Talk:From the river to the sea

map

This article would benefit from the inclusion of a map showing the territory implied by the phrase, and the implications with respect to Israel. DKEdwards (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Marokwitz (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

---

From the River to the Sea → From the river to the sea – There is no need for capitalisation as this is not a proper name (or any other article title that Wikipedia would capitalise).

The reason I didn't put this as uncontroversial as I know some may think that From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free may be the more appropriate title. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This title should use sentence case. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Brad (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support sentence case-- probably should have just been uncontroversially moved Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article expansion

Kicking off a talk thread to address notes on expanding the article.

I arrived here to a single history section and broke the article out into history, usage, criticism, and controversy sections.

Many points of view - even amongst Palestinian usage - to be added here, so wanted to kick off the discussion.

Thanks!

Mistamystery (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Critics of the slogan argue that it is calling for the land to be placed entirely under Arab rule at the cost of the State of Israel." - I don't think this is controversial among any point of view that "from the river to the sea" is a call for the institution of a Palestinian state that exists from the river to the sea.

Critics of the slogan do argue that the call for a Palestinian state from the river to the sea is an implicit call for ethnic cleansing of the Israeli people. Netrunnernobody (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free to provide sources or expand the section appropriately Mistamystery (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's one:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/palestinian-river-to-sea-chant-ethnic-cleansing-israel-ambassador/ 220.244.219.96 (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Austrian Chancellor Nehammer says it should be considered a call for murder.

https://hamodia.com/2023/10/25/austrian-chancellor-visits-israel-says-from-the-river-will-be-considered-call-to-murder/ Netrunnernobody (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Delineation needed

The article needs to delineate between:

• "From the river to the sea" being a well known phrase referring to the area of Mandatory Palestine, and being used as a geographical descriptor by both supporters of Israel and Palestine to describe their various political aspirations; and
• The phrase in combination with "Free Palestine" or "Palestine will be free".

It is the latter usage which has been the focus of recent debate in the US and the UK, with pro-Israel groups claiming that advocating for Palestinian freedom in that region is wrong, via a "persuasive definition" fallacy.

At the moment the article conflates the two topics in a confusing way.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This article was started by authors solely focused on the historical and contemporary usage by Palestinian groups. Outside of it being an official mantra or slogan in use by Palestinian National organizations, I frankly don’t think protest slogans reach the notability threshold of having a standalone article.

Probably best to focus on official usage and its evolution. Then make room for civic usage as needed, but non-priority. Mistamystery (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not the point of this thread. The point is that “From the river to the sea” on its own is just a geographic description. It is simply its modification with the word “free” which has faced persuasive definition attempts to undermine it in the last few years. So this article needs to delineate between its usage with and without the word “free”. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Recommend removing the recently added Marc Lamont hill item added to the intro and relegating it to the appropriate controversy section it was in before. This phrase has been controversial since long before his usage of it (hence why there was a reaction when he said it), and there is no basis in the statement that the slogan only became controversial in 2018. Mistamystery (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mistamystery: do you have a source stating controversy from before 2018? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

See below - I can dig up sources prior to 2006…would reasonably assert that the phrase has been received controversially since at least 1988 (when the quote appears first in the Hamas charter), and am sure I can find sources reacting to prior to then if I dig deep enough. Mistamystery (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

But none of these state controversy ("prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion") around the phrase. This is sporadic criticism outside of the mainstream, at best. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

They are representative of controversy, and those sources can be found. That said, there is nothing to indicate in any of your sources that public controversy was initiated by the Marc Lamont Hill controversy. It was merely that a major news figure used the term that was already perceived as controversial. Mistamystery (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: am I right to understand that you have been unable to find any mainstream sources discussing this prior to 2018? Not a single one? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There isn’t a single letter of what I said to indicate that. What I am saying above is reasonable inference for anyone with the remotest of familiarity on the discourse around this phrase from both sides. The contention that “from the river to the sea” has been perceived by some parties as being advocacy for either ethnic cleansing or genocide of Israeli Jews (given that it was explicit in the 1988 Hamas charter) should naturally indicate to anyone that 2018 is not the initiating date of public controversy around the matter.

Either way, your earlier notes about the nature of the page were - I thought - more astute. This is a specific phrase and its history and usage need to be outlined, simply and clearly. There is a bunch of fodder on the page that clearly has not been sourced properly, or has been inferred from a policy perspective, not a specific usage of the phrase (i.e. the PLO charter) - really leading to what I thought we had agreed on earlier: that this page needs a significant refresh and cleanup. Mistamystery (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Mistamystery (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. But it needs to be said clearly that not a single mainstream source from prior to 2018 has been found which criticizes the phrase.

This is perhaps the world's most controversial political arena, where every word has been argued in all directions over many decades. Yet there is no sign of mainstream reporting, in either the press or in scholarly works, of any controversy around this phrase, prior to Mark Lamont Hill's firing in 2018.

Hiding this from our readers creates a misleading impression. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There isn’t anyone saying “not a single mainstream source from prior to 2018 has been found which criticizes the phrase” except for you. A cursory google search produces dozens of sources. And your assertion that it was only the Marc Lamont Hill incident that created the controversy operates on a clear fallacy that is easily cleared up even once you read the articles around the Hill incident: the controversy did not emerge because Hill used the phrase, which was subsequently determined to be controversial. The controversy happened because Hill used a phrase which was already widely considered to be controversial. Mistamystery (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: in order to short cut this, please could you provide us just one of the mainstream sources pre-2018? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Resources:

2017: “This is why we so often see the genocidal chant “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” as well as the claim that the “occupation” began in 1948 rather than 1967, and that the very idea of a Jewish state, in and of itself, is evil.“ https://www.thetower.org/article/the-impossible-question-of-occupation/

2014: “Perhaps needless to say, their solidarity with Hamas, complete with its rabidly anti-Semitic “Sacred Covenant” of 1988 and its death-cult call to Islamize Palestine “from the river to the sea,” raises remarkably few eyebrows.” https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/uncategorized/2014/10/summer-in-paris/

2014: “Other protestors were less overt in their angry chants, carrying signs and shouting out the oft-heard slogan, “Free, Free Palestine,” or, as they eventually screamed out, “Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea.” That phrase suggests the same situation that a rekindled Intifada would help bring about, namely that if the fictive nation of “Palestine” is “liberated,” is free, there will, of course, be no Israel between the Jordan River and Mediterranean—and no Jews.” https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140802182813-2587993-the-moral-psychosis-of-demonstrating-in-support-of-hamas/

2010: "The lie of the Zionist Holocaust crumbles with countless holocausts committed by the Zionists in Beit Hanoun, al-Fakhoura school and other places in Palestine. Palestine is Islamic, and not an Islamic emirate, from the river to the sea, that unites the Palestinians. Jews have no right in it, with the exception of those who lived on the land of Palestine before World War I." Hamas official Halil Al-Hayya, Al-Hayat newspaper

2006: “Arafat's formal recognition of Israel as well as the whole Oslo exercise were perceived by ordinary

Palestinians as a "Trojan Horse" in a grand scheme aiming toward a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea.“http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/DPF/postage-stamp-question-april2006.pdf

Mistamystery (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

More:

2002 - The New York Times: “Qeis led a campus protest, shouting: From Camp David 1979 to Camp David 2000 is all a path of compromises. Our Palestine is from the river to the sea, and we will not give up a grain of soil.

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/30/magazine/the-most-wanted-palestinian.html

2003 - The New Republic - “According to another view, they aim to destroy Israel and replace it with a Palestinian Arab (and perhaps Islamic) state in all of historic Palestine, "from the river to the sea." In this view, ejecting Israel from the territories is merely a stage on the road to Israel's liquidation, which, like the ultimately successful Islamic assault on the medieval Crusader kingdoms, may take several centuries.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/66875/the-rejection

2006 - Foreign Affairs - “The group's ideology was set forth in its 1988 covenant, which remains operative to this day. The covenant defines Palestinian nationalism and the conflict with Israel in religious terms: the land of Palestine "from the river to the sea" is considered an Islamic waqf, an "endowment," and so no Muslim has the right to cede any part of it. The covenant explicitly calls for the obliteration of the state of Israel through the power of the sword and portrays the Jews as the source of all evil in the world. Freemasons, Rotarians, and members of organizations similar to theirs are denounced as Zionist agents, and they too are threatened with obliteration. The covenant stipulates that peace between Muslims, Christians, and Jews should only be permitted "under the wing of Islam."

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2006-03-01/can-hamas-be-tamed

2007- Syracuse University - “A Fatah leader, Taysir Nasrallah, stated that the FGC technically still states that the

group is committed to “armed struggle, people’s war, and the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea” (Usher 2006). Obviously this statement is a far cry from recognizing Israel’s right to exist; nevertheless, Israel has been allowing for the transfer of funds to the PA under Fatah’s control for years.”

https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1582&context=honors_capstone

2012 - UK Parliamentary Committee: “One clip shows a teacher clearly stating in an interview that Jews never had any right to any land in the region and showed children in Gaza referring to their envisioned state as extending “from river to the to sea” (the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea). The entire narrative taught at these UNRWA-supported entities apparently is that Jews never had any right to any land, Palestinians lived their honorable until the Naqba when Jews deported them, the Palestinian “right of return” will materialize through violence and death whereby all Jews will be liquidated, creating a Palestinian state “from sea to sea.””

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/47797/html/

Mistamystery (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: having read the above quotes, I hope you will now agree that there really was no "controversy" on this prior to 2018. All these quotes in mainstream sources above are using the phrase in its geographical sense. None are describing a controversy relating to this form of words. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t the mere publication highlighting the contentiousness of the statement itself not an example of the controversy? Why must it be an issue around a hiring or firing in order to reach the threshold of controversy? This is explicitly what the press is for - to report on controversial or contentious things. Mistamystery (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

None of those articles are "highlighting the contentiousness of the statement itself". They are all discussing wider statements that happen to include those four words which have been used as a geographical shorthand for many decades. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Not true. Both New Republic and Foreign Affairs pieces make clear that the connection between the slogan and its intended goals are controversial and contentious. Mistamystery (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither of them are commenting on those four words. New Republic explain it as a synonym for "all of historic Palestine" and then goes on to comment on the wider point, whilst Foreign Affairs uses it as a clarifier to define what "the land of Palestine" is intended to mean and then goes on to discuss Islamic politics. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. The commentary is inherent. It is a mantra for a political and military philosophy, not a geographical clarifier, and the usage of the phrase is indicative of said goals, which were well established since 48 (and earlier) by some parties to connect “freeing” the “river to the sea” to be either the extermination or expulsion of post-1885 Jewish migrants.

See: Azzam Pasha quotation and Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war#Arab warnings and threats of massacres against Jews of Palestine. There is historical context to all of this language that is well established and does not exist in a vacuum. Mistamystery (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: what you have described is known as a faulty generalization, and you are using it to make a persuasive definition. One could propose the exact same faulty generalization about the Israeli people by focusing on a handful of extremist comments that have been made about the extermination of the Gazan people in the last three weeks (see an early list here).

And your suggestion that the "commentary is inherent" is an admission that there is in fact no mainstream commentary on this phrase prior to 2018.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

PLO charter

The article says «"Palestine from the river to the sea" was officially endorsed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) after it was founded in 1964»; but in the link does not appear any version of that expression (no "river" or "free" in the charter, unless there is some problem derived from the Arabic to English translation). Some can argue that there are equivalent expressions, but if the article is about the expression "from the river to the sea", the section "History" should be about the history of that expression (who created it, when it was its first use, etc.) MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears original editor for that section of the article implied this in regard to territorial claim in the PLO charter, not the quote. The quote does appear in the Hamas charter.

