Jump to content

Talk:From the river to the sea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.7.164.77 (talk) at 22:31, 22 November 2023 (→‎Historically inaccurate lead: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

About the Introdutory section

Although, as noted in the intro, this slogan has been in use since the 1960s, the entry was added to Wikipedia only in October 2023. Most of the sources cited were also written around this time and after. This is not a coincidence. The slogan gained traction with the general public following the Oct 7 attack by Hamas, the ensuing war and demonstrations against Israel around the world, where it was commonly used. This use of the slogan in demonstrations provoked criticism and led to a wider public debate. While use of the slogan had indeed aroused interest in the past (Nasar, 2018), but the current context, the slogan's current use and the accompanying discussion alone constitute the reasons behind the broad interest in the slogan in general, and the justification for the creation of a unique Wikipedia entry in particular. This crucial context is completely absent from the intro. Whoever reads it will get a critically partial picture. The current context must feature prominently and centrally in the introduction.

I do not have permissions to edit the content, so this is an action item for someone who can. Zyakov (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase, including the "Palestine will be free" rhyme, has been a staple of pro-Palestinian protests for decades. The only thing that is new is the widespread persuasive definition claims made against it by those opposed to pro-Palestinian protests. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be more precise, the phrase has been a call for destruction of Israel for decades. The only thing that is new is the context of the Oct 7th events. Zyakov (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence says your claim is false, unless by the emotive word “destruction” you actually just mean the removal of oppression and the institution of democracy for all, and/or the concept of Israel to the listener requires the domination of Palestinians. Listen to this speech by the State of Palestine in the UN a few days ago:

Let the law be the measure by which all are judged, not propaganda and hateful, biased, spin steeped in racism. And to Israel's absurd assertion that Palestinians have a problem with people of Jewish faith, and give the impression that this is a religious conflict, let us say it loud and clear, this is not, and has never been about religion. Had the occupiers of our land, or the violators of our rights been Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or of any other conviction, we would have called them out all the same. Palestine has always been multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious. People of Jewish faith have lived in historic Palestine as Palestinians for centuries.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to From the river to the sea, the "free state" would only include the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first wave of mass Jewish immigration. This would mean the exclusion of 99% of the current Jewish population.
Anyway, I'm not up to carrying a debate. My point remains -
The current context must feature prominently and centrally in the introduction. Zyakov (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The PLO's policy of only including the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first wave of mass Jewish immigration. only applied from the mid-60s until the early 70s, and equally 'exclusionist' statements from that period were made by Israeli politicians.
From a WP point of view, while the current use and controversy deserve to be noted, and, as you say may have been the catalyst for the creation of the article - still, the entire history of the phrase is part of what creates context. We have a specific policy against Recentism. This isn't a news outlet. Pincrete (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should our article's first interpretation of this slogan's pro-Palestinian usage be what its users say it means or what those opposed to it claim that its users mean?

Should our article's first interpretation of this slogan's pro-Palestinian usage be what its users say it means or what those opposed to it claim that its users mean? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be historically accurate. I posted links showing it’s use back to 1948 Researcher175 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our article starts with a sentence explaining the simple geographic meaning of this phrase. The second sentence addresses its political meaning when combined with "free Palestine" or similar. In this second sentence, should the first interpretation that our article provides be:

  • the interpretation of those who use the phrase (e.g. equal rights etc), or
  • the interpretation that those who oppose the phrase claim that its users mean (e.g. genocide against Jews etc)?

