be terrifying to Jewish people especially since Hamas has also placed the phrase in its charter as a call to erase Israel.
So both sides of the conflict have used the phrase as a way to dismiss the claims of the other, although it’s origin is as a Palestinian slogan. According to this Wikipedia page, there have historically been multiple interpretations of exactly what is meant when using that phrase and those variations continue. In fact, as of this writing, neutrality of this article is disputed with the relevant talk page raising what could be conflicting concerns, most notably the issue of whether we take the meaning from the users’ claims or from those holding opposing views.
This is like the “let kids be kids” phrase thats being bandied about now. It’s like they purposely choose a vague phrase that can be used by either side.
I think that’s a good point. Just off the top of my head, it strikes me that many political and activist slogans are like that. Maybe it’s because short and pithy are antithetical to clarity or exclusivity.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Calgary police charging a pro-Palestinian demonstrator with allegedly causing a hate-motivated disturbance has ignited a national debate over whether a chant shouted by tens of thousands of Canadians over the past month should be outlawed as hate speech.
Meanwhile, some academics worry this charge signals a new Canadian crackdown on the political free speech of pro-Palestinian demonstrators that echoes restrictions in Europe, where some cities and countries have banned these protests altogether.
Alejandro Paz, a Jewish faculty member of the University of Toronto and an expert on Israel in the Middle East, said Calgary police are criminalizing legitimate speech that is not antisemitic or hateful.
“For me, as a scholar, as someone for whom all the people between the river and the sea are very important, this means that there will be freedom and equality for all,” said Dr. Paz, adding that he witnessed Israelis use a similar chant at massive pro-democracy protests in Tel Aviv this spring.
If the system functions as it’s intended to, a judge will decide later if the alleged bias that police say motivated the rally organizer to disturb the public has been proven and then hand a heavier punishment to Mr. Cooley, if he is found guilty.
Calgary police won’t explicitly say which phrase netted Mr. Cooley a charge, just that, beforehand, officers discussed “some of the language and signage” at past City Hall protests with the organizers of the rally and those leading a counterprotest in support of Israel happening across the street.
The original article contains 1,078 words, the summary contains 250 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