If we are to focus the article on the phrase and not the concept, it will need some revision. Mistamystery (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The quote does not appear to be in the Hamas charter. Hamas utlizes the slogan "From the river to the sea" but it is not in their governing doctrine. Xirtam Esrevni (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Not true. Hamas 2017 charter, Article 20:

“Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

Mistamystery (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yousef Munayyer explanation

In this edit,[1] the in-line attributed explanation of the phrase by Yousef Munayyer was deleted, with the edit comment that "This is not an advertisement for a scholar’s general opinions on the conflict, only tangentially related to a phrase pertaining to geography." The quote is as follows:

Palestinian-American writer Yousef Munayyer describes the phrase as:

...“From the river to the sea” is a rejoinder to the fragmentation of Palestinian land and people by Israeli occupation and discrimination. Palestinians have been divided in a myriad of ways by Israeli policy. There are Palestinian refugees denied repatriation because of discriminatory Israeli laws. There are Palestinians denied equal rights living within Israel’s internationally recognized territory as second-class citizens. There are Palestinians living with no citizenship rights under Israeli military occupation in the West Bank. There are Palestinians in legal limbo in occupied Jerusalem and facing expulsion. There are Palestinians in Gaza living under an Israeli siege. All of them suffer from a range of policies in a singular system of discrimination and apartheid—a system that can only be challenged by their unified opposition. All of them have a right to live freely in the land from the river to the sea.

I have now added the underlined words in there (I should have added them into the quote originally), which make it clear that the quote is directly addressing the subject of this article. The depth of explanation is very important, because it describes the nuances of the relevance of the phrase "Free Palestine" to each of the different areas "from the river to the sea". Onceinawhile (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The article already well establishes that the slogan is used for self-promotion for Palestinian rights. It does not erase the fact that this massive quote moves well beyond establishing that point (which is already established) and then becomes a tent pole for one commentator’s personal feelings and musings on what the slogan invokes. Just because the phrase makes the author *think* about passionate items connected to the Palestinian cause, does not mean there is inherent connection to the phrase itself. This article is focused only focused on the following items:

1. What is the history of the phrase? Who coined it?

2. What are the ways in which the phrase has been used and invoked? Which parties have used it and why?

3. How do people interpret exact meaning of the phrase?

4. What are the debates, criticism, controversy, etc around the meaning and usage of the phrase?

I appreciate the sentiment, truly. But the inclusion of such a quote for the purposes of this article is just not within encyclopedic standards. Mistamystery (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Where else in the article do we explain the context of hoping for a "Free Palestine" within Israel? The pro-Israel organizations who have claimed to be able to define the words of their opponents have suggested a Free Palestine within Israel must mean the genocide of the current inhabitants. It is thus centrally important to provide a Palestinian explanation of what "Free Palestine" within Israel is intended to mean. Munayyer says it well in the quote above when explaining that There are Palestinians denied equal rights living within Israel’s internationally recognized territory as second-class citizens. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

More than half of the article is currently dedicated to solely Palestinian points of view on the slogan, and there is certainly no problem if the elements covering Palestinian points of view take up even more of the piece.

That said, there is no insistence from pro-Israel editors that a massive sentimental quote be entered into the record merely to point out that some find the term analogous with promoting genocide. There are short sentences with citations, and no excessive pontificating on the subject, as we are abiding here by all standards to remain neutral on the subject.

If you or anyone wishes to make clear that there are people who value the term to be representative of a desire to “feel free” as Palestinians, a sentence or two will do - as it does across most of the article. Wikipedia is not a valentine for opinions and excessive sentiment, of which that quote is entirely. I recommend picking a single crucial line from Munayyer’s reflection and linking out to the rest. I would recommend something like:

This usage has been described as speaking out for the right of Palestinians “to live freely in the land from the river to the sea”, with Palestinian writer Yousef Munayyer describing the phrase as “a rejoinder to the fragmentation of Palestinian land and people by Israeli occupation and discrimination.”

And then include the full quote in the citation and link out so anyone who wants to read more knows where to look.

I recommend something like that, and absolutely feel it falls within standards here (and would insist the same for anyone attempting to insert a huge quote about genocidal fear - not the place).

Mistamystery (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Structural problems

The article as it stands is quite structurally incoherent. It is true that the phrase has both a genocidal and non-genocidal interpretation. Yet the way that the article shifts between the two interpretations renders this page almost unreadable. A large-scale restructuring is warranted, such that

1) The introduction should be just a single paragraph that states how there's a wide-range of attested interpretations, ranging from genocide to non-genocide

2) The usage section should be organized chronologically and by group. Like a subsection on the use by Palestinian militant groups, and a subsection used by non-militant groups. There should be explicit discussion of the non-militant interpretation. All the references to the non-militant interpretation are present in the introduction already, but not really written out.

3) The controversy section looks fine though rather small. Hovsepig (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree. It took me quite some time to understand that there are multiple meanings to this phrase and the counter narrative comes far too late.

It seems very unbalanced to have the entire antisemitic argument based on ADL's interpretation who are not a neutral commentator in the debate. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 12:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian land-based nationalism vs Israeli ethnically-based nationalism

Reponding to Mistamystery's edit comment that "assertion seems too broad and generic for what is likely a more diverse set of opinions across the Israeli-Palestinian spectrum)".

Whilst there are diverse views in every nationalism, it is widely documented that the mainstream of Palestinian nationalism is land-based whilst the mainstream of Israeli nationalism is ethnically-based.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

So far as the mainstream of Palestinian nationalism is concerned, to start, the original Hamas charter is explicitly ethno-religiously-based (as are all of the original charters of each of the main Palestinian Nationalist organizations). I would readily dispute that the above distinction would be upheld following a survey of historical charters and organizing principles. Mistamystery (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You should not be editing here. Suggesting that Islamic ideology represents the mainstream of Palestinian nationalism suggests you know very little about this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Onceinawhile Respectfully requesting you strike through the above comment. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL Mistamystery (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

OK. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Pls check your tone. I’m not speaking to you this way.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t remotely say that “Islamic ideology represents the mainstream of Palestinian nationalism”.

If there’s anyone here not doing their homework, it’s not me. The majority of original Palestinian National charters (PLO, Hamas, PLFP, et al) all target Jews on an ethno-religious basis (Judaism is an ethno-religion, hence the usage of the term).

The 1964 PLO charter insisted that *only* Palestinian Jews (i.e. Jews who resided in Palestine prior to 1948) could be citizens of a future Palestinian state. And the Hamas 1988 charter, in so far as its emphasis on Jews as an ethno-religious group - need not be elaborated upon.

This in no way whatsoever supports the generic assertion that “Palestinian nationalism envisages a land-based state” if the groups seeking to assert sovereignty wish to act upon, exclude, or remove certain ethnic groups. Mistamystery (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery Your last statement I think sums it up well enough. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The Kelley quote is manageable and can be worked around (though I stand by my assertions his sourcing is poor, and he has mischaracterized them in his paper). It requires appropriate context regarding the evolution of the use of the phrase by the PLO from 1964 to the early 70s - most especially since the PLO’s intent at first was fully to drive out more than 90% of Israeli Jews should they succeed militarily (and let’s be clear, the PLO chair at the time of the Six Day war was pretty adamant about killing everyone).

The Smith quote has to go. It is just fundamentally unsound and irrepresentative of the facts.

Also, he’s an associate professor @ Bucknell. I don’t know why anyone should be shielding him as some great voice. There are better voices out there (who are more robust in their sourcing). At least Kelley is a department chair and considered to be an expert in his field. Mistamystery (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian National Covenant(revised 1968)

Article 4:

The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children. The Zionist occupation and the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people, through the disasters which befell them, do not make them lose their Palestinian identity and their membership in the Palestinian community, nor do they negate them.

Article 5:

The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Article 6:

The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp Mistamystery (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023

Add to heading "Antisemitism allegations" the following:

On 15 August 2023 the Dutch court of appeal dismissed antisemitism allegations and gave legal protection to "From the river to the sea" on free speech grounds. In its final ruling the court acquitted an activist, who used pro-Palestinian slogans in a speech at a Nakba Day rally in Amsterdam in May 2021. The ruling upholds an earlier decision by a lower Dutch court. It concluded that the slogans “are subject to various interpretations” and “relate to the state of Israel and possibly to people with Israeli citizenship, but do not relate to Jews because of their race or religion”.

Source is the activist's legal advice team ELSC: https://elsc.support/news/victory-from-the-river-to-the-sea-is-protected-speech-dutch-court-rules Windsorchair (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The official case summary from the court of Amsterdam is here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2023:2271 Windsorchair (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat I don't think the edit request has been answered yet. I'm happy to rewrite if the proposed text isn't deemed neutral (is it too long?). Or perhaps it requires clarification that the direct quotes are from the court documents? Please let me know what would satisfy your estimation of neutrality as to my view it's currently simply a statement of fact - but obvs happy to learn.

I've tried to include the closest to the source English text available as well as the Dutch language court summary. I'm on the hunt for the official extended documentation of this court case (report and letters) to allow people for a bigger deep dive into this case but I'm currently unsure if they've been made available online. The court summary I've linked refers to the entire speech not containing any hate speech or incitement of violence according to the legal definition. In the absence of those court documents I could quote the speech and link to it in the references as the speech contains the phrase with the note that none of the contents of the speech were deemed antisemitic from a legal point of view, as the court summary I've linked directly supports this statement. Windsorchair (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone added a line on this - but it’s in the wrong section. (Currently in usage for no clear reason)

Advocating shifting it down to the antisemitism allegations section. Mistamystery (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I completely missed it because it's in the usage section. That's an odd place for it to be. I'd agree based on what the status of the article was when i posted it that it should be under Antisemitism allegations, however now there's a whole new section called Criminalisation. I'd say that my note is very much in relation to what's under that Criminalisation section but obviously it hasn't been criminalised in this context so I'd be in favour of renaming that section Legal Status rather than criminalisation.

Having said that, I'm not sure this section needed to be broken up at all as now Andy Mac Donald's suspension is also under this header which seems odd as there's no criminal case being pursued to my knowledge so it seems quite suggestive in a negative way to place it under that heading wrt what is happening in that instance. Same note wrt the Football Association. Seeking police guidance isn't the same as saying you will be pressing charges. Windsorchair (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Longhornsg Re:: your recent edit (criminalization), please take the preexisting non-criminalization related items from the section and move them back up to the “antisemitism allegations” section, thanks Mistamystery (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

good catch. done. Longhornsg (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Danke. Mistamystery (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Any notes on renaming the Criminalisation section to Legal Status? A section called antisemitism allegations followed by a section called criminalisation seems unnecessarily negative to me and suggestive of bias. Currently the way the article is set up I don't see which section this note now belongs to. Do we need another section on Legal protection as free speech? Windsorchair (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The following sentences also don't suggest criminalisation and should be moved to the previous section.

"On 11 October 2023, Vienna police banned a pro-Palestinian demonstration, citing the inclusion of the phrase "from the river to the sea" in invitations, which it said was a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

The Vienna police information is unsourced so I may be wrong but the current text does not suggest criminalisation is what happened here.

"A majority of the Dutch parliament declared the phrase to be a call for violence."

The source article describes how different political parties talk to each other, there's been no suggestion of criminalisation.

This leaves only two sentences under the section. "Following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, British home secretary Suella Braverman proposed criminalizing the slogan in certain contexts." and "Politicians in Austria and Germany have also considered classifying use of the phrase a criminal offense, with Austrian chancellor Karl Nehammer suggesting that the phrase could be interpreted as a call for murder."