Clearly the article will continue to cover both perspectives. The question which has been disputed here for many weeks is simply the correct order. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we really need an RFC for this, a logical flow dictates that the origin for the phrase should be mentioned first (currently missing in the lead) followed by usage of the originators. Complaints about that usage should follow, otherwise it is all backwards. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. An RFC on this is overkill. Historyday01 (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I opened it because there are some newish editors here who appeared to hold a different view. If no opposition in a day I will close it so we don’t waste time. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to lead with origins of the phrase, then usage by the originators, then the statement "The slogan's meaning remains contentious", followed by complaints about the usage? Badabara (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question is phrased misleadingly. The originators of the phrase did not call for "equal rights," and this is far from agreed upon among users of the term (such as Hamas in their charter, for example). The debate is not between pro-Palestinian and anti-Palestinian users, it is between different Palestinian factions and their supporters. Marokwitz (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question is about the order, the details are another issue. Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; an RfC isn't a great way to resolve disputes like this. DFlhb (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refuse to participate in biased RFC - and this disruptive behaviour should be stopped: The framing of this question lacks neutrality and does not conform to WP:NPOV. It's important to engage in good-faith dialogue and seek consensus to resolve such disputes. What you are doing here is not that. Marokwitz (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thought as well. Historyday01 (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this RFC is pointy Drsmoo (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
interpretation of those who use the phrase first Per Selfstudier—The logical order for the article is to first present what it means/has meant for those who use/have used the phrase. Makes absolutely no sense to begin with critical reactions. إيان (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive behavior - I agree with points raised above, there has been repeated disruptive behavior in the article. Furthermore, serious concern regarding NPOV of the question you're trying to raise. as raised above me. We must act in goodfaith and dialogue and seek consensus and this has been repeatedly been flaunted. Therefore, don't think is appropriate. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS while talking about the need for good faith (that goes for Marokwitz too, and Drsmoo & Historyday01 who assert disruption/pointiness). WP:AGF requires us all to avoid personalising disputes. Comments about an editor's conduct are inappropriate here, and belong on a user's talk page or on a noticeboard; all of you should know better. DFlhb (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will say in saying that the RFC is "overkill" and agreeing it is "biased," I'm commenting about how this RFC is flawed, unnecessary, disruptive, and pointless. I'm not personally attacking the OP in the slightest or "personalizing disputes." I'm not sure why you are wagging your finger at some people, talking about personalizing disputes, and comments about editor's conduct. The actions and conduct of any editor can be criticized without engaging in personal attacks. I see criticism of the OP's proposal, not of the OP themselves, here. So, I don't know what you are talking about.
This RFC SHOULD be criticized so as to set an example so that other users don't come along (because you know they will) and think this behavior is ok. It is NOT. This RFC is helpful to no one. The OP posted this malformed and unnecessary RFC here, so the OP is the one who started this discussion, so it is only right to respond.Historyday01 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the RfC template, since people seem to agree this shouldn't be one. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 00:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading and biased information in Lead

This is highly misleading

  1. The slogan has been used by Palestinians, Israelis and their supporters. For the Palestinian side, the slogan has come to be interpreted by some as advocating for a single democratic Palestinian state encompassing what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories, where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship
  2. Critics often regard the slogan to be antisemitic or hate speech, suggesting that it denies the right of Jews for self-determination, or advocates for their removal or extermination, as the slogan has also been used by militant groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It has come under scrutiny in the United States and Europe, including being criminalized in some countries

This incorrectly implies that there is no controversy within Palestinian society about "individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship" , which is patently false based on the sources presented by @Mistamystery and others above, and that those who believe otherwise are "critics".

Few people would deny that Hamas, the party that has won the last Palestinian election does not hold this belief. They are not 'critics' - it is their actual belief that Palestine should be an Islamic state and not a democratic one with equal citizenship. This should be reverted. Marokwitz (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is just a hasty paste job done in the middle of a minor edit war, and reflects none of the research or sources presented over a (mostly) healthy two week development process from numerous editors.
Best to restore from the most recent “stable” version (before the revert fest from sunday) and talk it forward from there.
Mistamystery (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it should be reverted to the most recent “stable” version per WP:BRD, the current version is highly misleading. It is also missing all historical context. Marokwitz (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page doesn't really have a stable version: it has been evolving continuously since it's re-creation as a page in September, so I would encourage forward, not backwards editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you encourage a more biased version who falsely represents information and ignores it's sources? Why so? dov (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion doesn't currently cite any sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. I recall that we had agreed to a version of the Lead some days ago that was stable for about a week. We should return to that version. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Read the Zogby quote above. Not only does he confirm that a majority of Palestinians support equal rights, he points out that if you want to raise this topic you must also note the equivalent view amongst Israelis… Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of discussion isn't about what the 'majority' view is. Are you denying that there are users of this phrase who reject the idea of a democratic state with equal rights for Jews? Marokwitz (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, people hold extreme views on both sides. This new public controversy is just the "is-anti-Zionism-antisemitic" well-poisoning debate revisited. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please can someone substantiate the assertion that there is controversy within Palestinian society [that] "individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship" - this appears to be bald assertion. If this a reference to the stated ideology of Hamas, and whether it is antisemitic or simply anti-Zionist, that is a topic for several other pages where there are active discussions on the degree to which this still applies in the context of its 2017 charter. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not , the existence of a controversy among the users of the term is clearly backed by the cited reliable sources. [1]

