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 10 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 1 points 10 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 3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 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 2 points 9 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 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour 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?