Are these two sentences enough for a whole section? Windsorchair (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In neither case that do actually talk about criminalisation (UK, Austria) has it actually been implemented. In my view a heading Criminalisation seems to suggest criminalisation has already happened which is not supported by the text. My preference at this point would still be Legal Status to stay neutral and would create space for my suggested section. If Legal Status is not preferred a more accurate name would be Calls for Criminalisation. But again, the amount of text under it seems rather meagre for a whole section. Windsorchair (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Has the problem been resolved? Homerethegreat (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This is currently in the wrong section - usage: “In On 15 August 2023 the Dutch court of appeal gave legal protection to "From the river to the sea" on free speech grounds.”

It should be in the “anti-semitism allegations section, but needs to be combined with whatever update there is re: Dutch parlaiment.

[22]Mistamystery (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

For Clarity on Removal of Kelley Source

Piece is a poorly sourced partisan essay, not research. And its assertions regarding PLO usage of the phrase are based on two passthrough sources, neither of which provide usable historical detail. Mistamystery (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Robin Kelley is a professor at UCLA, and the article is published in the Journal of Palestine Studies, a peer reviewed journal focused on the subject of Palestine. @Mistamystery: if you think this really is "not remotely RS" per your edit comment, please raise it at WP:RSN. Until then, respected professors writing in peer reviewed journals are not to be excised from the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Check his sources. It’s not about his reputation, it’s about the fact that despite him giving a historical assertion, his sources don’t back it up, and the citation is weak and specious (which I place most of my non-RS assertion). Like I said, check his sources yourself.

That said, this the use of this slogan finds its origination in Arab and Palestinian political circles between the 1940s and the 1960s, and I just recommend everyone find better sources to start filling out the genesis of the quotation in use. It’s just quite shocking to me that the general assertion of the slogan as being a part of the 1964 PLO charter sat uncontested on this page for a long time, with poor source verification (that no one bothered to check), and now that erroneous piece of nothing has found its way into numerous news articles because no one here was double checking their sources.Mistamystery (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Just for absolute clarity (so you don’t think I’m running around labeling sources weak):

This is the full section in question:

“First, the odious phrase in question began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel. The Likud Party’s founding charter reinforces this vision in its statement that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” Indeed, as Seraj Assi wryly observed in a comment on Hill’s firing, “In a self-fulfilling prophecy, and thanks to Israel’s occupation and rapid expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea’ has become a reality on the ground. The tragedy is that, from the river to the sea, only one people is free.”38

During the mid-1960s, the PLO embraced the slogan, but it meant something altogether different from the Zionist vision of Jewish colonization. Instead, the 1964 and 1968 charters of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded “the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety” and the restoration of land and rights—including the right of self-determination—to the indigenous population. In other words, the PNC was calling for decolonization, but this did not mean the elimination or exclusion of all Jews from a Palestinian nation—only the settlers or colonists. According to the 1964 Charter, “Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.”39”

'

He only has two sources for this section:

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2018-12-16/ty-article-opinion/.premium/hamas-owes-its-from-the-river-to-the-sea-slogan-to-zionists/0000017f-deef-d3ff-a7ff-ffef96ca0000

And

https://forward.com/opinion/415250/from-the-river-to-the-sea-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

Firstly, his assertion that ‘the odious phrase in question began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel” is based upon not only a misread of her source (an opinion piece, mind you), but also an incredibly weak source on its own merits. Assi’s piece in Haaretz does not say that the slogan “From the River to the Sea” began use as a Zionist phrase - it says:

“In other words, the Zionists demanded not only a Palestine stretching "from the river to the sea," but also one that would include both banks of the Jordan River, which they claimed was a fair representation of historic and biblical Eretz Israel”

and

“ In nutshell, the notion of "Palestine from the river to the sea" is nothing but the boundaries of Eretz Israel as imagined by the first Zionists.”

He’s not even saying the phrase originates in Zionist circles. He’s merely attempting to make the argument that because some early Zionist groups desired the entirety of Mandatory Palestine for themselves, they “invented” the phrase because it means the same thing. This article is surrounding *specific* usage of the phrase, not inference due to presumed shared meaning. Kelley’s dependence upon this source in particular for the assertions made in his essay should have kicked itout of peer-review and back to the drawing board, but alas, not all review boards are made the same in this world.

So far as the second assertion he makes regarding the PLO:

“During the mid-1960s, the PLO embraced the slogan, but it meant something altogether different from the Zionist vision of Jewish colonization. Instead, the 1964 and 1968 charters of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded “the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety”

There is nothing in either of his sources to back any assertion regarding PLO usage or history outside of a single sentence in the Forward piece (which, mind you, is already in use on this page elsewhere):

“That’s how the call for a free Palestine “from the river to the sea” gained traction in the 1960s. It was part of a larger call to see a secular democratic state established in all of historic Palestine.”

Like I said. His essay is not RS. Mischaracterization of primary sources and non-verification of assertions made. It’s bunk and shouldn’t have been published without significant pushback by his review board. (And I’ll be happy to let him know as much personally - I’m sure he would appreciate the feedback).

On a larger note here, one must point to Azzam Pasha quotation and a key assertion made in O Jerusalem - one of the first balanced historical studies on the 1948 conflict (and well received in Palestinian circles, be assured) - to come to understand that the controversy and perception of threat of extermination and removal around the term “From the river to the sea” has its basis in well-established Arab and Palestinian rhetoric that started in the 1940s as the bells of war started to ring.

A few quotes from Collins and LaPierre:

“Unlike the Haganah with its deep roots in the Jewish community, the [1920s-1950s Palestinian leader Mufti Amin al-Huseini ]’s warriors were a kind of private army whose function was as much to remind Palestine's Arab community who their leader was as it was to fight the Jews…

Their chief was a forty-two-year-old inspector in the Palestine police force, the scion of an old Jerusalem family, named Kamal Irekat. He had a professionally fierce scowl, a Pancho Villa moustache, burning black eyes and a predilection to be photographed in front of his men in riding breeches and a flowing Arab headdress. Irekat had achieved the dubious distinction of being the first Arab leader to vow to "throw the Jews into the Sea."

and

“Haj Amin did not want their Arab armies in Palestine. With armies, he knew, went authority, and he had no intention of sharing his authority in Palestine with anyone, above all his rivals who commanded the armies of Iraq and Jordan. His aim was to build up his own guerrilla forces so that they could defeat the Jews without outside help.

The League's decisions suited him well. His goal now was to get control of the arms, the money and the volunteers they had called for, and to have guerrilla operations in Palestine placed under his supreme command. To justify such a claim, he was sending to Palestine as his handpicked field commander the most able fighter his rebellion against the British in 1936 had produced. In a few days he would leave Cairo, ordered to carry out a follower's boast that the Mufti had adopted as his own: to "drive the Jews into the Sea."

and

“To justify such a claim, he was sending to Palestine as his handpicked field commander the most able fighter his rebellion against the British in 1936 had produced. In a few days he would leave Cairo, ordered to carry out a follower's boast that the Mufti had adopted as his own: to "drive the Jews into the Sea.”

and

“By Palestine standards, his men were relatively well armed. Communications and logistics, however, were prim-itive. Runners ran word-of-mouth commands or handwritten messages from post to post. The shortage of food and other essential items did not unduly concern Kaukji (Fawzi al-Qawuqji. He intended to let his army live off the plunder of conquered Jewish settlements. Nor did the fact that his medical supplies consisted of aspirin, bandages and laxatives worry him. He anticipated neither a long campaign nor serious casualties.

"I have come to Palestine to stay and fight until Palestine is a free and united Arab country or until I am killed and buried here," he announced. His aim, he declared, borrowing the slogan that was becoming the leitmotiv of the Arab leadership, was "to drive all the Jews into the sea."

"Everything is ready," he proclaimed. "The battle starts when I give the word."''

This article direly requires:

• A history of language and rhetoric being used in the late mandatory/early state period by Arab leadership so there is clarity as to the environment that the phrase “From the river to the sea” emerged from, and why - given the consistent reprieve of calls to expulsion or violence - clear reasoning as to why there has *consistently* been pushback and controversy surrounding usage of this slogan.Mistamystery (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not how this works. If you think it is not WP:RS, bring it up at WP:RSN. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, but whether it’s RS or RSN, the sources cited in the paper do not hold up. The assertions being made in the essay aren’t remotely backed up by his own sources.

For what it’s worth, I’ve spent the day digging up far better primary sources that paint a clearer picture on the evolving PLO relationship with the phrase from 1964-1995, and we can just nip this in the bud and paint the clearer picture on this aspect the article demands. Mistamystery (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Secondary sources trump primary sources, and for good reason, because primary sources require interpretation. Of the secondary sources, peer-reviewed papers by recognized scholars trump most others, also for good reason (multiple academic reputations on the line). You simply cannot waive them away with your own primary research. Again, if you really think these professors’ papers are not RS, raise it at the appropriate noticeboard and see if you can get consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think @Mistamystery's statement holds up. The explanations he presented seem to hold up, also his reference work. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You think the Azzam Pasha quotation backs up a "threat of extermination"? Have you read that article? nableezy - 18:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course. Even the Guardian yesterday pointed out that “From the river to the sea” in its original use existed as part of an evolutionary continuum of language being used by Arab and Palestinian leaders from the 40s to the 60s, centrally around evocation of either exterminating or pushing Jews out (and particularly where exactly they’re meant to go (i.e. “the sea”, and particularly “throw/drive the jews into the sea” which was a bit of a popular trope by Arab leaders for a certain period of time).

Numerous pieces over the years have already pointed out the connection between older political statements and the later adoption by those same circles starting to invoke “From the river to the sea”. They, in fact, co-existed as siblings within those circles for at least a decade, before “throw/drive” started falling out of fashion after the six day war. The phrase does not remotely emerge in a vacuum.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/from-the-river-to-the-sea-where-does-the-slogan-come-from-and-what-does-it-mean-israel-palestine

https://www.timesofisrael.com/fatah-official-palestine-alongside-israel-is-just-a-phase/

https://www.newsweek.com/bella-hadid-statement-israel-hamas-conflict-1838465 Mistamystery (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Your claim in the first sentence above is neither stated nor implied by the Guardian article. Please quote what wording you were referring to. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m referring to this connection made in the Guardian piece:

“Between the river and the sea” is a fragment from a slogan used since the 1960s by a variety of people with a host of purposes. And it is open to an array of interpretations, from the genocidal to the democratic.

The full saying goes: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – a reference to the land between the Jordan River, which borders eastern Israel, and the Mediterranean Sea to the west.

The question then is what that means for Israel and the Jewish people.

Some claim the terminology is laced with genocidal intent. In 1966, the Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, the father of the country’s current dictator, said: “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”

Hamas, whose gunmen killed 1,400 people on 7 October, claim the slogan in their rejection of Israel.”

So yes, it is both stated, as well as implied by the Guardian article.

It is also connected to past versions of “[in]to the sea” language that was employed by Arab leaders (especially between 1948-1967) as discussed further up in the talk page.