What do they mean? Superficially an idealistic vow of liberation, the decades-old expression also contains a threat: the river is the River Jordan, the sea is the Mediterranean and freedom, in this case, implies the destruction of the state of Israel. That is certainly the sense in which Hamas uses the phrase.

Marokwitz (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, that's again, anti-Zionist, which for sure Hamas is. Yes, it absolutely opposes the existence of Israel as a political entity, just as Israel opposes a Palestinian political entity. That doesn't directly imply it "denies the right of Jews for self-determination, or advocates for their removal or extermination". That's an inference that has been widely made, but inference it is, and the Economist certainly doesn't state it. The Guardian piece by Malik cited by Pincrete below is actually a better example of a piece that states this, but also opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I see you're point and I think it's best to reflect that facts and not the perception. You also right in that Hamas won the last election in the PA, and therefore it would be incorrect to refer to this phrase without the connotation Hamas has given it which is seeking to establish an Islamic Palestinian state. This tied with their calls to destroy Israel, the Jews and their racism towards Jews also is ample in order to weaken the statement you raised, that they are seeking to establish a democratic state over the entire region. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the use as advocating for a single democratic Palestinian state, ('one-state solution'), the slogan is clearly also used to stand for "the equal freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people. as detailed in the 'Civic usage' section ( what might be called a 'justice for all' demand). I note this partly because I have just finished reading the Kenan Malik Gdn piece, which we correctly cite - and quote - to support Malik's opening claim that the slogan had (fairly neutral) origins, but was adopted by Hamas etc, acquiring genocidal connotations. Ironically, Malik ends his piece by using the slogan: Whatever one’s views on Zionism, the aspirations of the 6.9 million Jews now living in the region cannot be ignored. Nor is corralling Palestinians into their own territories while denying them control over their lives any “solution”. From the river to the sea, “self-determination” in that piece of contested land that is Israel/Palestine can only be the self-determination of all the people who live there, Palestinians and Jews, in a single shared future.. I appreciate that this is use rather than description and not usable here for that reason, but it is ironic that someone we cite to indicate the anti-zionist/anti-semetic/genocidal connotations of the slogan, is actually using it for purposes that are none of these, or certainly not the latter two. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. The same is true for the statement by Andy McDonald (politician) "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". He was suspended by his party pending investigation, due to the media's recent demonization of a geographic shorthand. It will be easier to land this once the current conflict is over and emotions have calmed. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see how its so clear. Since Hamas does not advocate a democratic secular state. Also we've presented above already a lot of evidence and sources on PLO, PNC use of phrase in their wish to remove the majority of Jews. The scholar said that its impractical to move 6.9 million Jews. But it doesn't change the intended intention of the phrase used. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anyone meant that Hamas's specific use was anything other than their wish to drive out/wipe out all Israelis - but the fact that one group uses a slogan with a particular implication doesn't mean that everyone using the slogan endorses - or intentionally echoes that reading. Ignorance of the darker meaning of a slogan, or a conscious wish to reclaim a slogan may also be motives.
Until I heard of the recent furore over the 'darker meaning' slogan, on the few occasions I had heard it, it had never ocurred that it was anything other than a poetic way to refer to 'all of (historic) Palestine'. But nothing of this is usable of course, since I am not a WP:RS. Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The six words in the title of this article are, as you say, nothing more than a poetic way to refer to historic Palestine. The pro-Israeli claims only kick in when the concept of historic Palestine is connected with the evil word “free”. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic vs. 'Palestinian Arabic'

