Talk:From the river to the sea

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)

I have to agree. In addition, the introduction has TOO many links. I would recommend a much slimmer introduction. Historyday01 (talk) 18:34, 9 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. [1] 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. [2] . 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)

The New York Times has now drawn the same connection in an article today: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/us/politics/river-to-the-sea-israel-gaza-palestinians.html

'Mr. Khalidi pointed out that Israel’s Likud party, which is led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, embraced a similar slogan in its original 1977 platform, which stated that, “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”'

Maybe we could just reference that?--Rxtreme (talk) 21:10, 9 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 [3].

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 [4].

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[5], 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[6][7] and the establishment of an Arab-Palestinian State, while others view it as simply demanding for Palestinians to have equal rights.[8] 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)

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:[9]

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"[10] 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)

Are these enough sources regarding recognition of Israel, extermination of Jews?

[11] Regarding PNC - On Israeli recognition "Despite claims to the contrary, nowhere in the PNC resolutions themselves is there any explicit recognition of Israel"

[12]Regarding PLO - commitment to destruction of Israel: "PLO and its leaders remained at bottom committed to Israel's destruction"

[13] Further info on PLO, PNC.

[14] Further info on Jewish referal

[15] Very good source, exactly on topic regarding Anti-Semitism, read thoroughly, it touches on several points already refered to.

[16] Another source in regards to destroying Israel, Jews, you can do a search on the sidebar of "destruction of Israel" and you'll find to both.

[17] Palestinian Media Watch - "Hatred for Muhammad and Islam is in their [Jews'] souls, they are naturally disposed to it... The time will come, by Allah's will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth." [Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), April 3, 2009] (On Hamas, one quote out of many)

[18] Another..." Meanwhile the endeavor to exterminate the Jews and destroy the state"

[19] "PLO's phased strategy, which gives the illusion of peace without renouncing its goal of Jewish extermination"

Homerethegreat (talk) 10:15, 7 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)

@THEMlCK you are not 500/30 yet. Appreciate the note but please refrain from page edits until you are ec. Thanks. Mistamystery (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Changes in Entirety of article

@Marokwitz, @Mistamystery, @Onceinawhile, @AnomieBOT

Included users who recently edited. Heavily contributed to page. Please note that in the past 12 hours there have been massive changes in the page. In contradition to WP:GOODFAITH. Such enormous changes which include the removal of Anti-Semitism title section, change of entire LEAD after we've already had a discussion surrounding this. We must do this in the right way.

Furthermore, there has been removals of information sourced by reliable sources. Again, very rash. Please refer to TALK page. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Please note I reverted page prior to great changes that occoured. Back to Version of 23:02, 5 November 2023‎ Jo Jc Jo.

01:30, 6 November 2023‎ AnomieBOT Latest version before I did RV due to heavy breach of goodfaith. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

In regards to that being said that there weren't enough citations to support PLO intent prior to OSLO to destroy Israel, I added citations. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat: please explain your objections to each of the edits you reverted:

1) 00:08, 6 November 2023 →‎Usage: add notable individual uses

2) 00:58, 6 November 2023 amend title as only two items in this section are about potential criminalization. Add more detail and better sources

3) 01:02, 6 November 2023 improve structure, remove overlap

4) 01:12, 6 November 2023 tidy up unsourced areas, combine related sentences

Please also read the section above #Over reliance on ADL. The sentence in the lede which states "...the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demanded... a removal of a majority of its Jewish population" is false and unsourced.

Which reliably sourced information has been removed?

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

[20] Regarding PNC - On Israeli recognition "Despite claims to the contrary, nowhere in the PNC resolutions themselves is there any explicit recognition of Israel"

[21]Regarding PLO - commitment to destruction of Israel: "PLO and its leaders remained at bottom committed to Israel's destruction"

[22] Further info on PLO, PNC.

[23] Further info on Jewish referal

[24] Very good source, exactly on topic regarding Anti-Semitism, read thoroughly, it touches on several points already refered to.

[25] Another source in regards to destroying Israel, Jews, you can do a search on the sidebar of "destruction of Israel" and you'll find to both.

[26] Palestinian Media Watch - "Hatred for Muhammad and Islam is in their [Jews'] souls, they are naturally disposed to it... The time will come, by Allah's will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth." [Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), April 3, 2009] (On Hamas, one quote out of many)

[27] Another..." Meanwhile the endeavor to exterminate the Jews and destroy the state"

[28] "PLO's phased strategy, which gives the illusion of peace without renouncing its goal of Jewish extermination"

1)Notables: Why notables? Why specifically their quotes? Based on what? Why their quotes without counter quotes (partisanship). Why not include then quotes by PLO, Hamas, PNC leadership? Yassar Arafat, Sinwar etc? They seem more notable, more weight.

2)Title - Why remove information, sources? Why remove reference to call for murder? Why remove Article 2 section? [29] (ref to article 2). Why remove sources, content, statements, without prior discussion?

3) Why remove Anti-Semitism Allegations? Why not put US usage under USAGE, why diminish? (Diminishment, already agreed through editing on Anti-Semitism Allegations as NPOV on title section). Your entire US section is just in reference to Hill of CNN? Why make entire new chapter, deleting prior title whilst it's still all about Anti-Semitism? If you want to split section then Anti-Semitism Allegation in US and then Anti-Semitism Allegation in Europe. Why remove word specific that is sure to be contentious? Breaches goodfaith. Without prior discussion.

4) Great change on agreed LEAD following discussion. Removal of info? Why not search for sources? Just point out that there is a need for citation or look for sources to support the LEAD statements. Goodfaith, editors' trust.

Overall big changes, removal of sources, removal of content following, change of nature of lead, change of content of article. Diminishment of sections. Etc. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

“Antisemitism allegations” should just be “controversy”

Antisemitism allegations doesn't seem neutral nor descriptive of the section content. I argue for three reasons;

• The anti-Zionism = anti-semitism argument is still an ongoing debate and naming the section in this way is loaded even though possibly not explicitly argumentative.