Mistamystery (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Likud statement - Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

The newly added statement "A similar slogan was used in the 1977 charter of the Israeli political party Likud.[2]" is incorrect. It should be removed. The source cited does not at all support this statement, nor this phrase is mentioned anywhere on that page. 2601:647:4200:EA20:4420:5E57:9336:C105 (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

“ 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.”Mistamystery (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the idea that a similar phrase is not supported by the source is incorrect. For clarification change “A similar slogan was used in the 1977 charter of the Israeli political party Likud.[2]” to: In the 1977 charter of the Israeli political party Likud a similar phrasing is used describing its ambition that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”. 2001:8B0:BF85:7000:39AB:DBEE:4780:256D (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The cited source is a primary source, a document from 1977, that uses the wording 'between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.' There is nothing in the source to indicate that this is a 'similar slogan.' In fact, it is not a slogan at all, but rather a sentence. Unless this is corroborated by a reliable secondary source that links this sentence with 'From the river to the sea,' I believe it should be considered original research. Marokwitz (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a secondary source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/23/river-to-sea-jews-and-arabs-must-forge-shared-future

I agree it's not a slogan, although so would suggest 'slogan' be replaced by 'sentence' or 'phrasing'. Windsorchair (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, “phrase” or “sentence” would be more appropriate in that context. Mistamystery (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an Op-Ed calling for ' Each side in this bitter conflict needs to recognise the other’s fears and aspirations ' ; As such it can be used for facts only when properly attributed.

Our policy says: " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Marokwitz (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There's also https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/from-the-river-to-the-sea-where-does-the-slogan-come-from-and-what-does-it-mean-israel-palestine? where the Guardian states in an explainer on the phrase that the charter from the Likud party "trolls" the Palestinian movement by using the same phrasing. What is the policy when multiple secondary sources make the same assertion? Windsorchair (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Article from today—clearly, they've lifted it from THIS page. What's more, it's from 1977, a detail they conveniently neglected to mention and instead linked it somehow to Benjamin Netanyahu. Surely the term "trolling" cannot be applied. This is nothing short of a sad joke and underscores the critical importance of properly verifying sources. Marokwitz (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve been looking for an updated Likud charter, but no luck (at least in English). Any luck anyone finding an updated one (Hebrew, English, other)?Mistamystery (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

They don't link the slogan to Netanyahu; they clarify that Likud, which readers may not have heard of, is Netanyahu's party. I see no basis to reject the source on that basis; though the fact that they use the same citation as us might indicate WP:CITOGENESIS. DFlhb (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Likud hasn't had a charter for many years. I agree; this is very likely an example of WP:CITOGENESIS. Thank you for introducing that term. Marokwitz (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is citogenesis, only that it's possible. Generally I wouldn't 'disqualify' a source based on that unless we had independent evidence that the source was factually incorrect, which we don't have here. DFlhb (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we had a direct copy of the 1977 charter, which we don’t (yet). And I would be comfortable removing until we do. I’ve seen other very verifiable things be removed for less pending direct sourcing. Mistamystery (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Another case of WP:CITOGENESIS has popped out just now ... Newsweek. Seems this Wikipedia page is going viral. [2] Marokwitz (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What a great new term!

Frankly, after a whole lot of digging trying to create an accurate chronology of the evolution of this phrase, it’s become pretty apparent that all reporting (at least available online) regarding the Likud party platform (it’s not a charter, and if this remains, it needs to be corrected) seems to only be sourced from the JVL. I will keep digging but I’ve yet to find a direct source confirming that this is in fact official Likud terminology from the 70s.

On these grounds alone (and considering the generally chilly reception JVL articles receive these days, I think it’s reasonable to remove these references until we can find a more reliable contemporary source (and also one that confirms exactly what this document was - charter? Party platform? General notes?) Mistamystery (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

After having revisited the JVL’s entry on Reliable Sources, I’m going to be removing mention of this Likud charter, party platform (whatever it actually is ultimately determined to be).

All contemporary news reports and studies either point directly to the JVL as the source, or only appear online after the JVL page was posted (and use the same terminology with no additional information that would indicate an independent source).

There are, in fact, only eight search results pointing to the phrase up until 2015, and we only see a boom in coverage of this point after the Hill scandal in 2018.

Encourage some deep diving (especially in academic journals and Hebrew language media) but in the meantime, this is going in the fridge. Mistamystery (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Uh no. Moughrabi, Fouad; Zureik, Elia; Hassassian, Manuel; Haidar, Aziz (1991). "Palestinians on the Peace Process". Journal of Palestine Studies. 21 (1). [University of California Press, Institute for Palestine Studies]: 36–53. JSTOR 2537364. As the Palestinians have become more moderate and willing to accept a compromise solution, the official Israeli position has become more intransigent. Most interviewees were not optimistic that peace is in the offing because the new geopolitical conditions in the region serve to reinforce the Likud's historic opposition to territorial concessions. The platform of the Likud coalition stated clearly in March 1977: "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 nableezy - 23:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 23:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat@Marokwitz@priusgod can someone restore Nableezy’s above source to Likud section? Was accidentally deleted by a user yesterday during all the back and forth (and is a more sound, clearer citation from the source document).

I would myself but I just changed the word “charter” back to “platform” (another accidental revert by someone) I don’t want to waste a 1RR token on this. Mistamystery (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Mistamystery you said pending some other verification on the original charter, that has now been provided. Would you mind self-reverting? nableezy - 23:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Great find, NB. For good measure just give me a few minutes to review this Hebrew document quickly. Really want to see if we can pin down the exact nature of type of document (charter, plaftorm, or something else). But yes, will self-revert with appropriate citation very shortly. Mistamystery (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the 1977 Likud platform , original version in Hebrew. [3] . Doesn't seem to contain the text reported by JVL. I agree this should be removed until further verification. Marokwitz (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I just posted a peer reviewed journal article from 1991 with this information. Would be an odd case of citogenesis from Wikipedia. nableezy - 23:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so a few things:

1. The JVL uses this as a source for the quote - I will hunt down in a second, but if anyone has fast fingers and can find the exact quotation in the meantime; The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict, 6th Edition"

2. This is definitely not a party charter. The party was founded in 1973, not 1977. As well, none of the sources are using the word “charter” (that seems to have been inferred by the original contributing editor on the page, and cited later by journalists). All sources all say “platform.”

3. Having reviewed the Hebrew language document (with a translation app, a bit shaky in places - the apps are not great with 70s Hebrew vernacular apparently - but pretty clear on what’s within), I think its reasonable to say that both of these documents are a part of party platform materials for the Knesset elections in 1977. There is nothing as of yet to indicate they rise higher than election platform materials.

4. @Marokwitz is correct - the line “Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” does not appear in the Hebrew language document.

5. That said - and all editors must be reminded that 1977 was in between the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the 1973 Camp David Accords - the overall party platform contained herein is representative of a transitional political outlook and must be taken into the context as we decide on the appropriate text for this part of the article.

The Hebrew language documents do not merely state that sovereignty is hoped for over Judea and Samara, they lay out a platform for both sovereignty (and granting of “full rights for all its citizens and residents, regardless of race, nationality, religion, gender, or community”) for “the regions of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, in Ramat…the Golan and the Sinai.” So to directly imply that the Likud platform is directly correlated to a “River to the Sea” theology is not that simple - as the platform clearly envisions war-conquered territories well beyond the former Mandatory territory.

Would very much like to see the Likud original charter, the original Hebrew document (or full English translation) that Messrs. Moughrabi, Zureik, Hassassian and Haidar got their “sovereignty” quote from, as well as perhaps some insight on ‘73-‘78 Likud policy and internal discourse before we so simply assume that this was “the platform.” I don’t doubt this appeared on a document somewhere connected to the ‘77 election, but given some much larger implications laid out in the other source (such as - it seems - an envisioned Likud one state solution), I think we need to workshop what is to be said here before restoration. Mistamystery (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Found it - a free version at least with some redacted pages (it’s also available for purchase on Amazon):

https://archive.org/details/israelarabreader00walt/page/218/mode/2up?q=Samaria

I recommend searching the word “Samaria” and getting to work reading all of the appropriate pages connected to the Likud platform in the late 70s. It’s a doozy, and very complex. We have some work to do in deciding what to put here - but I can say with certainty, it’s not restoration of the previous line. I’m only two pages in, and there’s already complicating factors (and contradictory assertions in greater detail) that don’t line up with the simplistic notion of “the Likud platform said x”

I recommend all parties interested read all available documents and come back with proposals. I’ll do the same, but will take a bit. Mistamystery (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, but Im restoring this. You previously said you would when presented with further confirmation, then said you would when it was presented, and now we are going on this merry-go-round of well this Hebrew document says whatever. This is well sourced material that a number of other sources consider worthy of comparison. And so I am restoring it. nableezy - 03:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Well it already was, I just added the additional cite with the quote of the phrase. nableezy - 03:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

By all means. Just saying there are piles of additional context that will fundamentally alter the character of the assertion currently being made. If you’re interested in reviewing the additional sources just discovered, I think you’d agree some patience in the matter will be well warranted.

Also - the quote in your citation says “platform”, not “charter”. Recommend making that adjustment if you insist on restoring. Thnx. Mistamystery (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Corrected platform. You are welcome to present anything that challenges the sources we do have of course. If the statement is wrong it will go, but as of now it is well sourced and there is no reason not to include it. nableezy - 03:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. I just know it’s going to evolve so was just thinking about how that will come to be.

Good find, today. I had already exhausted google, had switched over to Arabic language sources, then you got me on a big academic journal deep dive on the history and usage of the term. Mistamystery (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the status of this debate is, but I have this book and it has "Platform of the Likud Coalition (March 1977)" with a footnote "Excerpts from Prime Minister Begin's election platform". The text says "between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". I don't see a reason for not using it; the editors Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin are not exactly Palestinian activists. Zero^talk 08:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Take a look above, the “so a few things” numbered list.

No issue with the verifiably of these election platform excerpts (it seems these “excerpts” were cited widely at some point. As they’re showing up elsewhere).

There is a much the wider context than those floating statements give privy to. The platform was much larger and more detailed than a mere assertion than Begin saying he wanted sovereignty over between the Jordan and the sea. Separate election platform documents from around the same time (in the chain, but in Hebrew) elaborate further on Begin’s plan: to a) annex also the Golan Heights and Sinai, and b) grant equal citizenship to everyone living in all of those areas.

Yes the term “between the sea and the Jordan” showed up in one document, but a later document outlines a fuller, different plan.

And once he got into office (and the beginnings of the Camp David accords started coming into focus), the plan changed again, this time stating: “Israel insists on its rights and demand for its sovereignty over Judea.Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Knowing that other demands exist. it proposes, for the sake of the agreement and of peace, to leave the question of sovereignty in those areas open.”

There’s a lot in the sources provided above that paint a far more complex picture. But in short:

• The election platform was run on a general annexation plan stretching from the Golan to Sinai (and everything in between), not just Jordan to the Sea…I don’t know why an earlier document only mentioned that but it seems to have been dropped shortly thereafter (and prior to the election) for an expanded concept. So, no, it technically was not the election platform…merely an early version of it.
• The Camp David peace accords started coming together almost immediately after Begin was elected, so whatever was first proposed evolved very quickly into various peace proposals.
• Begin qualifies extensively his reasoning in one specific matter - not allowing consideration an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza run specifically by the PLO. He proposes a million other things, even co-administration with Jordan and the Palestinians (operating as a semi-autonomous administration) on a unanimous vote basis, but refuses to consider, most specifically, the PLO running anything independently, because they were - in his own words - “history's meanest murder organization, except for the armed Nazi organizations. [That] bragged about the murder of Hamdi al-Qadi, deputy director of the Education Bureau in Ramallah. It is a frightening proposition that someone's solution to the problems in the Middle East might be a single bullet dispatched to the heart of Egyptian President as-Sadat as the PLCs predecessors did at Al-Aqsa Mosque to King Abdullah.”

This is five years after Black September. I get it.

All said, just extra nuance I think is needed here, especially since - so far as rock solid theology as “from the river to the sea” meant for Palestinian groups, that doesn’t remotely seem to be the case here so far as whatever Likud was on - and to present it so simply enacts some false equivalence in many ways Mistamystery (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy someone reverted your most recent change (“platform” vs “ charter”). Don’t know why. Can you or someone revert this?