The lead offers an 'Arabic' and 'Palestinian Arabic' version of the phrase. But while the Arabic phrase cited literally means "from the nahr (river) to the baḥr (sea)" the 'Palestinian Arabic' one literally means 'from the mayeh (water) to the mayeh.' And I believe nahr and bahr mean river and sea in the Palestinian dialect, and mayeh means water in other dialects of arabic, so this is not an issue of dialects but rather two completely different phrases to express the same idea. Do Palestinians actually prefer saying "water to water" while Arabs that live outside Palestine prefer "river to sea" or what's going on here? Seems like it should be cleared up. 2600:6C55:6500:A38:8027:EE64:359F:421D (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been provided on this addition, and a cursory search on the matter in arabic provides very few results...still waiting for a citation that indicates this is in wide usage in Palestinian circles. Mistamystery (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources added. It's not explicitly a matter of what Palestinians say vis-a-vis what "Arabs that live outside of Palestine" say, as the IP formulates it. Min al-mayeh lil-mayeh ('from the water to the water') just a popular, 'folksy' formulation used among Palestinians, whereas min an-nahr ’ilā l-baḥr is more standard and prescriptive. إيان (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m seeing ample online chatter that the “water to water” variation also includes (commonly? Need clarification) a rhymed variant in Arabic that translates to english as “From water to water, Palestine is Arab”
Found this link here - but what is your awareness of this variant and how common is the usage (as opposed to just “water to water” on its own)?
https://zaytouni.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/chants-for-protesting-in-english-and-arabic/ Mistamystery (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we are in including variants, should we include "from the Jordan to the Mediterranean" and "From Dan to Beersheba"? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see really how relevant... Dan is Tel Aviv area, Beer Sheba is south of it, it doesn't really fit. Also is not used in modern Israeli discourse, or by Arab or Palestinians.
From Dan to beersheba was used in the bible, in Joshua's book if I'm not mistaken. A quick look now showed me British politicians used it in the 1910s. Don't see how it's really relevant. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Dan in "from Dan to Beersheba" refers to an ancient northern town near the border of Lebanon. Not to be confused with the tribal territory of Dan around Jaffa/Tel Aviv. They're homonyms but completely different referents. (Those articles could use dab hatnotes!) Don't feel bad, I didn't know that either until I looked it up. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From water to water is relevant. Because its just another way of saying from the river to the sea... It's a variant of the phrase in question. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that "from water to water" and "from the Jordan to the Mediterranean" are variants of River to the Sea and in-scope of this page. "From Dan to Beersheba" has a very different geographical meaning . Marokwitz (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use by the Israeli right

The ref used in the lead section doesn't even mention the slogan anywhere, and therefore can't support the text "The slogan has also been used on the Israeli right to call for Israel to span all of Mandatory Palestine."

In the main "Use by the Israeli right" section, I can't access the two refs used to support the 1977 use by the Likud party (the quoted text is largely about PLO use of the slogan), but the bulk of that section after the first sentence (from "The platform was further developed into Menachem Begin’s proposed Autonomy Plan …) is about Begin's policies relating to West Bank & Gaza, not about the slogan and is therefore off-topic.