• Criticism of the chant, and what is included in the text, critise the chant for being both anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist. Yet all anti-Zionist criticism reference don't support the anti-Semitism arguments

• there are other criticisms, such as being pro-a terrorist organisation which isn't, in-and-of itself, exclusively anti-Semitic.

I also imagine in coming months this criticism section will grow to necessity the change in any case. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 10:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I originally broke the page out a few weeks ago, and merely added “criticism” and “controversy” sections. Have to look back at the who-why of the renaming to the section to “antisemitism” but I generally agree the categories should be more generic.

I also wonder if we should spin out political and civic usage of the language. A lot of the recent edit disputes seem centered on people being concerned that the civic usage is being misinterpreted as the political As I’ve stated before, the political usage (usually via political platforms and charters) is usually specific and very unambiguous, while the civic usage (as its expressive and not pursued policy) tends to have a wider range of variation and interpretation.

Mistamystery (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps the most biased element of the article at the moment is that it is written in a way to imply a connection between cherrypicked political references, sometimes with extrapolated interpretations, and wider civic usage. There is no evidence for such a connection, and it undermines the trust that readers have in Wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right not all anti-Zionist are anti-Semitic or in favor of terrorism. Indeed there is an ongoing debate regarding this. However there is also the element of denying the Jewish right to Self-determination which is considered anti-Semitic. Therefore, we must tread carefully here. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to make the edit as it seems like there isn't any disagreement and we have consensus. I see people engaging with other topics on this talk page and there seems to be no strong disagreement to this.

I agree with @Homerethegreat:'s comment that there can be a connotation, and it should still be included in the criticism section yet shouldn't be the title.

I agree with @Mistamystery: and @Onceinaehile: regarding the "civil" usage but think this falls outside of the criticism category. There is currently a societal commentary missing from here that need to be contextualised. I think we need a section, or at least a paragraph on each, that covers:

• it's use as a political slogan by Hamas.
• it's use as an antagonistic chant that promotes terrorist, anti-Zion sentiment and anti-Semitic.
• it's use as an emancipatory chant by an oppressed people. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 10:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend the name: Criticism and Controversy

That way we strike two birds with one stone :) Homerethegreat (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

For now, later on as the article will grow it can change of course. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to expand to include controversy but I would say to do so we need to balance the controversy across the arguments. I would say criticism is much narrower to specific arguments where as the controversy is more widely societal. I would say in addition to those in my previous comment, and I'm sure there are others, but this would include;

• controversy surrounding the criminalisation of the chant in some countries (free speech, anti-Palestinian etc…)
• the Zionist-weaponisation of the slogan (I don't mean that to sound loaded but I hope for the sake of brevity you can forgive me) and opposition to it being anti-Semitic.

I do believe these points are within the scope of the article. However, I also feel like this article has the potential to be used for a wider purpose than the slogan and we need to consider whether there is need for a specific Palestinian emancipation article more broadly. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"anti-Zionism = antisemitism" isn't an ongoing debate; it's an outright fallacy. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's right. Though I guess it's possible that the chant may be antisemitic, but just not exclusively because it may be anti-Israel. starship.paint (RUN) 14:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It is, several proponents of anti-Zionism deny the Jewish right to self determination. The specific denial of the Jews' right to self determination is considered by many as anti-semitic. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate on the scope of how much of anti-Zionism falls in anti-Semitism. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So, because some anti-Israel people are considered to have antisemitic views, therefore "anti-Zionism = antisemitism"?? More like "antisemitism -> anti-Zionism" (if A then B) but not necessarily "anti-Zionism -> antisemitism" (if B then A). Affirming the consequent fallacy? starship.paint (RUN) 14:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It actually goes beyond this, since Zionist antisemitism is also a thing. Many of the earlier Christian Zionists were thoroughly antisemitic, so if we theoretically take the same flawed logic above, and apply it to Zionism, you could even say that Zionism = antisemitism - that's exactly how flawed this argument is. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Difference is, PLO, PNC, Arab Leadership advocated anti-semitic goals, rhetoric. (Main bodies advocating)

The main Zionist bodies (World Zionist Congress, Jewish Agency, State of Israel) are not anti-semitic.

So that's why it doesn't equote. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is that generalisation is flawed in all cases. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

We could flip it and see if the logic holds, this is purely hypothetical: several proponents of Zionism deny the Palestinian right to self determination. The specific denial of the Palestinian right to self determination is considered by many as Islamophobic. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate on the scope of how much of Zionism falls in Islamophobia. starship.paint (RUN) 14:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"encompassing the historic boundaries of Mandatory Palestine"

The later part of this section…

with origins in the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demanded a Palestinian state geographically encompassing the historic boundaries of Mandatory Palestine

… needs to be reformulated as these "initial charters" originally read

Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

[emph. mine]

-- 2003:EA:F13:DD00:FA9E:94FF:FEEC:9B31 (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

“…removal of a majority of its Jewish population.”

I agree with the proposals listed under “Structural Problems”, which may render this redundant. Nonetheless, in lieu of these changes (or if the same language is to be reused in a restructured article) I think this merits a serious discussion, as it is perhaps the animating claim motivating an article on the topic of this slogan.

In the introduction of this article, it is claimed that the PNC’s 1968 charter called for “the removal of the majority of [Israel’s] Jewish population.” Nothing of the sort is contained in said charter, and of the seven sources appended to that claim only one — source 6, citing an academic paper quoting a newspaper, which in turn quoted Ahmad al-Shukeiri — includes any reference to the removal of Jewish residents. Shukeiri was never (to my knowledge) a member of the PNC. By the time of the charter’s publication, he had resigned from the PLO, in part in response to the widespread condemnation of the quoted response in question. To suggest this quote reflects the views of the PNC by the time of the charter’s publication would, therefore, require substantiation.

All six of the other sources refer exclusively to the supposed illegitimacy of the Israeli state. Whether the slogan refers only to the establishment of a single Palestinian state, or whether it calls in addition for the expulsion of the (non-Palestinian) Jewish people currently living in Israel, is precisely the controversy which prompted the creation of this article and, as such, should by no means be taken for granted in the interpretation of its sources.

