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 Badabara (talk | contribs) at 09:02, 28 December 2023 (→‎Land of Israel: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please change

"On November 11, 2023, the slogan was banned in Bavaria (Germany), and "the prosecutor's office and the Bavarian police warned that henceforth the use of this slogan, regardless of language, will be considered as the use of symbols of terrorist organizations. This may result in punishment of up to three years in prison or a fine."[83][84]"

to

On November 11, 2023, the slogan was banned by police in Bavaria, Germany, and "the prosecutor's office and the Bavarian police warned that henceforth the use of this slogan, regardless of language, will be considered as the use of symbols of terrorist organizations."[83][84] However on November 17, 2023, the Administrative Court of Münster in Bavaria gave pro-Palestinian gatherings interim legal protection overthrowing a police ban. The court ruled that the slogan not punishable in all but exceptional circumstances, because according to the understanding of an unbiased audience it does not objectively have a criminal meaning. On December 1, 2023, the Cologne Administrative Court in North Rhine-Westphalia reiterated the Münster court ruling and overthrew a ban issued by the Bonn Police.

[1] [2] Windsorchair (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No translation was provided for the source, per WP:RSUEC.  Spintendo  04:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geogratphic or political by nature

Hello all, this article and concept is currently defined as a geographical concept. I would like to dissent on this. It is not a slogan or term used by geographers. It is a term used with a political meaning. The introduction itself largely expose its political nature, which we can at minima define as a slogan refering to an unified political entity in between the Jordan river and the mediterranean sea. This meaning is agreed upon in all cases cited, from moderates progressives, to ethno-nationalists from Israel and from Hamas. I suggested this change but was reverted. Can other editors review this proposal. Yug (talk) 🐲 15:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yug of course it is not a geographical term, it is a descriptive phrase describing a specific geographical area - all sources describe it as such. The Emerald Isle is not a geographical term, but it is an oft-used way to refer to Ireland. The lead is specific - as are sources - that the slogan describes an area also referred to historically as Palestine or sometimes as Eretz Israel.
Btw just as no sources say the slogan is refering to a unified political entity, similarly none refer to "Reuses by ethno-nationalists factions". The English of both claims is fairly grotesque, the sourcing is non-existent and the "ethno-nationalists factions" are not mentioned anywhere in the article, which the lead is supposed to summarise. This is pure POV WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also btw, this article is covered by discretionary sanctions, therefore by altering the established text, then later partially reinstating your preferred text after I restored the stable version, you technically broke the WP:1RR rule, as well as breaking WP:BRD. Please get consensus for any substantive changes BEFORE re-instating text, as well of course as providing sources. Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rewording proposed summarized the semantic content of the article into the lead, with words suited to this summarization objective. Calling a duck a duck is nothing fancy. Ex: "From the river to the sea" is mostly used as a political call for unified entity according to the cases cited in this article itself, that is just summarizing the article content. Nationalist entities such as Likud, Hamas, observably have ethnology-nationalist stances, also by this article itself. Those statements are in the article, even it the lead, but with a contortioned wording which is not satisfactory in shape, style, concision. Such summary are nothing new :
  • «In 1996, Netanyahu became Prime Minister by using populist right-wing “rhetoric dominated by ethnic nationalism» (European Center for Populism Studies)
  • «Hamas is now accepting the two state solution under the condition that they are part of the game, but their focus remains ethno nationalist.» source
  • «The conflict lines of the nationalistic struggle between Jews and Arabs were brought into sharp relief, with confrontations between youths from both sides inside the Old City, and people expressing hostile, ethno-nationalist sentiment towards each other.» Times of Israel
I do not see avenue to collaborate on this article at the moment given your high end requirement of the exact expression being used by sources before using it in the lead, despite the definitions of those terms are currently used all across the current article. Yug (talk) 🐲 00:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to WP:SYNTH a novel interpretation. Not everyone using the slogan supports any "unified entity" of any kind. Of course there are all sorts of 'ethno-nationalist' aspects/tensions to the conflict, but leaping from that to an interpretation of the slogan is more 'writing an essay about the conflict' than documenting what has been written about the slogan - the slogan which is the subject of the article. Pincrete (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"History of the phrase" section begins with recent, politically influenced articles and inaccurate citations

> The precise origins of the phrase are disputed.