I intend to remove the offending ref and text, but am leving this explanation. Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, if there isn't a reliable source (or sources) to support a statement, it should be removed, with the explanation you have outlined here. Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincreteif you cannot access refs, you shouldn't be removing anything.
The further Begin policies are absolutely relevant because they clarify and qualify the usage of "from the river to the sea" in election platform materials - and are, in effect, extensions of the same materials in which the phrase exists. This page is about the usage and interpretation of the phrase, and removing those sections effectively removes any context to the usage by the Likud during their 1977-1982 leadership phase. The text should be restored. Mistamystery (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mista here. To remove a statement for failing verification, you first need to actually verify that it has failed verification. If you can't access the refs, you can't verify this. Loki (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I cannot access ALL refs, and didn't/wouldn't remove or modify text because I was unable to access the source. A source that doesn't anywhere mention the slogan obviously cannot support its use by anyone. The present text covers instances of right-wing use and is supported I believe. The removed source can be used attached to text it supports - but I cannot see where that would be, The source - "Prelude to the Accord" - uses the similar expression "west of the Jordan river", which describes much the same area, but is this article about policies towards the area, or the slogan's use and meaning(s)? Pincrete (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a literalism battle in which mere absence of specific use precludes the validity of sources. The Likud used the phrase (well...kind of...if we're being specific about it...they didn't actually say "from the river to the sea") but did not expound upon exactly what they meant by it...and then they explained what they meant about it in later, connected platform documents. The relevance is direct.
Previous invocations of this citation were made to appear that their meaning and use was self-evident, which it obviously was not (most especially when there is such debate surrounding other usage).
It is absolutely relevant pertaining to the larger discussion on the page that the Likud's ultimate interpretation of this "sovereignty" item was pertaining to the upcoming peace discussions with Egypt, effectively included a "one-state solution" of sorts, and had very specific attitudes pertaining to the Palestinian national movement at the time, and should be included. Mistamystery (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you think this should go - it obviously can't support the specific fact of Likud using the slogan, which is all the text at the time said.Pincrete (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Platform/manifesto

Marokwitz regarding this edit, in English usage, certainly UK usage, a 'platform' isn't a document.

Cambridge dictionary give platform's political meaning as "all the things that a political party promises to do if they are elected", my own experience is of it being used generically to state a party's 'main campaign appeal' eg "they stood on a lower taxation and law and order platform". The party usually prints a document containing its pledges - which is the manifesto, which Cambridge gives as an example "In their election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats proposed increasing taxes to pay for improvements in education."

I don't mind which term is used -as long as it is clear what the document was - but this probably isn't an error on the part of the Gdn so much as usage (possibly UK usage) Pincrete (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this up. Perhaps political platform? [2] A "political platform" is a more fitting term for a document or set of ideas that represent a political party's or candidate's aims and principles in the context of a specific election or political campaign. The term "manifesto" can sometimes imply a more permanent or broader set of beliefs, not necessarily confined to a specific electoral context. I'm ok with either word as long as it is clear this was their 1977 election manifesto . Marokwitz (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1977 election manifesto then? or perhaps 1977 political platform. I'm not sure which is clearer, both are sourced, albeit different sources. Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1977 election manifesto sounds fine to me. Thanks for educating me on this difference between US and UK English. Marokwitz (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure that it's a UK/US distinction. Cambridge dictionary usually record that and they don't seem to for either 'platform' or 'manifesto'. But yes prefacing with 'election' clarifies it as a transient, rather than foundational document - so I've made the change. Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I learned it is a UK/US difference, see Party platform Marokwitz (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just learnt something else on that page: "Across the Western world, political parties are highly likely to fulfill their election promises". Who'd believe it! Pincrete (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Marokwitz (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historically inaccurate lead

References to throwing the Jewish state, or Jews, into the sea predate the examples given in this article. Example 1 from NYT article dated 1948 [3]https://www.nytimes.com/1948/08/02/archives/aim-to-oust-jews-pledged-by-sheikh-head-of-moslem-brotherhood-says.html?fbclid=IwAR0R3w7gzc6hX0QGYWeFfeIsva7MbP7KVxHHyNcsu9POimvCQqLbpyKO3fs

later in 1966, Syrian leader Hafez Al-Assad said something similar regarding Jews. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1994/10/09/the-mind-of-hafez-assad/0be81ae7-2a5a-4e04-bb62-3e527318e317/?fbclid=IwAR0UvqdgTNbPKSRKR44368F4-wY5U1eZRBbq_ysi3JI2fMxvkNvv2xRQBkA Researcher175 (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Researcher175, there is no mention in the article anywhere of anyone throwing anything or anyone into the sea! The article is about a particular slogan mainly recently associated with pro-Palestinian groups. Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first article from 1948 has a quote from the Muslim Brotherhood “If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea.” and the second articles quotes Assad in 66 stating “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.” 68.7.164.77 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:From_the_river_to_the_sea&oldid=1186404849"