It is true that the charter does not describe most Jewish citizens of Israel as Palestinian. (Nor would the state of Israel.) The charter, however, does not say that non-Palestinians should be expelled from the region in the creation of a Palestinian state. It is quite possible that non-Palestinians, including non-Palestinian Jewish people currently living in Israel, could live freely under a Palestinian state: something like this is in the case in most countries in the world. (For instance, there are many people living happily and safely in the state of Israel who are not Israeli, and many people living happily and safely in Britain who are not British.) If the PNC had said non-Palestinians could not live under a Palestinian state, or that they would expel them in the creation of such a state, they did not say so in this charter. If there is reason to believe that was nonetheless the intention behind the charter, or behind other contemporary uses of the slogan, they should be given and sourced. Either way, I think this part of the introduction should be substantially rewritten, and the question of expulsions discussed, there or elsewhere, in more explicit and careful detail. BarryBoosta (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and well said. I have been trying to make this point for a while. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@BarryBoosta The phrasing appears to be a violation of the no original research policy, since it doesn't appear to be in any of the sources. One of the sources did interpret the charter as saying that all Jewish immigrants after 1917 I think are illegal residents. The charter itself does call the zionist immigration illegal, and doesn't recognize them as citizens.

The phrase calling for most jewish removal appears to be someone's inference/original research, and not explicit in the charter or other citations.

In sum, I agree it needs to be reworded to be more precise. Amthisguy (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to reliable sources already in place of the article which refer to the the PLO charter until the 1990s (can't recall which year specifically) calling for the destruction of Israel + rhetoric of Arab leadership, especially between 1948-1967 calling to drive the Jews to the sea or some of the format of banishing the Jews. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Usual charter refers to removal of all Jews who arrived after 1917. This constitutes the majority of Jews (since most Jews in the region immigrated/made Aliya). Homerethegreat (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat I think we need a distinction between what the charter said and what the leadership said. Also driving Jews into the sea, is a call to genocide, not removal, so there's that.

From what I read the charter calls Jewish immigration after 1917 illegal, which implies expulsion, but doesn't explicitly state it. Amthisguy (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Just for absolute clarity:

1. There is abundant usage of "from the river to the sea" by Palestinian and Arab leadership circles starting in the 1960s. This is where the almost exclusive usage of the phrase popularizes and doesn't reach protest or civil movements until much later. As I've said previously, I've yet to see the usage of the phrase from any source or citation outside of the political sphere prior to the 1990s.

2. Arab and Palestinian leadership up until the 1967 "catastrophe" was pretty constant and consistent in their calls to either kill or remove all of the Jews in Israel. This is not a controversial position - everyone from Nasser to Assad spoke widely of this - and it was only after 1967 that the Arab position realized it was not in their interests to continue speaking this way. This is actually what Robin Kelley was referring to in the shift in 1969 - Shukeiri's comments were widely blamed by Arab leadership for having a terrible impact on the 1967 war and subsequent international reaction, and a platform shift was implemented widely by Arab and Palestinian leadership to soften the rhetoric.

3. The PNC charter from 1964 says only Jews prior to 1948 would remain citizens of a Palestinian state, and Palestinian leadership was very clear that all others were to be repatriated to their countries of origin. (also must be noted that this is at the same time that the leader of the PLO was busy saying he would expect all the Jews in Palestine to be killed - his words not mine) 1964 Jewish population was in excess of 2 million people, so the 600,000 Jews in Mandatory Palestine that would be allowed to stay represent a minority.

4. The 1968 charter revision knocks that date back to 1917 ("beginning of the zionist invasion") when the Jewish population was a little under 100,000. Again, clear advocation for removal of a majority of the Jewish population.

5. Hamas charter 1988 makes abundantly clear the entirety of Palestine is a waqf under Islamic mandate, and then invokes Hadith instructing people to seek out and kill Jews. This is supported by Hamas leadership comments, that they desired to kill all of the Jews, and was only altered in the 2017 revision (where they changed course and said they were targeting only zionists, not Jews).

I'm getting a strong feeling that some people here are simply not comfortable with the fact that the above was the case (at least for a time). We are not here to pick and choose what is comfortable or convenient to support partisan positions. Sometimes historical things are uncomfortable but factual and we need to state them exactly as they are (and in this case, all of the seemingly outlandish items are all well attested and citable - and more so, historical scholars on the subject would consider none of the above controversial or unsupportable in the least... Our job here is to be neutral and provide a clear and concise picture as to the history and usage and evolution of the phrase.

Mistamystery (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If that’s the case, it should be discussed and sourced in the article. Without such a discussion and substantiation, what’s currently included in the article is inappropriate and the attribution of this to the charter still seems misleading.

———

To go briefly into the specifics of the PLO/PNC charters: in the translation I’ve seen (from the AICE’s Jewish Virtual Library), Articles 3-7 of the 1964 charter (as in the cited translation of the 1968 charter) seem to determine only which people they consider “Palestinian,” and do not specify what the citizenship status of non-Palestinians would look like after Palestinian liberation. One way of reading it would be that only Palestinians would be citizens. If there’s reason to believe that is the correct interpretation, and that was indeed the intention of the PLO or PNC, then these reasons are what should be discussed in the article — the charter itself is not a good source to cite in support of this view. For instance, a competing interpretation of these Articles would be that one of the chief aims of the charter is to give a political definition of the Palestinian people, as a diasporic nation which is specifically arab but not specifically muslim, in contrast to the views expounded at that time by, for instance, Hamas. The situation of Article 7 immediately after Article 6 may, for instance, by taken by some to support this. (I’m not saying that this is the correct interpretation, I just mean to suggest that multiple interpretations are compatible with the charter on its face and so I don’t think the text of the charter gives in itself a sufficient basis to support the interpretation taken for granted by the article.)

