Jump to content

Talk:From the river to the sea

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

New usage by Israeli gov

[edit]

Netanyahu Minister to Nations Recognizing Palestine: 'Only Israel From the River to the Sea' Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cola quote

[edit]

Given the status of Mondoweiss as a source WP:MREL I don't think it should be used on this article. Thoughts? MaskedSinger (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to use it here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely being Mrel is not a sufficient reason. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First affirmative ruling in Germany

[edit]

[1]

Any preference on how it should be included? FortunateSons (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, they fined someone for saying it ("The court concluded that the use of the phrase “could only be understood as a denial of Israel’s right to exist and an endorsement” of Hamas’s October 7 attack" which is obvious rubbish), a ruling that is going to be appealed, so I'd wait for that. Her lawyer said "an assault on free speech" and "a dark day for freedom of expression". One trusts a higher court will agree. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the fact that’s it’s likely to be appealed should be included as well. I wouldn’t bet on the appeal going either way, we’ll see. FortunateSons (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me, I don't think it should be included (and maybe not even after it is appealed). Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how widely it is reported, the fact that a court found it is denial of Israel's right to exist seems WP:DUE?
However, looking at the article, it seems WP:UNDUE to dedicate as many words to Israeli usage as Palestinian? Reliable sources overwhelmingly focus on the latter, and all that is likely to be due in the lede is a passing mention. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it should be closer in line with how it’s covered by RS, which is overwhelmingly about the use for pro-Palestinian purposes. FortunateSons (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I disagree then, with the speed of German courts, appeals can take years, and there is enough detailed coverage for it to be due. FortunateSons (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I disagree then, with the speed of German courts, appeals can take years Even more reason to exclude. As well, forgotten in a week. Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling can both be discussed in media (and maybe even scholarship) and the appeal can take years, those facts are not necessarily contradictory. FortunateSons (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I think such a ruling is utter nonsense to have been handed out. Due to the profile of the case, it is worth including. While the appeal may not occur for an age, I'm sure we will see a couple dozen articles discussing and analysing this result in the coming days/weeks. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they have nothing better to write about. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the first affirmative ruling? Any mention of this (and I am not opposed to mentioning this here) would have to include a paraphrase of the remark made by the defense counsel,.i.e.,

Schließlich verweist die Verteidigung auf einen Vermerk der Berliner Staatsanwaltschaft, nachdem es beim Verwenden der Parole stets auf den Kontext ankomme. Auch das Landgericht Mannheim befasste sich bereits mit „From the river to the sea“ und kam laut Verteidigung zu dem Schluss, dass eine Mehrdeutigkeit vorliege.

This means in short there was a preceding judgment on such an incident which determined that the slogan was ambiguous, and a precise and independent reference to that independent decision (which is alluded to vaguely here) is needed. For all we know, the Mannheim ruling may have closed the case due to the ambiguity, or ruled, as in Berlin, that it is the context which counts for either condemning the person indicted, or letting them off the rap. The Berlin judge said that the context as reconstructed by police reports indicated that the German-Iranian woman was effectively calling for the annihilation of Israel. All of this is bullshit of course, but we have to report significant crap, but only by phrasing it neutrally, and that means bringing in more context, namely an independent reference to the Mannheim case.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How widely reported has the defence’s comment been? BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the full length would be too much, but a quick reference is fine, though I would paraphrase it by contrasting the relevant factor between this and the two (admin and crim) Mannheim decisions as explanation, basically focusing on the fact that the intended meaning is the factor regarding whether or not it is a crime. someone should stop me if the law stuff gets to bland/detailed
OT: the answer to the question of “when is it illegal” would likely be “it depends”, and one could argue that this person with the defence counsel prejudiced a worse result than a more respected attorney with a less *like that* client would have received. FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short,

The Mannheim Regional Court ruled in May 2024 that the slogan was not a Hamas symbol, and dismissed opening a criminal case. Three weeks later, in another case, the Higher Administrative Court ruled the opposite way.(Dr. Max Kolter Wie ein Verwaltungsgerichtshof ein Landgericht übergeht Legal Tribune Online 25.June.2024.)

