It seems like an odd point to be making: I fully reject that "from the river to the sea" is a call for violence. But if it is, how dare Netanyahu make it!

Hill goes on to explain that he did mean to suggest that Netanyahu had nefarious goals in mind, albeit perhaps not genocidal:

Let's break this down.

Palestinian Arabs and their supporters have a history of using the slogan "from the river to the sea" to mean getting rid of the Jews here through violence. Take the charter of Hamas, who still use the phrase:

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow – verse 120).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

And don't think Fatah is any better.

Yet Hill ignores all of this to claim the phrase means peace and justice.

Yet when it comes to Israel's Prime Minister, it means all sorts of bad things. Yet his own Likud party's original party platform (1977) had this to say:

The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.

Genuine Peace-Our Central Objective

a. The Likud government will place its aspirations for peace at the top of its priorities and will spare no effort to promote peace. The Likud will act as a genuine partner at peace treaty negotiations with our neighbors, as is customary among the nations.

Settlement. both urban and rural. in all parts of the Land of Israel is the focal point of the Zionist effort to redeem the country, to maintain vital security areas and serves as a reservoir of strength and inspiration for the renewal of the pioneering spirit. The Likud government will call on the younger generation in Israel and the dispersions to settle and help every group and individual in the task of inhabiting and cultivating the wasteland, while taking care not to dispossess anyone.

There is no talk of harming any palestinian Arabs or transferring them. The platform speaks of peace as being "at the top of its priorities." As for the so-called "right-wing call to eliminate Palestinians everywhere", this also does not exist. It is called the Hamas charter, and you should replace the word "Palestinians" with "Jews."

Yet Hill ascribes to Netanyahu evil intentions while the palestinian Arabs' could not possibly mean anything bad.

Surely Hill – being the scholar he fancies himself as – knows all of this. What does this tell you about his own beliefs and intentions?

Update: By the way, when Lamont Hill tweets "declaring ALL areas of historic Palestine to be Israel, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem", he is engaging in historical revisionism. While it is true the land was British mandate Palestine right before the modern state of Israel, it was the kingdoms of Israel and Judah thousands of years earlier. And the terms "West Bank" and "east Jerusalem" are modern inventions.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list