As for the Hamas charter: it seems a bit strange to gloss statements by the PLC on the basis of the views of their opponents. I don’t think it would be reasonable, for example, to interpret what a Democrat meant by “a fair tax policy” on the basis of what Republicans said on the topic. It may be that the two agree, but other evidence would be appropriate to substantiate that claim. BarryBoosta (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Criticism section is misleading

The current criticism section implies that only critics of the slogan see it as a call to genocide or expulsion of Jews, or against Jewish self determination in their historic homeland. These different views come from adherents of the slogan, not critics. Amthisguy (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Previously the title was Anti-Semitism allegations. Are you proposing we return to that? Homerethegreat (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

There is already discuss above relating to the renaming. Please maintain in one thread. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 14:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I know, I just didn't understand what @Amthisguy was trying to imply... Homerethegreat (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed re-write for Criticism section

Following the thread above regarding the title of the Criticism section and further threads and, more broadly, the in an effort to address the overall bias problem of the article I propose a re-write of the existing section, maintaining the main content but further simplifying and balancing to reflect the concerns of those engaged in the discussion. @Mistamystery: @Onceinawhile: @Homerethegreat: @Onceinawhile: @Iskandar323: @Starship.paint:

Further context for the below changes can be found in hidden text in the source. Similarly, you are free to edit the entry on the sandbox article I have made. I suggest major issues for discussion and minor edits can be made agreed in substance. I propose the below re-write;

References

Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 14:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I have no time to respond to this properly today. I will also say that I (and everyone else) did not receive the ping that was intended, Jo Jc Jo, because you did not meet the requirements for a successful ping: The edit must add new lines of text, not just edit existing lines. The edit must be signed by adding ~~~~ to the end of the message starship.paint (RUN) 15:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery, Onceinawhile, Homerethegreat, Onceinawhile, Iskandar323, and Starship.paint:

Thanks for prompting. I will try pinging in response to your message rather than editing.

Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 16:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry @Jo Jc Jo- can you outline (or point to) please in more detail what you think the “bias problem” is in the article?

Mistamystery (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course @Mistamystery:. My reason for the " in an effort to address the overall bias problem of the article" comment is in relation to the article-wide WP:NPOV tag rather than any personal motivation for the bias. I think broadening this section's title to Criticism (beyond "Antisemitism allegations") was a good start and the rational for this can be found above. But there are also concerns in TALK: Antisemitism allegations” should just be “controversy”, TALK: Over reliance on ADL, TALK: Lead dominant View and TALK: Bias topics all indicting general and specific bias issues in the article overall. Specifically, what I looked to address while doing this edit was;

• Contextualising ADL and AJC as possibly not neutral authorities on this matter.
• Try to contextualise, and nuance, the anti-zionism/ anti-semitic arguments in the rational of criticism.
• Try to strike some WP:DUE & WP:NOTWHOSWHO by reducing the text length of the, on balance of relevance, unimportant list politicians being punished.
• Ensure it remains focused on criticism. For example, by moving the FA ban to the "criminalisation" section.
• Broaden the motivations for criticism while also leaving room for further contributions. For example, by also including perceived support for Hammas as a criticism (which was already referenced in the existing references but noticeably omitted from the article).

I hope this is useful and articulates the motivation well. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 16:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the breakdown, but would dispute that the above assertions are indicators of an overall bias issue.

In response:

1. The ADL reference in the lede was identified and removed on your recommendation. The organization now only appears twice in the article overall, and once is merely in reference to the Hill firing.

2. Understand lumping together ADL and AJC insofar as they are Jewish advocacy organizations, but I would dispute that in terms of bias and reliability they are exactly in the same column. We also don’t have to highlight these organizations to point out that politicians and advocacy groups consider it to assign certain meaning to the phrase. (There are also plenty of other organizations and voices that can be cited)

3. Happy to get in on parsing the anti-Zionism vs anti-semitism issue. Funny, checking now and realizing the word “Zionism” or “zionist” doesn’t appear in the article at all (outside of citations). That said, militant organizations advocating for the killing of Jews because they’re Jews is anti-semitic. If there is a quote from a topic-valid person or group advocating for use of the phrase (or implementation of a political solution based around the phrase) that they consider to be anti-zionist and explicitly not anti-semitic, I’m sure there’s an appropriate place for that in this article.

4. Eager firstly for more votes on the matter, but I don’t agree with your proposed re-edit of the criticism section. I think what’s in there is actually a tight edit of relevant incidents and valid analysis and to shorten it any further runs the risk of removing relevant material and or whitewashing of the matter when nuanced reporting is needed, as well as this is a rather active topic at the moment.

5. The McDonald note, while relevant insofar as an active topic on the matter, may be excessive with the inclusion of the quote. I personally would consider keeping the line about his suspension, but I think the usage of the quote may be perceived as excessive.

Hopping into some work but plan on putting a sharp eye on the article based on your concerns later in the day. Cheers.

Mistamystery (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will just respond where I can add to the discussion.

• I've tried to be balanced with ADL, AJC language. My justification for the edit is secondary, the important part is the result and the result is a nuanced edit, so outright calling them biased I wouldn't support either but mentioning they are jewish organisations is important context. As such I would disagree with removing such context. It's important to include because most politicians and most discussions refer back to ADL in particular to validate their position. ADL and AJC seem to be the primary source for all others.
• I think your conflated with your anti-zionism argument. Again, quesioning my motivation is less relevant than the result. I think the argument is nuanced in my edit that presents this argument in a balanced wy. There has been substantial discussion about Zionism on the talk page. In any case, my motivation is less important than the result. If you feel like discussion is needed on the anti-zionism I would suggest we take that to another thread or one of the previous threads
• In the global context Andy McDonald is an insignificant politician who once said this phrase. I highly oppose the lengthening the article in this regard. he plays an insignificant role in the history of this phrase, he plays an insignificant role in political impact of this phrase and he is unimportant. Include a deeper analysis of his words on his own article but not here. The edit is concise and of appropriate length and inline with WP:DUE & WP:NOTWHOSWHO. As for it being an "active topic" wikipedia is not a newspaper.