Also perhaps someone removed your source accidentally thinking it was one of the two questionable sources being discussed rn. Feel free to restore, or ask user to. Mistamystery (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it was Dovidroth, in this unexplained revert. See below. nableezy - 13:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth is there a reason you removed this source? nableezy - 12:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidrothcan you please restore Nableezy’s source provided yesterday - or anyone else active @Marokwitz or @Homerethegreat if you wouldn’t mind. (I’m offline for a while today) It’s a far more sound sourcing than Kelley, and we all agreed yesterday it was sound.

Also - change “charter” to “platform” - the source doesn’t say charter and its not a charter. Mistamystery (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias

@Marokwitz: in this edit you have written the lede so it says: “the slogan has been about destroying Israel since the 1960s, although some people disagree, and critics say yes it is about destroying Israel". This is completely unacceptable bias.

This builds on Mistamystery’s removal (see above) of a highly reputable source which states explicitly how the phrase was used since the 1960s. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not an accuarte quotation from the lead which currently says "The slogan has been in use since the 1960s as a call for Palestinian liberation and for reversing the establishment of the State of Israel," a point directly sourced from Jessica Winegar, a sociocultural anthropologist at Northwestern University. This academic perspective is reported by a secondary reliable source, the Chicago Sun-Times. This viewpoint is counter-balanced by those who "disagree with this interpretation, asserting that the call simply demands equal rights for Palestinians," also sourced from the same article. I am open to proposals if you believe the passage is biased in any way. Marokwitz (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The source is not remotely reputable (its basically propaganda, and its not research, its a reflective essay on intersectionalism of transnational causes, not history), and either way, I checked her sources in her footnotes, and her sources are weak and do not confirm the assertion. Check them yourself. Mistamystery (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the article in question, I'd like to note that, according to WP:EXTRAORDINARY, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. The assertion that Fatah/PLO shifted its stance in the 1960s to advocate for a peacful 'single-state solution,' where Jews could continue living alongside Arabs, is directly contradictory to its charter. The charter called for the removal of all Jews who do not descend from Mandatory Palestine; this stance was not modified until the Oslo Accords in the 1990s. Marokwitz (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: talk page note above, it’s also on these grounds that the Ron Smith quote should be excised. It’s misleading and baseless. Mistamystery (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to the sources that conform to this. Please refer to historical sources in regards to the chronological chain of events and actions. Please refer to the statements of Arab Leaders in context of the 1960s.

Please refer to current context of use by Palestinian organizations, (Hamas, PIJ, most well known)

Please refer to suspension of recognition of the State of Israel by the PLO

Please refer to sources presented, to WP:DUE; dominant view. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added back the scholarly sources removed, but added explicit attribution to address your concerns. As per above, any further claims that these sources are not WP:RS should be raised at WP:RSN.

Separately, recent changes have proposed putting the critical views ahead of the views of those who use the phrase. That is not consistent with Wikipedia norms. First the topic is explained from the perspective of those who use it, and then criticized. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The prevailing interpretation, which is overwhelmingly cited by independent, reliable sources, contends that the slogan calls for the dismantling of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Arab state. The charter of Hamas makes it abundantly clear that this is their interpretation. To frame it as simply the view of "critics" is misleading. Marokwitz (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This article is focused on the pro-Palestinian usage. So critical claims by pro-Israeli commentators must come after the explanations written by those who use the phrase. Your suggestion of the "prevailing interpretation" is based entirely on pro-Israeli sources.

If you wish to turn Wikipedia on its head, and have criticism first, that would require a very significant change to a large number of articles.

Finally, this edit is once again extremely unbalanced. Your proposed edit means the lede now says “Some people think it calls for the destruction of Israel, another interpretation is that it doesn’t, and some people think it is antisemitic”. Once again, you are proposing to sandwich a view you disagree with between duplications of the view you agree with. It is completely unacceptable.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry. This article is about the history of a phrase and its evolution and subsequent reception and social impact. It is neither pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, and no side (or interpretation) should be given significant favor.

Unless I am mistaken, the history of the phrase proceeds like this:

1. begins as a Palestinian political slogan - in use first by PLO, Arab leaders, then subsequently by militant groups (1950s-1990s)

2. finds some reactive usages (or paraphrase) by some Israeli political entities (current source indicates 1970s)

3. comes into popular use as a protest slogan (presuming 2000s onward, we don’t have any sources indicating protest usage prior to recent years).

Most of the time, people using the phrase are pretty clear what they mean by it. I think we have to get off of this whole “interpretation” game when most of the historical users of the phrase are political entities with clear mandates. Mistamystery (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2023 (2)

Add the following text after this sentance: "Following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the British home secretary Suella Braverman proposed criminalizing the slogan in certain contexts." The text that should be added is:

On 30th Ocotober 2023, British Labour MP Andy McDonald was accused of anti-semitism and suspended from the Labour Party after using the phrase in a pro-Palestine rally speech. Half-tempered-wolf (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Done, can you check if it is satisfactory? Homerethegreat (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat Would you be able to look at my edit of October 30th? It's easily verifiable but has been ignored so far. Let me know if I've formatted it wrong. I'm new to Wikipedia editing. Windsorchair (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello there,

I can't seem to find your edit. Is it still present in the text? Homerethegreat (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it's here. Talk:From the river to the sea#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023 It's just not had anyone look at it yet. Windsorchair (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw it now. If you wish to include it in the Anti-Semitism Allegations Section you can. Just make sure to craft in a neutral manner. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. Thank you! Half-tempered-wolf (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead dominant View

We must reflect the dominant view (WP:DUE). Indication of a use of a partisan source that is inadequate (WP:EXTRAORDINARY)

1) The dominant view, which is widely supported by independent and credible sources, has and is arguing that the slogan advocates for the dissolution of Israel and its replacement by a Palestinian Arab state. This interpretation is explicitly stated in Hamas's charter. Framing this perspective as merely that of "critics" is inaccurate. The dominant view should receive due weight and prominence per WP:DUE

2) In regards to Mr. Kelly, his piece is a poorly sourced partisan essay, its not research, and represents a fringe and exceptional view - this is not a high quality source; according to WP:EXTRAORDINARY, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. The claim that Fatah/PLO pivoted in the 1960s to support a peaceful 'single-state solution,' where Jews and Arabs could coexist, is in direct conflict with its charter. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Dovidroth (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone take the lead here in restoring clarity? The page was in very good place just a short while ago and is now a cluttered mess. This is a statement with historical provenance that has subsequently found a second life as a protest slogan. I don’t see what is so controversial about stating the facts in order of their chronology and evolution. Mistamystery (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I tried very hard to balance the differing views expressed on this talk page. Let me know if this is acceptable.

The slogan has been used by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation. Its meaning is a subject of controversy. Some interpret the slogan, which references the geographical area that includes Israel, as a call for the destruction of the Jewish state, replacing it with a Palestinian state. This interpretation has been adopted by militant groups including Hamas, which explicitly vowed to destroy Israel after its formation in the late 1980s. Another interpretation suggests that the slogan calls for a one-state solution — a single state encompassing what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories, where people of all religions have equal citizenship.

Marokwitz (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, most academic discourse points toward this. Furthermore, organizations that fight Anti-Semitism repeatedly flag this phrase. Furthermore, one can simply read the words and objectives of organizations such as Hamas to understand the purpose of this phrase in their use of context. There is a place of course for the view, yet it is not the dominant view and not the one employed by several Palestinian organizations such as Hamas, PIJ etc. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

To which edit version are you referring? At this current time the lead has improved although not entirely satisfying. Well done for the effort and keep going! Homerethegreat (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I also don't find this very satisfying as I feel the Kelley source is very dubious in relation to the meaning of this slogan, however as the saying goes "The best deal is struck when no one leaves the table happy". Marokwitz (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense, an academic writing in a peer reviewed journal article cannot under any understanding of WP:RS be dismissed to promote views of much lower quality sources. Your dislike of the view published in WP:SCHOLARSHIP is unequivocally not relevant to its reliability, and it does not matter how many people say me too to that. We can take that to RSN and get the wider community involved of the effort to expunge the highest quality sources we have access to. Second, despite your repeated claims of a dominant view, reliable sources disagree with you. nableezy - 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a question of reliable sources. This is not a RS or RSN issue (despite my mistake in attempting to invoke that at the start). The two *specific* sources in mention each have claims cited by sources inside of their papers that don’t track or back their assertions. I’ve laid this out in detail above, and would appreciate at least someone rebutting my evidentiary analysis with evidence of their own, as opposed to this constant shielding behind professorship. Professors can be wrong. Review boards can miss things. It happens. Mistamystery (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

See above comments made in earlier threads just now, addressing this same point. None of this is how Wikipedia works.

No evidence has been brought to support the claims of the pro-Israeli interpretation being dominant – this evidence is required before acting on such a claim.

Scholarly research cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Frankly the idea of the pro-Israeli narrative being the “dominant view” defies logic – how can commentators with a clear conflict of interest against those who use the phrase possibly be the arbiters of the meaning of a phrase. Are they mind readers?

It reminds me of certain parts of American society proposing that the phrase “Black Lives Matter” meant that they matter more than White Lives. Well they are not the ones using the phrase so they don’t get to decide what is in the minds of those who are using it. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey there,

RS or not the assertions that are made by the scholar are considered false

Furthermore, I think we ought to disconnect the phrase from other phrases. The situation is different, it's different context. I think we should focus on From The River to the Sea. I don't think it serves well to compare to the "Black Lives Matter" since the context, conflict, peoples are different. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not a 'pro-Israeli narrative' . Are you saying Hamas who uses the term this way is pro Israeli ? This makes zero sense. Marokwitz (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery, @Homerethegreat, focusing on Hamas' interpretation of a slogan that is used globally by groups of varying ideologies doesn't pass the sniff test to me - it seems to give undue weight to one group's usage as well as raising alarm bells in my mind of recentism. The establishment of the state of Israel and the movements that oppose it for various reasons long predate Hamas and the recent spike in activity in this c.80 year long conflict.

Furthermore, personal interpretation of a scholarly source supported by de facto consensus as unacceptable is textbook original research - it is not our place to edit article content based on our personal interpretation of any source as unreliable. If you believe that "the assertions that are made by the scholar are considered false," your job is not to edit articles based on that, you need to establish consensus at RSN that the source is unreliable before making changes. See that Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves in SCHOLARSHIP, and that "original research" refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

In short, it does not matter at all that you investigated the source yourself and decided/felt/found that it is inadequate. Your self-described evidentiary analysis is just that - analysis, by a Wikipedia user, who should be following our core content policies, and therefore not editing based on personal analysis, as nableezy and Onceinawhile have repeatedly said. Engaging in analyses like this is a useful way to begin the process of challenging a source, but it alone cannot be the arbiter of whether something published in a peer-reviewed academic journal is unacceptably biased. If you want to establish consensus that this specific item from this source is not acceptable, raise the issue at RSN

All that said, even if this single source is found to be unreliable, there is a wealth of sources cited in the article that depict the slogan with a complete history, and its uses by various groups of people around the world by some as liberatory and by some as destructive rather than the exceedingly recent spate of articles that insist its sole meaning is destructive. We should be very careful to respect neutrality, due weight, and recentism here. PriusGod (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality demands that pages impartially reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint within those sources.

It is widely agreed and upon by these sources that the core message of 'From the river to the sea' in the context of Palestinian nationalism is a call for the establishment of a Palestinian state that spans the geographical area of what is currently Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Given the broad consensus on this aspect within the sources, it is appropriate for the article to state this as the leading point.

