Close. There are two potentially relevant Farnam songs that may have been conflated in this discourse. One is That’s Freedom, which includes the lines "From the mountain to the valley / From the ocean to the alley / From the highway to the river". And the other is Two Strong Hearts, which repeatedly uses the line "Reaching out forever like a river to the sea". Neither quite uses "from the river to the sea", but together they give the same sort of impression.

[–] cdzero@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago

You're the voice we needed on this.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 3 points 7 hours ago

[–] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 6 points 12 hours ago

I didn't expect John Farnham scholarship as part of this topic, but I'm into it.

[–] mech@feddit.org -3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, if you change the words and the context, the meaning changes.
"From the river to the sea" is the rallying cry of various groups who want to destroy Israel and remove the people who were born and live there, even though the slogan doesn't literally say it.
So maybe use a different slogan if you want something different?

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It's not surprising that antisemites would also protest Israel, but that doesn't mean we should stop protesting Israel. There's nothing more to it. We should not fall for our opponent's tricks trying to paint us as antisemites

[–] mech@feddit.org 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not saying stop protesting Israel. I'm saying don't use the slogan that's used by Antisemites, if you don't want to be confused with them.
What's wrong with shouting "Free Palestine, End The Occupation" instead?

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Because our opponents will always be nibbling at what we can and cannot say and we should resist and reject their bad-faith criticism. Our opponents are trying to paint us as antisemites. Your honest attempt at distancing ourselves from antisemitic groups has exactly the opposite effect: It legitimizes their criticism where it was never in good faith to begin with

[–] mech@feddit.org 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I'm honestly just confused why people who aren't antisemites would insist on using the first part, alone.
And omit the second part "Palestine must be free", thereby creating the ambiguity of what they mean in the first place.

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 1 points 27 minutes ago* (last edited 24 minutes ago)

Why concede that ground, though? It's not about the second part. They will always find something. Stop playing their game, you can't ever win. It's in bad faith

There must be an Innuendo Studios video about this one, right?