Look forward to your edits! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Also should ping @Marokwitz since he took part in the building of several sections of this article. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a little lacking. For one thing it's not just Jewish organizations such as ADL, AJC etc but non Jewish ones as well (If you wish you can add bodies such as US congress that have censured a US representative for using it as such, as well as other groups). Sentence makes it seem as if it's only Jews who think that. Furthermore I don't see why the explanation of why it is viewed as anti-Semitic should be reduced. It ought to be further explained why this is considered as such and not make it as short as the Lead version. Furthermore, it's not all about Hamas. This phrase has been used such by PLO, PNC, Arab leadership etc. Therefore, this new proposal is removing key information that would make it appear as if this phrase is used only in relation to Hamas (it isn't). Homerethegreat (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Homerethegreat:

I will just comment where I can add further to the discussion or specifically address your concerns:

• The US Congressional censure is included in my proposed revision. (I wonder if you are viewing from mobile where the full proposal text doesn't display)
• I do not believe I have reduced the explanation of why it is viewed as anti-semitic. In fact, I have included links to the anti-zionism article directly which was is not currently in the article which has fuller details of Anti-Zionism/ antisemitism for those interested in further reading.
• The phrase has been used by "PLO, PNC, Arab leadership" hence why it is mentioned in the "Usage" section. This is the "criticism" section. One cannot have criticism that the phrase may indicate support for PLO, PNC or other Arab leaders as they are all recognised as legitimate. Criticism of using the phrase to support the PLO and PNC isn't criticism: It's disagreement. The criticism is that it is used to support Hammas, a terrorist organisation.

Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 11:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps you misunderstood me, the PLO, PNC have expressed support for banishing the Jews, destruction of Israel etc. Therefore, their usage of this phrase should be included since criticism isn't just against Hamas but against all those who use the phrase in this connotation. And that includes those organizations as well as Arab Leadership. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but:

• That doesn't change that using the phrase to support PLO, PNC, in itself, isn't a criticism.
• The PLO and PNC using the phrase to be anti-semitic is a criticism of the PLO and PNC, not of the phrase (which is the subject of this article). I believe you are proposing a list of "people and organisations who have used this phrase and are, therefore, anti-semitic". I don't think that's within the remit of this article.
• If the PLO and PNC are using it in a anti-semitic way then this is explained and is covered with the overall result of the section. I believe the summary of the proposed edit is "The criticism is anyone using the phrase is anti-zionist and therefore antisemitic because it incites genocide against jews. AND ALSO because it supports a terrorist organisation."

Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 12:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single source in usage prior to 2000 that does not directly connote the usage of the term "from the river to the sea" that does not directly connect to political platforms demanding removal of a majority of the Jewish population, or its use in expressly political (and not protest) circles in which its meaning is unambiguous.

Happy to be corrected here - but I have yet to see a single source to indicate to the contrary.

There is a progressive adaptation here that cannot be ignored. Just because protest groups decided *later* that they either were unaware of its prior meaning, or opted out of its meaning, does not erase its origin. That means its inherent genesis and meaning is - by above criteria -

Also - no one is saying that the mere usage of the phrase makes the person anti-semitic. It's like the recent debates around the word "spaz" (that forced Beyonce to re-edit a lyric on one of her songs). She herself did not know it originated from a prejudiced term used to describe disabled people. But once she was informed of its origin, she changed the lyric because she did not want to be perceived to be supporting its original meaning, or disparaging disabled people.

Mistamystery (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to keep my response concise @Mistamystery:

• A direct criticism, proposed deletion, or addition would be useful in this case. We can academically and principledly discuss the topic but a suggested improvement to the edit could move us to some consensus and also to focus the discussion on specifics.
• I cannot see how my proposal does anything to negate the criticism that the phrase is antisemitic. It is quite directly and explicitly stated. The criticism is that the phrase is antisemitic, the edit says the criticism is the phrase is antisemitic. I'm unsure of your concrete criticism? Please excuse me for maybe not getting it.
• I'm hesitant to enter into a debate on your initial point as I don't think it's particularly relevant to the discussion but below are sources that explain since it's inception, the phrase has been used to mean different things by different groups.[30], [31], [32], [33],[34].
• Without sounding to be rude, could I point your attention towards WP:TPG for some pointers on ensuring an edit proposal discussion can be productive.

Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 12:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

nytimes coverage

Here. Also includes another reliable source, Ahmad Khalidi, discussing Likud's usage. nableezy - 03:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources for line on usage

The line Some Islamic militant groups (including Hamas and Islamic Jihad) and Arab leaders (such as Saddam Hussein) came to utilize the slogan when calling for the supplementation of Israel with a unified Palestinian state, sometimes also proposing the removal of all or most of its Jewish population. has the following sources:

1. 1 minute Sky News piece
2. American Jewish Committee
3. Ynet: Austria’s Nehammer says pro-Hamas chants will become criminal offense
4. ADL
5. Reuters: 'From the river to the sea' prompts Vienna to ban pro-Palestinian protest
6. Wistrich - The Old-New Anti-Semitism
7. QudsNet