Demitri Coryton appears to be the editor of an "Education Journal", but I am unable to find this article or available copies of this journal, and Coryton himself does not appear to have any academic background as it relates to this phrase or the Arab-Israeli conflict. The citation of a recent article as the primary source on this statement implies influence by current political events, rather than established scholarship. If support for this can be found in older sources, those should be used. Otherwise, more credible citations should be added or the section should be removed.

> According to American historian Robin D. G. Kelley, the phrase "began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel."

The citation for this section does not contain this direct quote or anything resembling it.

> Israeli-American historian Omer Bartov notes that Zionist usage of such language predates the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and began with the Revisionist movement of Zionism led by Vladimir Jabotinski, which spoke of establishing a Jewish state in all of Palestine and had a song with the slogan: "The Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, and the other one too," suggesting a Jewish state extending even beyond the Jordan River.

This does not explain the phrase for which this article exists and its use as a political slogan; additionally the article cites an Arabic bbc report which plays a small excerpt of a video which doesn't represent established written scholarship. There's an obvious bias implication. ObviouslyCorrect (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The points you are making about the "two banks" song and the "boundaries of Eretz Israel" text overlap with issues raised later in the "removal of attributed claims of two distinguished historians" discussion above.Pincrete (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede items

In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine, which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1947, although this was later revised to only include descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety". 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.' Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean[to whom?] one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".

Issue #1

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.'

Advocating this be removed. On its own is misleading as to the full character of what the charter expressed, which is more fully outlined in the above sentence (“initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1947”) - which is a proper neutral characterization of what is in the charter. Expressing this twice, and including sentiment contained within the charter feels WP:UNDUE.

Issue #2

Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".

While I respect that the writer is a respected academic, a quote casting a general aspersion with no further qualification or detail and has no place in the lede. This article is literally about the diversity of interpretations of the phrase - there is no place for an unqualified quote about a universal sentiment when the article clearly contradicts this. Mistamystery (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Israel