The greater contention arises over the envisioned nature of this state. Advocates of 'From the river to the sea' state of Palestine are split, with some calling for the removal of those they deem to be illegitimate colonizers, while others envision a binational state. The article should prioritize the discussion of these two viewpoints according to their prominence as determined by reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and appreciate your desire to maintain neutrality here. I'm not saying that the lede should only depict one interpretation or the other. The current state of the lede

1) puts undue weight on its use by militant organizations, especially Hamas, when the vast majority of the cited sources indicate its use as a chant or slogan at protests or by individuals/entities making statements. I do recognize the Economist's claim that Hamas uses the phrase in a certain sense, but giving Hamas basically an entire sentence in the lede for a slogan that has been around for 60 years smacks of recency bias

2) equates the concept of a "Palestinian state" with an Islamist one in which non-Muslims would be denied rights

3) places undue weight on religion as the subject of the slogan when many of the grievances related to it are secular (i.e. denial of access to and usage of property that individuals have never legally relinquished title to, segregation, the existence of settlements that were established against international law)

4) doesn't uphold the distinction between the users and the people making external interpretations - the contention is more than just what the users intend with it, because some use it to mean either establishing a state with equal protections or establishing an oppressive state/nation-state, and some interpret it to be either genocidal or anticolonial, and people who maintain either interpretation may apply their interpretation to those using it in either sense.

I'll take a shot at what I think would be a good rewrite of the second paragraph here.

The slogan has been in use by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation. Secular Palestinian groups have used it to refer to the abolition of Israel and the establishment of a state which affords all people equal protection under the law, whereas Islamist militant organizations have used it to refer to the establishment of an Islamist state. The slogan is a subject of controversy, as its critics interpret it to be an anti-Semitic call for ethnic cleansing, while its advocates see it as an anticolonial call to end oppression.

In my mind, this covers both the two major usages and two major external interpretations of the slogan, without putting undue weight on recent events and still reflecting the proportionality between the sources cited - the three sources cited in the second paragraph as it exists are one which sees both sides with a pro-Israel lean, one which sees both sides with a pro-Palestine lean, (which supports the "subject of controversy sentence") and one academic source which discusses the early history of the slogan (which supports the "have used it" sentence). I don't think it's bulletproof, but I do think it more closely reflects the sources cited and provides an overview of the slogan's history and its critiques/supporters, which mirrors the structure of the article body (usage -> interpretations of meaning). I'll self revert if we find issues with it, but for now I'll make the edit. PriusGod (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting start, but there are some incorrect generalizations here. I'll provide some sources that are not necessarily reliable ones just for sake of quick discussion.

Arab leaders such as Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party, which was secular in nature, or Muslim states like Iran that have advocated for a Palestine "from the river to the sea," cannot be characterized as 'Islamist militant organizations'.

Before 1967, Arab Nationalists held the position that "what was taken by force must be regained by force," and when their aspiration was the liberation of Palestine "from the river to the sea," they were not advocating for an Islamist state. For example, see [4].

Yasser Arafat and the PLO have made statements about a 'democratic state', but this state had no provision for Jews who arrived in Israel after 1948 and their descendants. The PLO Charter states that "Jews 'of Palestinian origin' are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine." For reference, see [5].

Therefore, I contest the proposed rewrite on the following grounds:

• Secularists have used the term to refer to solutions that include the expulsion of most of the Jews without advocating for an Islamist state. This usage has persisted both before and after 1967, continuing to the present day.
• The phrase "establishment of a state which affords all people equal protection under the law" fails to acknowledge that this does not include most of the current inhabitants of Israel.

Marokwitz (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverted - given these sources and context, it may be best to avoid going into great detail about the precise positions proposed and the nature of the groups proposing it in the lede, which was more or less the status of the article before it expanded following the 7th. I think in order to provide the reader with a balanced and complete view of the subject, it would be difficult to include most of the major permutations of intent without losing the brevity that an article lede demands.

Something along the lines that the slogan has been applied to Palestinian liberatory as well as Arab nationalist ideologies, with critiques referring to antisemitism and advocacy referring to anticolonialism. This would not make hard-and-fast statements about the nature of the groups proposing it while still providing the gist of the intents behind it, and allowing the article body to take over the minutiae.

My proposal:

The slogan has been used by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation as well as Arab nationalism, and has its roots in the Palestinian National Council's original charters, demanding "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety." The slogan is a subject of controversy, as its critics interpret it to be an anti-Semitic call for ethnic cleansing, while its advocates see it as an anticolonial call to end oppression.

I think this does a better job than my previous rewrite of remaining within the sources cited, without oversimplifying the history and giving the article body the opportunity to handle the details. PriusGod (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@PriusGod - I kindly ask that you self-revert the changes during our discussion, as the current version of the lead contains inaccuracies. Marokwitz (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate the collaborative spirit which is not at all obvious these days.

I don't have objection to this part of your edit

The slogan has been used by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation as well as Arab nationalism, and has its roots in the Palestinian National Council's original charters, demanding "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety."

But I think we are doing a disservice to the readers if we avoid mentioning, explicitly, the fact that this call for establishment of a Palestinian state that encompasses the area that is today Israel and the Palestinian territories.

How about the following.

The slogan has been employed by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation, with origins in the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demand a Palestinian state geographically encompassing all of historic Palestine. The slogan's meaning is contentious. Some construe it as a call for the dismantling of the Jewish state. Conversely, the slogan may be interpreted as advocating for a democratic state of Palestine encompassing what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories, where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship.

Following this text, the embracing of the slogan and its interpretations by different organizations and leaders can be moved to a separate paragraph. Marokwitz (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me, no objections other than that the first paragraph already describes the geographic area referred to and that it might feel repetitive, but frankly it's so important to the fundamental meaning of the slogan as having some kind of unified vision for the region that the repetition is probably fine. PriusGod (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm still concerned about the fact that this overlooks the fact that this democratic state, as proposed by the PLO, for instance, does not extend citizenship to most of the current Jewish inhabitants of Israel, which makes the last sentence a bit misleading. But for now let's use it. Marokwitz (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@PriusGod, @Homerethegreat can you review the new version of the lead? Marokwitz (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Well written, seems neutral. I think it's appropriate. Well done for the effort and the balancing @Marokwitz. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz@Homerethegreat@PriusGod Would like to update this paragraph to the following:

The slogan has been employed by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation, with origins in the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demand a Palestinian state geographically encompassing all of historic Palestine, and a removal of a majority of its Jewish population (though this official demand later softened). Some insist it remains a call for the dismantling of the Jewish state. Conversely, the slogan may be interpreted as advocating for a democratic state of Palestine encompassing what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories, where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship. Mistamystery (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the source to be cited for :

'and a removal of a majority of its Jewish population (though this official demand later softened)'?

I think this wording is too vague, especially the parentheses .

The thing that bothers me is ' individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship' . This characterization overlooks the fact that this democratic state, as proposed by the PLO, for instance, does not extend citizenship to Jews that immigrated to Israel after 1948 and their descendents. Marokwitz (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Marokwitz. The proposal is less well crafted than what Marokwitz wrote earlier. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

1968 revision of Palestinian National Covenant made clear Palestinian citizenship was only to be afforded to Jews living in Palestine “prior to the Zionist invasion” - which means 1914 (approx Jewish pop. At time 100,000). “Softened” refers to Algiers 1988 and agreements onward (though apparently the Covenant was never technically updated) Mistamystery (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Also pls take a look at addition recently made in “usage” section Mistamystery (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@PriusGod indeed you're right. One cannot simply focus on recent events. Therefore we must look at the long conflict and the manner the Arab leadership and Palestinian groups referred to Israel. Indeed the PLO from the 60s until the 90s and then again recently has referred to this in the manner of a One State solution where all Jews who made Aliya/immigrated would be banished.

Indeed you're absolutely correct that we must not simply look at this periodic time and look at the entirety of Hamas' history from the 1980s until today, during all of which they have called for the destruction of the State of Israel in reference to this slogan.

Indeed, the conflict is about 100 years old, therefore it is wise to look at the terminology of Arab leaders (Nasser, for example) and the local leader of the Arab community, Mufti Amin al-Husseini... I believe most said a variation of driving the Jews to the sea and exterminating the Jewish State.

Therefore, if we must look at the context of the conflict. It is fair to assume that the phrase has been used mostly in the context of eliminating Israel in one form or another.

I agree we must endeavor for neutrality and the encyclopedic representation of the facts. It appears that overall, the majority of use is directed toward the destruction of Israel. Another view is the elimination of Israel as a Jewish State and the establishment of One Arab State. And another view that has been used in the minority is the view that it should be about establishing a democratic One State or the freeing of Palestinians from oppression. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to my previous reply - the idea of establishing a democratic One State from the river to the sea has been documented; however, this characterization overlooks the fact that this democratic state, as proposed by the PLO, for instance, does not extend citizenship to most of the current inhabitants of Israel Marokwitz (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an incorrect characterization of the PLO's primary position. You can support it by taking a very narrow point in early history, or by finding fringe voices, but it is simply not their primary or mainstream position and must not be implied or characterized as such. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Inserting a break here. After reaching a paratial consensus, the remaining point of contention is the portrayal of the slogan's implications for the remaining Jewish population Mistamystery has put forth a suggestion, backed by references. I said that the proposed phrasing is awkward and lacks clarity. It might be beneficial to separate the discussion about the fate of the Jews in relation to the 'river to the sea' concept into a distinct paragraph of the lead. What do you think? Marokwitz (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to add clarity and purpose to suggested edit here. To merely imply the origins of the phrase indicated desired sovereignty over Mandatory Palestine obscures a full half of the originally stated intent - which was possession of the land and removal of most of the Jews living there.

The addendum of “later softened” only seemed appropriate so editors wouldn’t think I was trying to railroad the PLO/PNC position solely based upon its 1964-1988 position alone. It’s not necessary, and the usage paragraph now goes into detail on the evolution of this point, but just to attempt more balance for the lede.

That said, I think its pretty important to be clear in the lede that the original demand included population removal, not just assertion of sovereignty. Mistamystery (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Note sure, but perhaps we can reference the 'original [[Palestinian National Covenant]]' and place additional information in a footnote for precision. Ideally an academic secondary source should be cited. Marokwitz (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok - proposing this then:

“The slogan has been employed by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation, with origins in the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demanded a Palestinian state geographically encompassing the historic boundaries of Mandatory Palestine, and a removal of a majority of its Jewish population (though this official demand later softened).[1][2][3][4] Some insist it remains a call for the dismantling of the Jewish state. Conversely, the slogan may be interpreted as advocating for a democratic state of Palestine encompassing what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories, where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship. Others have simply said it stands for "the equal freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people.

Quotes to be cited from each source:

1. Article 6:

The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

2. “He stated that a precondition to a peace settlement would be "an explicit, declared change of the Palestinian Covenant. You cannot say, 'I am prepared to make peace with Israel,' holding this charter which states that Israel has no right of existence. that it must disappear, and that we want to establish a Palestinian state where only Jews living there before 1917 have the right of residence. This is impossible."

The Palestinian Charter: An Obstacle to Peace?