Now 1 ends the piece by saying "Some extremists have co-opted the phrase, they take it to mean the area will be all Palestine at the expense of Israel", and earlier "for others, including many Jewish groups, it is seen as a call to arms for the destruction of Israel". Supports the first part of the sentence, not the second. The second source is by the AJC, you simply cannot use the political opponents of a group, and the AJC is explicitly aligned with Israel (see their about page for example) to define that group. You likewise cannot use Hamas saying Israel is blah blah blah and source that as a fact. Sure, you can include the AJC feels this way, but not that it is true in Wikipedia's voice. Next, the Ynet article says nothing but Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer met with opposition leader Yair Lapid on Wednesday, where he told him that chants supporting Hamas, including calls like “from the river to the sea,” will become a criminal offense in Austria. Nowhere does that support anything to do with what it is cited for. Next, the ADL, same thing as the AJC. Next, the Reuters piece. It has the head of Vienna's police force saying "Puerstl said the police interpreted that in the current context as a "clear call to violence", adding that it meant wiping Israel off the map". Now that is fine for a police chief to feel that way, it does not mean that Reuters, or we, accept it as fact. Next, Wistrich. It contains For the Ba'athis, Israel was always an artificial "implant" in the Middle East, a multi-tentacled "octopus", a "deadly cancer" or an "AIDS virus" to be burned up, as Saddam Hussein publicly threatened to do shortly before the first Gulf War. Only two years ago he declared on Iraqi television: "Palestine is Arab and must be liberated from the river to the sea and all the Zionists who emigrated to the land of Palestine must leave." That supports such as Saddam Hussein and thats it. Finally, QudsNet. It has an Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades commander saying انطلاقة حركة فتح التي أسسها الشهيد ياسر عرفات، هدفت إلى تحرير كامل التراب الوطني الفلسطيني، من النهر إلى البحر. (the aim of the Fatah movement, since its launching by the martyr Yasser Arafat, has been to liberate all of the Palestinian territory, from the river to the sea). That supports that the phrase was used by a Fatah commander, but nothing about the removal of all or most of its Jewish population. In fact it doesnt use the word Jew anywhere in the article. And it is OR to take a quote and attempt to claim it supports a general trend. Requesting somebody establish how the "and Arab leaders (such as Saddam Hussein" and everything past "unified Palestinian state" is well-sourced/due weight, as we have a single statement by a single Arab dictator to make a sweeping generalization that only applies to him in the sources. nableezy - 04:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Will get in on this. There has been a lot of nilly shifting of content over the past week without appropriate shifting of citations.

Quickly:

1. There previously was a verbatim quote from Saddam Hussein. Someone removed it and failed to preserve the citation.

2. Already a discussion on de-emphazsizing the ADL and AJC (frankly the section shouldn’t even be named “Jewish organizations”, there are other options so far as political entities and advocacy organizations are concerned for this line.

3. Other Arab leaders used this phrase. Citations were offered up in a previous talk page convo, and can be inserted to support the “arab leaders” contention.

4. Statements made by Fatah representatives must be taken in kind with their official charter - as they are acting on behalf of it and give tacit endorsement of all its points as representatives of the organization.. The charter advocates for removal of Jews, and technically the 1968 charter is still active.

Mistamystery (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

No, sources need to directly support the material they are being cited for. Not some meandering justification about a 1968 charter and how a statement by a lone representative must be read in a certain light. Which sources directly support the material in the article, and how is the later part due given the sourcing? nableezy - 05:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s not “a 1968 charter” - it is the sole active charter of the PLO, and has been affirmed as such by the PLC on numerous occasions since. It is the operating mandate of the entire organization. Mistamystery (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

See Palestinian_National_Covenant#Palestinian_views Mistamystery (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not care. What sources directly support the material in the article? Without OR or your own personal opinions on how things must be understood. nableezy - 05:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s not remotely personal opinion to presume that an official speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the organization they belong - while citing the founder of said organization’s express purpose to “liberate the entire Palestinian national territory, from the river to the sea" - is also acting in line with said organization’s charter and express intent laid out within.

You deciding to care what is and isn’t valid seems to be the only personal inference here.

(Also, the above quote used to be in the citation and someone hence removed it - leaving only a bare link - so maybe that needs to be restored). People have been very sloppy with this page recently. Very unkind.

Mistamystery (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we require sources to directly support the material they are cited for. A Fatah official making a statement "the aim of the Fatah movement, since its launching by the martyr Yasser Arafat, has been to liberate all of the Palestinian territory, from the river to the sea" only supports that a Fatah official made such a statement, it does not directly support any of the material in the article besides he used the phrase. So, once more, what sources directly support the material in the article? Because Im about to start removing the ones that do not. nableezy - 05:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You said "Requesting somebody establish how the "and Arab leaders (such as Saddam Hussein" and everything past "unified Palestinian state" is well-sourced/due weight" and I'm saying the citations have been mangled, removed, or misplaced from a number of irresponsible edits over the past week. Nothing in the sentence is (imho) profoundly controversial or hard to source properly...this is not a difficult fix.

Requesting a small sliver of time to perform the fix as requested before things just get removed. Mistamystery (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

By all means. nableezy - 06:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

In connection to your statement: "I do not care". Encyclopedic research demands we take into account the complex systems that encompass this matter. Saying you don't care does not contribute to the discussion and may promote ill things amongst editors. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

No, our encyclopedia demands that we use sources that directly support the material they are cited for. Not some person on the internet saying "no this doesnt support the material but in my view x, y, and z must all be taken in to account when reading this source to gain the correct understanding of what it means". nableezy - 13:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed there were several citations that were removed. Out of good faith I will assume it was done by mistake. However Arab Leadership is not just Sadam Hussein but others over time. Furthermore, I have added at least nine sources that directly refer to the removal of Jews, or destruction of Israel. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

And how many of those discuss usage of the phrase "from the river to the sea" and are not your OR attempts to SYNTH together material that does not directly support what the article claims? nableezy - 14:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

OR

There seems to be synth in the lead, where it says

Political groups have employed the slogan 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.

The sources all cited do refer to removal of the Jewish population, but most (all?) of them make no mention to the slogan "From the river to the sea".VR _talk 04:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Have been wondering if “platform” or “political platform” is a more appropriate word than “charters” - the original PNC general platform was quite clear on the subject and general concept, and usage of the slogan was widespread enough by its leaders at the time (and can be amply cited).

I have been operating under the notion that whomever wrote the top of that phrase (wasn’t me, its been in for a while) was referring to the general political programme that the PLO was operating under - during which they were introducing/using the phrase. I never took it as the phrase existing in those charters - but the genesis of the concept as meaning the entirety of “the historic boundaries of mandatory Palestine” etc.

Mistamystery (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that WP:SYNTH is being used here:

1. "From the river to the sea" was used by certain Palestinians.