Is there any valid reason for incuding this religious terminology in the lead without elaborating? It is only know as the "Land of Israel" by those that are religiously affiliated. Also why Holy Land would be unfit. JJNito197 (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons:
1. Religious as it may be, “Land of Israel” is also a historical regional description. Descriptions of the region on other pages usually include the multiples in the “historically known as or referred to” sections (Palestine, Canaan, holy land, land of israel)
2. The article includes Israeli right claims, which correspond more accordingly than other descriptives. Mistamystery (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Land of Israel and modern day Israel is not synonymous, and the Land of Israel is a vague term in a context where we have to be precise. We need a source that states "Land of Israel" has been the historical name to refer to that region in the English language specifically. "Historically" as in referring to being recorded extensively (and known exclusively) as Palestine (by the majority) over the years, a vaguer definition would include terms like "Syria" or "Southern Levant". "Traditionally" is less precise and more in the realm of FRINGE, given that it depends on what tradition. JJNito197 (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coming in a little too hot on this. Not remotely FRINGE, and to posit as such is a leading assertion on its own.
This article pertains to the territory of the former British Mandate. The official name for the British Mandate in Hebrew was “Palestine (EY)”, meaning “Eretz Yisrael” = Land of Israel.
https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/how-was-israel-once-palestine-new-books-and-old-coins-680467 Mistamystery (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Eretz Yisrael" is not regional descriptor in the English language. Land of Israel would be a translation of this, but as specified, the usage is confined to those who are religiously affilated. Plus the meaning of this term is vague, and can be interpreted as us in Wikivoice legitimising a definition. The Bible contains three geographical definitions of the Land of Israel. The Bible is also where this term originates. We should aim to be as precise as we can. JJNito197 (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Land of Israel is not a historical regional description, it has never been a common English term for describing any part of the region. nableezy - 14:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is specifically about the former territory of the British mandate of Palestine, which “Land of Israel” appeared on official documentation and currency. I don’t see how that’s not relevant and can’t find a place on this article, especially pertaining to the geographic reference. Mistamystery (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it did not, an abbreviation for Eretz Yisreal appeared on those documents. Land of Israel has never been a common English name for the region. See the ngram for example. nableezy - 16:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the source we use (Times of Israel) says that the area described by the slogan is NOT synonymous with the historical “Land of Israel”: "It is also the heart of the biblical Land of Israel (though the ancient Jewish kingdom there extended further), so no, even ignoring the vagueness and non-standard-English issues, the description is historically inaccurate. Pincrete (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By this same logic we can not use the word "Palestine" to refer to 5th century BCE when the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" between Phoenicia and Egypt. We need to refer to modern Palestine, which the slogan refers to. The term was used widely as a self-identification by Palestinians from the start of the 20th century onwards. In the 20th century the name was used by the British to refer to "Mandatory Palestine," a territory from the former Ottoman Empire which had been divided in the Sykes–Picot Agreement and secured by Britain via the Mandate for Palestine obtained from the League of Nations.Badabara (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the land and the name for the people who lived in it have little connection. The name of the land, as you rightly note is ancient. Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the ancient land of Phoenicia extends into Lebanon and Italy. The current sentence "an area historically described as Palestine" presupposes a history that extends hundreds or thousands of years. As it reads now is incorrect. How do you suggest we remedy this? Badabara (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the start of 1917 , Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire, following whose defeat in World War 1 the area came under interim government by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. “British Mandate Palestine” included Transjordan, which is east of the Jordan river.
"From the river to the sea" is a modern slogan, so the sentence "an area historically described as Palestine" is misleading. We either need to specify the length of that history, its beginning and end, or leave out the word "historically" all together. Badabara (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition specifically referred to the people, not the land, so it has little bearing on the land. The exact borders of France or Italy may have shifted, but the key definitions haven't. If modern territorial definitions differ significantly from 'historic' or 'ancient' ones, then the difference can be briefly noted. What we are interested in in the lead is defining the area referred to as accurately as practical using accepted geographic terms. Pincrete (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not defending my previous edit. I'm trying to work with you to get to a new edit. The borders "From the River to the sea" (Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River), referred to a land called Palestine only from 1920-1948. That's a 28 year sliver of time. Before that the land called "British Mandate Palestine" included the trans-Jordan, and before that it was all part of the Ottoman Empire.
We should take out the word "historic" in the sentence "an area historically described as Palestine".
OR
We should state something like, "an area historically described as Palestine from 1920-1948"
OR
Come up with a better solution that I'm not proposing to get to a more accurate lead. Badabara (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a) I suspect there are others that know precise historical/geographical boundaries better than I, so they might be better able to respond … b) Sources defining the area covered by the slogan should be our starting point and they mainly seem quite happy with the use of 'Palestine'. even Times of Israel says "The Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea form the eastern and western boundaries, respectively, of what was the British Mandate of Palestine before 1948" - which is only marginally qualifying the term to refer to a political entity … c) We are linking to Palestine as a geographic region, not to any specific past or present political arrangement, which is apt. So I don't see a problem in present use but if anyone else has a concise, clearer term, I wouldn't object. But it should be concise IMO as the slogan largely defines itself, and we make clear that it encompasses Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Small detail, but "historically described as Palestine from 1920-1948" is very clumsy English (it's either 'historically described' or 'described from/to') and that is referencing a political entity rather than a geographic region. The geographic region is "historically known as Palestine" in English AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Palestine (region) to understand the geographic region. The 1920-1948 boundary lines are "from the river to the sea". The rest of the 3000 year history of the geographic area, called "Palestine" has no boundary on the Jordan river. The slogan is modern, and not based on historic geological boundaries or historic political boundaries. They are based only on the 1920-1948 boundary lines... which is the modern era.
I've taken out the word "historic". The precise historical/geographical boundaries are not mystery. Badabara (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critics say it is a general call to genocide?

Our text says :The slogan's use by such Palestinian militant groups (as Hamas) has led critics to argue that the slogan implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population ie we are saying that critics think that the slogan has become inherently genocidal - which is probably true. The source used (Malik Gdn) simply says that Hamas' use is genocidal: In the hands of Hamas, it is a call for the driving out of all Jews from the region, it doesn't even mention how critics see the slogan. Pincrete (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the cites used to Dawn and AP who both speak of the more general criticism of the slogan as genocidal. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/ovgs/vg_muenster/j2023/1_L_1011_23_Beschluss_20231117.html
  2. ^ https://openjur.de/u/2479560.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:From_the_river_to_the_sea&oldid=1192228858"