Author(s): Marc Rotenberg

Source: Harvard International Review, FEBRUARY 1980, :::Vol. 2, No. 5 (FEBRUARY 1980), pp. 8-10

Published by: Harvard International Review

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42759527

3. A further problem within the nationalist camp is represented by the revision of the Palestinian National Covenant. In the letter that Arafat wrote before the singing of the Declaration of Principles, he undertook to amend those parts of the Palestinian National Covenant calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, or any reference denying the legitimate right of existence of the Jewish state. The Oslo 2 Agreements confirmed (XXXI, 9) this pledge, and stated a two-months term from the inauguration of the Palestinian National Council. There is no real objection to the change of the Covenant, or to the adoption of a new covenant, because it is universally acknowledged that the text of the Covenant, adopted on May 28, 1964, is by and large outdated. Everybody knows that the declarations adopted by the Palestinian National Council (PNC) in Algiers, on November 15, 1988, which recognized the terms of the UN Resolution 242, implied the recognition of Israel and practically superseded the National Covenant. Thus, the criticism points, as usual, to the lack of democracy and to the fact that the change is not a result of free intra-Palestinian discussion, but the outcome of Israeli and American pressures.

THE PEACE PROCESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST: ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS

Author(s): Rodolfo Ragionieri

Soace Internati rationated of Pete i al ApproaChes an No. alcial Issue:

Specificities (July 1997), pp. 49-65

Published by: International Peace Research Association (IPRA)

Stable URL: https:/ / www.jstor.org/stable/45038320

4. At the beginning of February 2001, one hundred Palestinian personali-ties, including members of the Palestinian Authority's Executive Council and members of the PNC, met in Cairo under the chairmanship of the Speaker of the PNC, Saleem Za'nun. The participants decided to establish a National Independence Authority under the PNC. They passed a number of resolutions, one of which maintained that "the Palestinian National Covenant was still in force, because the PNC had not been convened for the purpose of approving changes in the Covenant and, especially, since the legal committee that should prepare the changes had not been set up."

Book Title: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process

Book Subtitle: Oslo and the Lessons of Failure -- Perspectives, Predicaments, Prospects

Book Editor(s): ROBERT L. ROTHSTEIN, MOSHE MA'OZ, KHALIL SHIKAKI

Published by: Liverpool University Press. (2015)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.3485507.9

(Revised) Mistamystery (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the citations, the first is a primary source that doesn't explicitly mention 'removal of a majority of its Jewish population,' although I agree this is a logical interpretation. The second source is behind a paywall - does it explicitly say 'removal of a majority of its Jewish population'? I think that an academic source would be preferred for such a contentious topic . Marokwitz (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There are definitely sharper sources. Will tag you when they’re here for review

For any other editors wondering about the “logical interpretation” mentioned: The Jewish population of the region at the commencement of the Mandatory period (which in most PLO sources is considered between 1914-1920) was approximately 100000 people. Meaning had the PLO had been successful in defeating Israel at the time, according to their charter, they would have expelled 96% of the population.

The second source was for the “later softened” parentheses. The acceptance of 242 (and later 1996 agreement to amend their charter) meant they set aside their original intentions to expel the Jewish population and changed course to establish a state on 1967 lands in accordance to UNR 242 - which is self evident enough if anyone reads 242.

I can find an article that makes that more explicit.

Also, I’m insisting on the wording “later softened” because there are plenty of Fatah officials who still speak (in Arabic media, rarely English - there’s a source live in the current page) of “From the river to the sea” as if 1988/1996 never happened. Also (apparently) the PLO never actually changed their charter, they just affirmed intent to (should the statehood path during Oslo make progress), but they never did (and affirm as much that it remains unchanged).

Mistamystery (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like to suggest a reorganized wording that is entirely grounded on the existing sources but is more clear and accurate. Let me know what you think:

The slogan has been utilized by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for the liberation of historic Palestine in its entirety[6], tracing its origins to the Palestinian National Covenant. It is interpreted in multiple ways: some see it as a call for the dismantling of the Jewish state[7][8] and the establishment of an Arab-Palestinian State, while others view it as simply demanding for Palestinians to have equal rights.[9] The nature of the envisioned state under this slogan is a point of contention. Secular groups like Fatah advocate for a democratic Arab state where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship, whereas Islamist groups call for the establishment of an Islamic state.

. Marokwitz (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Who are the words "dismantling of the Jewish state and the establishment of an Arab-Palestinian State" sourced to?

I continue to feel that Marokwitz and Mistamystery are relying on claims made by pro-Israel commentators to substantiate claims they propose to make in Wikipedia's voice. These pro-Israel commentators are not the users of the slogan, are not mind-readers, and have no sources to substantiate their claims. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read the entirety of the recent few comments. This entire conversation (and insistences being made) is actually about making sure any significant proposed changes happen not only with sourcing, but very quality, inarguable, neutral sourcing. If anything, I am getting appropriate pushback on proposed changes to make sure they are better sourced, so I really don’t know where this critique emerges from.

And please do not conflate editors or their intentions. I am acting of my own accord, and only in service of proper attention to the article. There is a discussion about potential revisions, per policy, that is all.

That said - @Marokwitz - I’m still pulling those sources on the first proposed revision. Not sure how I feel about your more recent proposal above, but will circle back with those sources for the first, plus feedback on yours as soon as I’m ready.

A reminder to all editors (and *please* correct me if I’m wrong): This page is about the history and use of a slogan. If anyone thinks the overall mandate, priority, or focus of the article is something else, I encourage them to start a topic below and outline is, so there is no confusion from any editor contributing.

Mistamystery (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the previous suggestion to include links to reliable sources. The aim is to describe the use and history of the slogan in a neutral and non-controversial manner, supported by solid and non-partisan sources. If you notice any point that is not properly substantiated, please correct me.

@Mistamystery, I believe this wording is an improvement over your original proposal for the following reasons: There appear to be two distinct controversies related to the term. The first is whether the term advocates for replacing Israel with Palestine, which is the more common interpretation that is consistent with the historic usage. However, it seems from the cited sources that some present-day protestors deny that they are calling for replacing Israel by Palestine and use the term more as a general call for Palestinian rights without reference to specific territories (Note: I am not sure if this is actually common use of the term, as I have not found this idea in academic literature, only in the news sources). The second controversy concerns the nature of the state called for by the term 'river to the sea' Palestine and what this implies for the existing Jewish citizens of Israel. Different groups have used the term to suggest different kinds of political solutions. So - I was thinking these issues should not be conflated but rather addressed separately. Marokwitz (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You still have not sourced the claim that some see it as a call for the dismantling of the Jewish state[8][9] and the establishment of an Arab-Palestinian State. Neither the Economist or the Chicago Sun Times make such a statement in their own voice - they quote third parties, and they quote many alternate views. We should attribute clearly who is saying what. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! In its analysis, The Economist states in its own voice — without quoting others—that "the decades-old expression also contains a threat: the river refers to the River Jordan, the sea to the Mediterranean, and freedom, in this context, suggests the destruction of the state of Israel." You are right about the Chicago Sun-Times, which quotes Jessica Winegar, a sociocultural anthropologist with expertise in the cultural politics of the Middle East. While we don't strictly need this source given the information from The Economist, it remains valuable because: 1) Winegar is a recognized expert commenting within her field of expertise; 2) the Chicago Sun-Times is a reliable secondary source; and 3) the claim is not "exceptional" in the meaning of WP:REDFLAG. Consequently, I believe that direct attribution is not mandatory, even if this were the sole source we had. Marokwitz (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz I have revised my initial proposed paragraph above, with new citations. Please take a look.

Here are my issues with your proposed revision:

1.Interpretation is only a matter for civic and non-political users of the phrase. The political usage of the phrase is not only absolutely explicit in almost all circumstances, it is usually backed up by political platform, programme, charters, or documents.

2.The attempt to draw a distinction between Secular and Islamist groups is not only factually inaccurate and irreflective of the evolution of these groups demands, it establishes a false dichotomy that doesn’t really exist in real life. The Fatah demand (which technically is a past demand, not a present one, thought this is up for debate) only “advocated for a democratic Arab state where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship” on the inherent condition that that state have an absolute Arab Muslim majority. And that doesn’t necessarily mean that an Islamic demand exists counter to a secular one. (One could say that some demands were secular and others were Islamist, but the insistence that upon its democratic-ness gets into murky waters).

Fundamentally, as I’ve said numerous times, this is an issue of origination, chronology, and evolution. The term enters the public record explicitly around the PNC and PLO political platform in the 1960s, and meant exclusively (and explicitly) the desire to obtain sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine and expel (or kill) all of the Jews that came after 1917. This only begins to evolve politically starting in 1988 (when Fatah stepped away from the phrase, and Hamas picked up the mantle). Later, this slogan was adopted by protest and civic movements, and its in those circles (and those alone) that the issue of interpretation and meaning emerged.

If anyone would like to make the argument that the slogan’s adoption by popular protest movements (in a manner different than the pre-1988 PLO or post-1988 Hamas definition), then please provide a source, because I have not yet seen any indication that that is the case.

Mistamystery (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Your analysis is very good. Providing a simple explanation encompassing all the historical nuances is challenging. The world is indeed complex. In the words of Pascal, "I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter."

I attempted to convey the concept of an 'Arab Majority' succinctly by using the term 'democratic Arab state.' - which I think is non-controversial and backed by the sources. You might consider employing this term and elaborating on the nuances in a footnote. Ensuring that the lead provides a concise overview is crucial. I was not too happy about "(though this official demand later softened)" which laves the nature of this softening quite vague. Marokwitz (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If anything, the “softened” wording is the best I could get to to provide a semblance of balance in the sentence (it felt very off to finish the sentence with “removal of a majority of its Jewish population”, when in fact the official PLO/PA stance had (somewhat) changed, and was important to point that out.

The issue is (as I believe is laid out pretty clearly with those citations in order) is that while Arafat basically nullified any irredentist anti-Israel claims in 1998 (with the Declaration of Independence), and in 1996 and 1998 with interim draft resolutions with the PNC, they not only have not officially changed the language of the 1968 charter revision, the PLO/PNC have confirmed numerous times that the charter remains unchanged.

Happy for other suggestions. Here is one alternate that just came to mind:

“(though these official demands were later effectively withdrawn)”

Mistamystery (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with this but do suggest adding a footnote with the more complete explanation, as it is not entirely clear if they were withdrawn or not - as you said the the charter remains unchanged. Marokwitz (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Mistamystery (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Revised. Mistamystery (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"Palestine will be Arab"

I'm increasingly seeing people claim the Arabic version of the chant states "Palestine will be Arab" instead of "Palestine will be free". This seems puzzling, since going by your page, the mainstream Arabic chant doesn't include "Palestine will be" anything. Is this something that might be worth discussing here? Vashti (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The article itself is about "From the river to the sea", so I'm not sure. You could see if it's in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article, if you want. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my concern is that it appears to be misinformation—either that or (based on my incredibly amateur Arabic googling) extremely, extremely what would be WP:UNDUE here. Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn't mention "from the river" at all. Vashti (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Israeli use of "From the river to the sea"

The article is simply titled "From the river to the sea", yet it only seems to discuss Palestinian or Palestinian supporter use.

"From the river to the sea" has also been used by Israeli politicians for example Tzipi Hotovely.

In 2015, she stated "Between the sea and the Jordan River, there needs to be one state, only the state of Israel."

The founding charter of the Likud party in its first article states “Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”

Possible sources that could be used: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/from-the-river-to-the-sea-what-does-the-palestinian-slogan-really-mean

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/from-the-river-to-the-sea-where-does-the-slogan-come-from-and-what-does-it-mean-israel-palestine

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11624355/World-should-recognise-Israels-historic-claim-to-land-from-river-to-sea-minister-says.html Ylftor (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Likud items is already in there (stronger sourcing indicates that it was the 1977 election platform, not the “founding charter” as some recent articles indicate (and was mostly likely pulled from an older version of this article and not actually cited from a proper source - hey citogenesis)

The Hotovely quote is absolutely relevant and should be added to the current section discussing the Likud usage, should anyone desire.