2. These Palestinians believed in expelling most of the Jewish population.

3. Therefore the phrase "from the river to the sea" is associated expelling the Jewish population.

Sources on this topic need to be about "from the river to the sea", else they are most likely being used in a WP:SYNTH manner.VR _talk 05:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't look at all the sources, but I did check that neither the 1964 nor the 1968 Palestinian documents use this slogan. Therefore, VR has a good case that this sentence is a SYNTH violation. Actually, unless one of the sources makes the connection explicit (in which case the others should be removed), it looks like a textbook example of SYNTH. Zero^talk 09:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This article has essentially turned in to an editor's research project, which by itself is prohibited, but additionally has proven itself to be shoddily researched. nableezy - 13:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism Revert

I have reverted the article due to vandalism by Recobben2. This collaterally reverted constructive edits by @Mistamystery, Iskandar323, and Vice regent: I will attempt to redress these manually, my apologies. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 11:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Quote from 2017 charter is truncated in a way that radically changes its meaning

Here is section 20 of the Hamas charter, taken from https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full, unabridged:

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.

Take note of the key word However that appears in that paragraph! The Charter says that Hamas ultimately rejects any alternative to liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea, BUT for the sake of national consensus (i.e. to allow them to work with moderates like Fatah) they are willing, for now, to work towards the establishment of a state along the 1967 lines. The only way this logically makes sense is if liberation "from the river to the sea" means something fundamentally different to establishing a fully sovereign & independent state along the 1967 lines. The first sentence of the section more of less tells us what that different meaning is: namely, the total elimination of the Israeli state (i.e. "the Zionist entity", which section 19, above, says Hamas reject the legitimacy of) such that all the land that is currently Israel will belong to the state of Palestine.

But the article merges two separate sentences together and removes the "however" to make it look like the phrase "liberation ... from the river to the sea" is instead being used to mean a state along the 1967 lines:

Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea [...] along the lines of the 4th of June 1967

This completely changes the meaning of the entire section of the charter, and also gives the the impression that in the context of the charter the phrase "liberation ... from the river to the sea" is used with a moderate meaning (just the establishment of a fully independent Palestinian state) when in reality it is used with an extreme one (the elimination of Israel as a state).

It seems to me that the simplest solution is to just delete that tacked on bit of another sentence - i.e. delete " [...] along the lines of the 4th of June 1967" from the article. This still leaves the reader at risk of being a little misled about what position the Hamas charter takes on Israel (which is somewhat nuanced - it can roughly be summarised as "we reject its right to exist and won't compromise on this... but we're willing to put that on pause and work towards a Palestinian state that cooexists with Israel, for now, as an intermediate objective"), but it's no more misleading about that than the current butchered quote is, and crucially it won't mislead the reader about how the charter uses the phrase "from the river to the sea" which is the whole topic of the article.

ExplodingCabbage (talk) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, people are cutting out whatever isnt convenient to the story line they want to tell here. nableezy - 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@ExplodingCabbage:

1. I made this edit and would only mean to do so for the purpose of using the relevant information that is clear and transparent. I did so in accordance with the reference I've cited which has made the quote in exactly the way I have done [35].
2. "Take note of the key word However that appears in that paragraph" this is WP:OR. You assert that it says "rejects any alternative" when it in fact says "the Zionist entity".
3. Even if I agreed with your conclusions, the resulting text is still fair and correct- " from the river to the sea means the liberations of Palestine [here are our motivations and reasons] along the 1967 lines.
4. I value your analysis and am happy to concede or reach a consensus but I have provided three references that validate my edit. If alternative sources can be presented then of course it can be edited to reflect such.
5. My consensus propsal would be to;

The first usage of the phrase was as part of it's 2017 revised platform where they state "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea [...] along the lines of the 4th of June 1967". this charter still did not recognise Israeli legitimacy but was conceded with the aim of building national consensus.

Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times directly says The slogan does not appear in Hamas’s founding covenant from 1988, which pledges “to confront the Zionist invasion and defeat it,” not just in historic Palestinian territory, but worldwide. It is featured, however, in a section of the group’s revised platform from 2017. In the same paragraph, Hamas indicates it could accept a Palestinian state along the borders that were in place before the 1967 war — the same borders considered under the Oslo Accords. nableezy - 14:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I did so in accordance with the reference I've cited which has made the quote in exactly the way I have done - huh? This simply isn't true; your source does not render the quote in that way. It doesn't directly quote from the 2017 charter at all, in fact, beyond noting that the slogan "from the river to the sea" appears in it!

"this is WP:OR" - with respect, if I were for the sake of argument to accept that it's impermissible "original research" to argue that splicing together clauses from two different sentences into a different sentence changes their meaning, then it seems to me that it's equally well "original research" to assert that such a splicing together preserves the meaning, and so we'd have grounds to eliminate the spliced quote on that reason alone.

Even if I agreed with your conclusions, the resulting text is still fair and correct- " from the river to the sea means the liberations of Palestine [here are our motivations and reasons] along the 1967 lines. - no, that's not correct, for the reason I outlined in detail above: in the context of the particular paragraph in which it is used in the Hamas charter, the phrase "liberation ... from the river to the sea" does not and logically cannot mean the establishment a state along the 1967 lines. There's room to argue that it's not synonymous with the destruction of Israel, but the one thing it unambiguously does NOT mean, given the word "however" appears in there, is the establishment of a state along the 1967 lines. That's not a matter of political interpretation; it's simply a matter of English grammar.

Splicing together sentences to imply that the paragraph uses the phrase in the opposite way is just objectively wrong in the same way as it would be to say that the charter states "Hamas believes that [...] the land of Palestine shall be compromised[...]. Hamas rejects [...] the full and complete liberation of Palestine". Sure, you're using phrases from the original as raw material, but you're constructing a passage out of them that simply contradicts the original meaning.

Re your final proposal - no, that doesn't fix it at all. The issue here isn't about the overall meaning of the Hamas charter, it's specifically about the usage of the phrase "from the river to the sea". "Liberation ... from the river to the sea" is the position Hamas say they ultimately want to achieve; however for national consensus they are willing to instead pursue the 1967 borders; the two are distinct, opposed positions, not identical ones as your proposed tweak still suggests!

~ ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I corrected that earlier but needed to self-revert, I will do so again later with the NYT source. nableezy - 15:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Relatedly, I just realised that @Jo Jc Jo also today changed this sentence, that appeared in the article at the end of yesterday:

Initially popularized by the Palestine Liberation Organization upon its founding in 1964 as a "main goal of the movement", the phrase carried official weight within the PLO until the 1988 Algiers Declaration, after which "the objective shifted to establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders."

to instead say this:

The phrase continues to be used by the PLO with the meaning shifting after the 1988 Algiers Declaration to "establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders."

