The Arabs are semites as well.
I am rather tired of this take. It is not how languages work. Words mutate and two words with the same root can have very different meanings.
Yet a phrase used by different groups must hold the same meaning regardless of intent and context.
You are full of contradictions.
You have me so confused. Again.
- Words with same\simmilar root don't always mean the same thing
- This certain phrase has an established meaning and one can't pretend that it doesn't.
How do those statements contradict each other?
You understand that language is a dynamic living thing that changes over time (or, put another way, context) but simultaneously hold the idea that certain bits of language have to remain static regardless of context.
Like… the word cunt was used in street names centuries ago but these days is considered a very offensive thing to say (geographically contextual I suppose since it can be used relatively benignly in certain places), or the word damn was considered hugely offensive decades ago (to the point it was very controversial to be in the movie Gone With The Wind) but these days you’d be unconcerned to hear a child utter it in frustration.
Similarly, “Semite”, regardless of the credibility of the science behind it, was once used in the manner martinuzz used it, now that meaning is obsolete.
Like yeah, chanting “from the river to the sea etc” probably isn’t going to make Israel think twice (because in their context it is a frightening thing) but to paint hundreds of thousands of otherwise peaceful protesters as anti-semites because of it is a ridiculous position to take.
I just don’t know how you can take two mutually exclusive ideas and consider them both true.