Mistamystery (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include it, but Hotovely's statement is more sensationalist, not covered as by academic literature, and by no means a 'trend' of high encyclopedic interest. I don't object to its inclusion, while maintaining minor WP:DUE weight. Marokwitz (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It is of great interest - look at this interview in UnHerd in which she is asked to explain the contradiction:[10]

Freddie Sayers (CEO of UnHerd): "In an earlier interview you gave before you were Ambassador, and this is a direct quote, you say, ‘Between the sea and the Jordan River, there needs to be one state, only the state of Israel.’ How can you condemn people for chanting ‘between the river and the sea’ in favour of Palestine, when you say the opposite in favour of Israel?"

Hotovely: "What I’m saying, and what they’re saying are totally different things. They don’t think that Jews should exist. This is a genocide intention. […] I’m not saying ‘from the river to the sea’. I’m speaking about coexistence […] They’re speaking about genociding the Jewish people. Can you actually understand what a huge gap there is? What they’re saying means not even one Jew between the river and the sea. Israel was never speaking about no Arab presence. We have 20% Arabs in our country. They are a minority that used to have the third largest party in Israel. So we are proud of coexistence."

Her mental gymnastics shows the heart of this propaganda claim in shining lights. She is saying "they are bad people so when they use it, it must mean bad things. But I am good so when I use it, it means good things". That is the root of the public debate about this slogan, and should be a sign to all editors here. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It is an interesting case, not saying otherwise, but she is a diplomat, confronted with a stupid saying from her past as a far-right B-grade politician and now having to explain herself from a diplomatic position is amusing. Is this related to anything greater than her personal opinion ? Does this indicate some trend within the Israeli society ? Not really. That's why I'm saying it can be perhaps inserted taking care not to provide undue weight to something that not really that significant in the grand scheme. Marokwitz (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It illustrates the well-known trend within Israeli society that talking about the whole Land of Israel as belonging to the Jews is mainstream. River to the sea has the same meaning as Land of Israel. The Palestinian slogan is really no different to the last two lines of the Hatikvah. The double standards in this anti-Palestinian PR campaign should be an embarrassment to all involved. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Claims of symmetry must be supported by reliable secondary sources; anecdotes do not constitute an appropriate method for establishing this in an encyclopedia. Marokwitz (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Over reliance on ADL

The ADL's position seems hugely over represented in this article and alternative sources should be found to to both counter their claims as well as to present their narrative from a more neutral position. Arguments;

• The ADL are not a neutral commentator in the debate. They are explicitly Zionist which, even internally to ADL is controversial. A

• The ADL (and this article more broadly) presents a heavily Americanised perspective of the subjects. Authors and commenters from the region or from other perspectives should be sought.

• the Americanisation of this article has made it very biased to one side of the debate. This article reads, predominantly and in the main, as if the subject were always hateful predicated almost entirely on ADL's assertion that Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic in absolute terms. A argument that isn't absolute nor decided. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 12:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The ADL, when used, must be attributed and stated explicitly as a pro-Israel organization.

And the article remains significantly unbalanced.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The ADL should not have been given emphasis in the article lede. It's been revised. As has more proper emphasis on modern civic usage in the lede.

Regarding any accusation of "Americanization" of the debate insofar as the term's meaning, I disagree, and I think the facts back it pretty clearly. We have basically two historical chapters of usage we're dealing with with the invocation of this phrase as part of the PI conflict: firstly usage by political groups 1960-2000, second its adoption by popular civic and protest movements.

The political usage (by PNC, PLO, Hamas, PIJ, etc) are always pretty explicit, and they go out of their way to be very clear as to what they mean by it. It's taken on a far more widespread interpretive bent the more it has come unto use by civic parties, and I think the article currently reflects this interpretive spread pretty well.

Mistamystery (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No it does not. The article remains unacceptably biased. As one of many examples, the highly contentious words you added to the lede "and a removal of a majority of its Jewish population"[11] are misleadingly sourced. The Rotenberg source you used to support it is quoting Shlomo Gazit, yet this is not made clear. This is not acceptable editing practice. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The 1968 revision of the PLO charter makes very clear on its own that the desired outcome at the time was the removal of all Jews “prior to the Zionist invasion” (which represented 96% of Jews present in Israel at the time of the drafting of that charter revision)

A secondary source was only even included at request by another editor to spell it out clearly (in case people had trouble inferrin what the charter said on its own). I can also add in quotes from the PLO leadership at the time that also spelled the desire to remove most of the Jewish population very clearly, but its an article lede, so it didn’t seem prudent to bombard it with a long citation run.

No Fatah historian would dispute any of this. It’s a well attested chronology and is by no means controversial.

If anything, the lede is excessively deferential to good faith interpretations of the PLO & PNC insofar as the charter articles in question are concerned. As pointed out here, as well as in Palestinian National Covenant, the 1968 Charter technically remains unchanged, despite proclamations they would do so.

And the clarification around Gatzit quote has been adjusted. As well there are numerous other available sources to spell out the meaning of Article 6. I was only abiding by a request.

Mistamystery (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC) (revised)

Again what you have written is misleading. You added a new source allegedly quoting Ahmad Shukeiri, but the same source said that Shukeiri immediately denied the press reports about the claimed statement. That is fundamental context missing. Your PLO charter interpretation is WP:OR and conflicts with secondary sources.

The claim you have made in the lede is of such significance that it needs the highest quality sources. You have brought no sources which directly confirm it.

This is just one example of many similar sourcing failures throughout the current version of this article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You are fundamentally mischaracterizing the source. In spite of Shukeiri's denials (which the source makes clear likely happened because he was professionally embarrassed) the summary of the piece (which is quote here in question) cites the likely conclusion as to whether or not Shukeiri said these things is that he did (to a Lebanese newspaper which is cited).

It's immaterial however, because Shukeiri himself confirmed he used the language in his own memoirs, and also confirmed it was used widely by other Arab Leaders at the time and he should not be bearing the blame (he received from critics on all sides - including Arab and Palestinian leadership).

I patiently remind the editor that we are to engage in WP:GOODFAITH, and to review sources and assertions thoroughly before contesting them.

Mistamystery (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Shemesh, Pg. 79

EVALUATION

The version in the Lebanese newspaper al-Yawm gives the impression of being closer to the truth than the doctored one in Shugayri's memoirs. Although radical, the statement does not appear to imply that he intended to throw the Jews who "remained in Filastin," into the sea "if any remained." His intention was that they would be deported overseas, by ship, to their countries of origin, in other words, by the same way they came to Israel. At the same time, his statement "in my estimate none of them would remain alive" obviously sounded like the intention to destroy or liquidate the Jews and that their fate was sealed. It certainly lent credibility to the claim that he had called for throwing the Jews into the sea. This statement was usually accompanied by reference to the extermination of the remaining Jews, or vice versa, namely the intention to annihilate the Jews was accompanied by a plan to throw them into the sea.''

Mistamystery (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Shemesh's "gives the impression" is weak language, because he had no actual evidence to parse between the different versions. His summary from Shuqayri's memoirs is below:

When asked whether this meant he was prepared to expel the Jews from Palestine, he answered: "This is not true. We oppose the State of Israel [but] not the Jews as such. We are struggling against Zionism and all the Zionists, whether in Filastin or abroad. The Palestinian Jews can remain in Palestine, so can the Jews who came from the Arab countries ... We ask nothing of them except one condition, and that is that they won't have any links [loyalty] to Zionism or the State of Israel." When asked, "What about the rest of the Jews?" Shuqayri stated, according to his account: "They will go back to where they came from. They came by sea, and by the sea they will return. We are ready to cooperate with the United Nations to facilitate their return to their first homeland." Afterwards he related how this slogan was transformed into the central theme of Israel's anti-Arab propaganda, and reiterated: "The story of throwing the Jews into the sea, that the Jews concocted in 1929, is similar to the anti-Semitic slogan they devised in Europe. What I stated at the press conference in Amman in June 1967 I already said a decade earlier—in 1957—in the United Nations with emphasis on 'we do not wish to throw the Jews into the sea.'

Whatever one reads into this, the public furore over the statement at the time was precisely because this was the only such statement claimed to have been made by a senior Palestinian politician at the time. To take one particular interpretation of this, and extrapolate it to claim that, as you have written: "...the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demanded... a removal of a majority of its Jewish population", is simply false. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

“Doctored one” - in reference to Shukayri’s memoirs, is a far stronger statement than the supposedly weak “impression” insistence you make. He is stating clearly that Shukeiry was lying in his memoirs, and there is a contemporary Arab news source stating clearly that Shukeiry directly intimated that the Jews not shipped out would be killed. It’s literally in the quote. There is zero historical debate that he said “in my estimate none of them would remain alive” - the only debate was if he said “Throw the Jews in the sea”.

That said, “Throw the Jews into the sea” was a very common motif made by Arab leadership from the 1940s-1960s, and this is beyond common knowledge. That is quite an extraordinary claim to say that this is the only instance of a claim of a senior Palestinian official in this period saying such things, when dozens upon dozens of quotes can be produced by arab leadership during this period making such claims. I would insist that you produce a citation affirming that all such claims are false or propaganda and that this is the only instance of such accusation before you make such a claim that the early PLO/PNC movement did not demand the removal of all or most of the Jews in Israel.

But, like I said - Shukeyri confirmed it *himself*. Not sure what memoir Shemesh was referring to, but as you may or may not be aware, Shukeyri wrote a bunch of books in his enforced retirement, including Dialogues with Secrets and Kings, in which he himself confirmed he used such language, and lamented he got so much blame for the 1967 war failure when the use of that language was common place amongst Arab leaders:

https://books.google.com/books?id=CFYBAAAAMAAJ&q=Apologia

Shukairy sank into obscurity, and later (in May 1971) published his apologia, which he called Dialogues and Secrets with Kings (in Beirut in Arabic). In it he defended his notorious demand 'to liquidate the state of Israel and throw the Jews into the sea' as being the accepted view then of the Arab heads of state, Arab politicians, who had since turned on him and prised him from office as had the Arab press..."

Again - like I said - practice good faith when challenging editors claims and edits. Mistamystery (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a red herring. What you wrote in the lede was "...the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demanded... a removal of a majority of its Jewish population", is simply false. It has been removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because you disagree (or are concerned it paints historical Palestinian leaders in a light you find unfavorable) does not make it a “red herring” simply because you claim it to be so, and your removal of these well researched and attested facts around the clearly stated desires of 1940s-1960s Arab & Palestinian leaders.

There are sources that have been cited, and I am requesting to see sources that indicate *any other* definition used by Arab and Palestinian leaders from this era when invoking “from the River to the sea” that doesn’t mean their removal.

If the 1968 charter (which, mind you, I still active) said that only Jews of Palestinian Origin were to remain citizens, what does it imply for the remaining 95%+ of Jewish Israeli citizens? Are you to imply that they had an alternate plan for all of those people that did not result in their removal?

Mistamystery (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding sourcing on this topic. Mark Durie is a senior fellow and research fellow here in Melbourne on this topic and the ME Forum. Perhaps adding from this page could give broader view and not just ADL.

https://markdurie.com/a-qa-primer-on-hamas-part-4/ HeddyV56 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Middle East Forum is not considered a WP:RS. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

1988 Algers Declaration

Presumably it should be Algiers. Jontel (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. Mistamystery (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Notable Quotes

What makes these particular quotes notable? Seems like a biased selection. Will delete, please justify prior to reverting. THEMlCK (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)