I note that no new source has been added, and once again the edit has the effect of framing the phrase "[liberating/freeing Palestine] from the river to the sea" as equivalent to establishing a state along 1967 borders. Yesterday, the article said that the phrase initially denoted the "main goal of the movement" but ceased to "carry official weight" once the movement's objective changed to a two-state solution with the 1967 borders - i.e. the phrase got retired within the PLO because it was incompatible with the new objective of a two-state solution based on 1967 borders. Today, though, the article says the meaning of the phrase itself changed to reflect that new objective! These two versions of events - what the article said yesterday, and what it said today - are totally different and incompatible with each other.

I don't have access to the sources, but @Jo Jc Jo, unless you can provide direct quotes from the cited sources supporting your interpretation (in which the PLO continued to use the phrase but changed its meaning), I suggest we revert the edit. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason for this edit was that there was absolutely no source listed as saying "main goal of the movement" or "carry official weight". In fact, the references were not even linked to the PLO, they were completely irrelevant sources. fictitious. The source was from the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, unlinked to PLO. I'm happy for you to edit though, your correction is correct and was a hangover of the original that I conflated. You have my SUPPORT for an edit that removes that sentence, of course. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 16:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@ExplodingCabbage:Happy to receive you alternative proposal for consensus! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 15:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Already gave it in my first post - simply delete " [...] along the lines of the 4th of June 1967" from the quote. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

lead structure

The lead goes political slogan, some see as anti-semitic, slightly biased history lesson, some see it as not anti-semitic, then again it is regarded as hate speech and antisemitic and it is being criminalized. So we have a rebuttal sandwiched around the case for it being anti-semitic. Somebody explain to me how this is NPOV please? nableezy - 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: It is not the place of others to explain this to you but rather your responsibility to provide a proposal to improve as suggested by WP:TPG. I look forward to your proposal! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 14:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well I was asking the people who wrote it this way, namely Mistamystery, why they think it should be this way so I could take into account their views before I make changes I see as necessary, but sure I can just make the changes I suppose. Tomorrow looks like when it will have to be though. nableezy - 14:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Reject the assertion that I “wrote it this way” - it was battled about for over a week and then kicked to a talk page discussion, and has since been changed (and messed with) considerably by numerous editors.

There has been significant pushback from other editors who clearly are uncomfortable with the fact that the phrase has a political history at all (there was a very unpleasant and tendentious battle over this a week ago). This page should be about the meaning, origination, history, and evolution of use of a phrase and that’s it, and I have received some very nasty pushback by certain editors when fighting for basic logical elements like chronology of use.

I also fully reject any accusations of bias or synth. If a political organization has a clearly stated charter mandate, its leaders use a phrase (or similarly worded phrases) explicitly in line with stated items in charter and desired political goals, and there are - most importantly - no other directly cited prevailing uses of the phrase at the period of time in question, there isn’t even anything to contest. If anything, the counter assertion is what is both synth and heavily biased and leading. (Synth: “All of these clearly related elements do not in fact produce a clear picture of use and intent.”)

Going forward, I would kindly request anyone contending that the 1960s PLO’s goals were *not* explicit based upon political charter, general platform, and stated goals by leaders provide direct citation as to why we should not be taking these items simply at face value. If there is a quote out there saying that the 1960s PLO had any other intention than deportation of the Jewish population (i.e. subjecting them to a application process, giving them non-citizen residency, putting them in internal refugee camps), then I would like to see it. Otherwis, to consistently hammer away at this point is both disruptive and tendentious.

To address stated concerns with structure of lead:

1. The first paragraph should stop at “…and the Gaza Strip”. Someone came in a few days ago and pushed up the anti-Semitism claims to this paragraph, when they were previously in the fourth paragraph and should resume living there.

2. “Non-violent call for a one state solution” should be in the third paragraph.

3. Four paragraph should be the home for criminalization, hate speech, etc

Mistamystery (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If a political organization has a clearly stated charter mandate, its leaders use a phrase (or similarly worded phrases) explicitly in line with stated items in charter and desired political goals, and there are - most importantly - no other directly cited prevailing uses of the phrase at the period of time in question, there isn’t even anything to contest. If anything, the counter assertion is what is both synth and heavily biased and leading. Sorry, but no, you are saying source supporting A+source supporting B=material supporting C. That is textbook synthesis and original research. The conclusions we draw have to be explicitly supported by the sources, not presumed true based on what a Wikipedia editor thinks is supporting evidence. nableezy - 16:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Duplicated paragraph

The entire section below is duplicated - it appears in both Usage - Background and in Usage - Civic Usage, with no changes besides to citation numbers:

The slogan has been used widely in pro-Palestinian protest movements. It has often been chanted at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, usually followed or preceded by the phrase "Palestine will be free". Interpretations differ amongst supporters of the slogan. Civic figures, activists, and progressive publications have said that it calls for a one-state solution, a single, secular state in all of historic Palestine where people of all religions have equal citizenship. This stands in contrast to the Two-state solution, which envisions a Palestinian state existing alongside a Jewish state. 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."

One of the two copies should be purged. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done

@ExplodingCabbage: Good spot. I did the edit for you. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 14:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

1RR violations

Appreciate everyone’s enthusiasm, but there are clear multiple 1RR violations that have been made over the past few hours.

Recommend parties self-identify, self-revert, and take a little more time planning and executing edits. No need for this to get kicked up to AE.

Mistamystery (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Since my removal of arguably the shittiest source Ive seen somebody seriously cite in an encyclopedia article in at least five years was I suppose a revert, I self-reverted my substantive change. Ill make it later, as that entire section fails OR and NPOV. nableezy - 14:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you (though please be assured this comment was not aimed at you - as well your edit note on that Hindustan times piece removal was the best laugh I’ve had on here in a while) Mistamystery (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)