That is the prelude to the Berlin decision, where the judge ruled against the defendant counsel's use of the Mannheim precedent.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn’t necessarily a Hamas symbol might be closer to the core here, see this
There are basically three core issues here, each of which may cause prosecution:
-use of terrorist symbols
-endorsing a severe crime (after Oct 7, which wasn’t the case for the first decision, see the explanation for this one: Link)
-‘public incitement to hate’
the core of the issue is the (assumed or proven) intent of the perpetrators, and the issue that many of the relevant laws have extensive past rulings for right wing extremism, but fewer or none for cases like this. FortunateSons (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not wikilawyer the other opinion in the source out of existence. If one source is being used, it is irrelevant that we need independent sources to confirm what the defence is reported as claiming.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first ruling, that’s what the title (“verhängt erstes Strafurteil”) implied for me, and I’m not familiar with any other, though it is quite possible that I either missed or a criminal ruling, so far, I’m only aware of affirmative administrative rulings, which have a different (read: lower) standard. FortunateSons (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A slogan as a 'terrorist symbol/cymbal'? Since when have terrorists an exclusive patent on popular sayings within any language? I remember singing as a child of six in our backgarden ladybird, ladybird fly away to my 4 yr old sister to soothe her fright when a ladybird beetle settled on her arm. That began as a chant used by Protestants as an augury that their Catholic neighbours might disappear or die out. As Catholics we used to hear several such rhymes against us, Micks or Irish apes, as we went to school. I suppose some politically correct dickhead will come out and press for a law forbidden these songs, rhymes and slogans as well. Bejayzus. We just shrugged them off. No one thought of legislating the prejudice out of all visibility.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just the messenger. But just for the uninvolved readers: this is standard in Germany, banned symbols (link is correlated, but not always analogous) are common FortunateSons (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article just tells me the lower German courts are just making it up as they go along. "A Bavarian court ruled in June that the phrase expected to be used in an upcoming demonstration in Munich did not constitute a crime and could not be banned outright, finding that the “benefit of the doubt” around the slogan must prevail." Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two German courts say pro-Palestinian slogans 'legal', after solidarity group wins case Idem, that was last year, Munster and Cologne, best write an article about the vagaries of the German court system instead. Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hesse in March. Yawn. Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the German lower courts. However, as we don’t really do case law, it is in fact highly dependent on context. FortunateSons (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it is highly dependent on the judges as well. Like I said, they are just making it up. Hesse is a HAC. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making it up or interpreting and applying law? FortunateSons (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just making it up. Judicial activism, maybe. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have met enough German judges (only half a dozen ones that primarily or exclusively do crim law though) to consider this exceedingly unlikely, for both those in favour and against punishing such conduct. FortunateSons (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's all irrelevant why they make contradictory judgements, just that if you include the one, I will include the others, even though I don't think any of them are worthy of inclusion. Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should include the other criminal one as well, sure! As long as we’re clear on the described factors (time, action, relevant laws) and the distinction between the criminal and administrative, including both judgements (and any future judgements that provide significant changes) is reasonable. FortunateSons (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Let's make a whole, completely irrelevant section about German court cases and another one for the countries that don't have such cases (all of them). Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how limited the legal status section is, a few more details (or a separate article, if there are enough people who know and care) sounds reasonable. If you can be prosecuted for a phrase, that’s probably significant FortunateSons (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well add more to it. Here's the Dutch update, after having found no case to answer in 2023. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of the Dutch parliament declared the phrase to be a call for violence. The judiciary, however, ruled in August 2023 that the phrase was protected on free speech grounds, being "subject to various interpretations", including those that "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". The decision was later upheld by the Dutch Supreme Court.
In May of 2024, a parliamentary motion calling for the criminalization of the slogan passed with a single-vote majority. As a result, prosecutions for inciting violence and hate speech when using the slogan are theoretically possible; however, prosecutions remain difficult in practice. (Why?)
Thoughts? FortunateSons (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter? Just add it to the article, it's what you wanted to do, add stuff, right? Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going for something specific, but sure; it’s added FortunateSons (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple inaccuracies in picture titled "Peace in the Army"

[edit]

Hello, there are inaccuracies in the description of the picture added recently with the title "Peace in the Army:

  • The title is wrong, it is not peace in the Army, but Salem in the army. Check Salem (name).
  • This is not the cover of an Egyptian military magazine, it is most likely Egyptian indeed, but it is not a military magazine. The text in Arabic says اقرأ واكتب which is Read and Write. The text at the bottom of the cover is سلسلة تعليم للكبار which means "A series for Adult Education". So this is not a military magazine, judging by what is written on the cover it is a publication made to compat illiteracy.

محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the image, which was added by @Shoshin000: on 20 August. Please clarify the details before restoring. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح @Selfstudier I merely took over the description from the file on Commons. I gleaned the text and also read Salam fil-jaysh, and did not pay attention to the smaller writings.
The drawing illustrates the trope very well however. I propose changing the description to "Egyptian magazine" Shoshin000 (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shoshin000 Egyptian book or Egyptian publication would be a better description. On the cover too, you will find the text الجزء الثاني which means Part Two, magazines don't come in parts typically. محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the file details on commons and it says there that this document has no copyright because it is an official document. Is this magazine an official document? Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Salem, still in the army, having a read. Inside the other booklet Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Salem is a name? And now it's Syrian? Issued by the Syrian army? Hum. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The connection between this "Driving into the sea" and the subject of this article is not obvious, who is making that connection? Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More likely the name than peace I guess, from the context. The connection seems to be from this journal.
"In zeitgenössischer islamischer Auslegung wird für die Apokalypse in der Literatur prophezeit: »Jerusalem ist arabisch-muslimisch und ganz Palästina vom Fluss bis zum Meer ist arabisch-muslimisch. Es gibt dort keinen Platz für diejenigen, welche vom Frieden und von der Herrschaft des Islam abweichen.«[68] Auf diese Passage beziehen sich der Slogan »Vom Fluss bis ans Meer« und der Schlachtruf »Treibt die Juden ins Meer«, die im Kontext des Sechstagekrieges 1967 – etwa in der ägyptischen Zeitschrift Salam fi al-dschaisch – Verbreitung fanden und auch in der Gegenwart noch genutzt werden."
Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He says it is Egyptian, tho. "Cover der ägyptischen Zeitschrift salam fi al dschaisch (Friede in der Armee) am Vorabend des »Sechstagekrieges« 1967." Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is specifically saying, if I understand the translation correctly that the current usage is derived from the 67 usage. That's not what we say in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mismatches don't instill much confidence. My Arabic is rubbish, but I can see the Syrian Arab Army in the booklet. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The drawing is unambiguous. And it seems to be indeed issued by the Syrian Arab Army. The seller is located in northern Israel; it might have been picked up on the battlefield, the only type of contact between the two nations. Shoshin000 (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The drawing is unambiguous as you say. However the description is not and the copyright is unclear. I don't think we should be using this image on WP. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late reply :-) Well, can't we outline it as a literacy booklet issued by the Syrian Arab Army? Shoshin000 (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The majority of Jews consider the slogan to be antisemitic" in wikivoice

[edit]


This article twice states that "[t]he majority of Jews consider the slogan to be antisemitic" with a citation to an article from the Telegraph. I think this should be removed as the Telegraph is in no way an authority on the subject & presents no evidence to support such an exceptional claim.

Whether "From the River to the Sea" is largely considered antisemitic by the Jewish community or not is highly controversial & should be handled with much more nuance than this. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this isn't a proper edit request @Butterscotch Beluga. You need to be more specific, suggesting "change x to y for reason z". Please don't make additional comments about this issue except for precise edit request suggestions. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else have thoughts on this? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source article is specifically about Britain, but it's been used to support a general, global-sounding statement. If it's used at all, it should be direct-quote attributed; the actual quotes are

Chants such as 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' are regarded by many Jewish people as genocidal in intent, but have become normalised

Chants calling for a global "intifada" (Arabic for "uprising") or "from the river to the sea", for example, are considered genocidal in intent by most Jews but do not currently meet the criminal threshold, and have become normalised

The "most Jews" quote is also commingling sentiment on intifada, and not from the river... alone. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably go in the "United Kingdom" country-specific section. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Cartoon edit war

[edit]

The cartoon in the criticism section should removed. It's currently being edit warred over. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be removed, and what is the status quo? BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undue for inclusion in this article. The "pushing the Jews into the sea" phrase is mentioned only once in this article where an ADL leader alleges a connection to the phrase "from the river to the sea". Why should this have an image to accompany it? Very clearly undue for inclusion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a graphic depiction of most of that section, and is directly connected to the text by that phrase. Given that it is the only graphic we currently have arguing against the use of the term - the rest just show diverse and widespread use of it - I don't think we can remove it without violating NPOV, unless we have a replacement? BilledMammal (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely that it could be WP:OR to connect the image to the phrase without a reliable secondary source. I assume attorneysdefendingisrael.blogspot is not an RS for this connection. My rubbish Arabic can see the image only seems to contain the words Aqaba, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. This image from the same source might be a better choice in that it seems to have Zionist and sea at the bottom, if a connection to the 'From the river to the sea' phrase can be made via an RS. This is a reminder for me that the topic area doesn't seem to cover the rich history of visual propaganda very well. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have never really understood the fuzzy disputed border region between 'self-evident/obvious' and 'original research' when it comes to visual things, the first image in Brick being my favorite example. Maybe the OR noticeboard can help in this case. Or maybe there are some decent books about visual propaganda in the Arab-Israeli conflict out there. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I'm quite aware that images like this appeared in Egyptian newspapers, no reliable source is being presented for this one. So why is it permitted to have it at all? Incidentally, a more relevant and more easily sourced image is this one of Bibi at the UN holding a map showing Israel from the river to the sea. I don't know if he used the phrase "from the river to the sea", but the map shows exactly that. It's not even the only time. The Egyptian cartoon has neither the phrase nor the depiction. Zerotalk 13:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image was added on 20 August, its provenance appears unclear, Here someone is claiming a copyright, saying it is from the Lebanese newspaper Al Djarida 1967, TinEye shows the same image in other unsatisfactory places with an additional text at the bottom.. As a recently added image with an unclear provenance and no secondary source, I don't think we should be using this. Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a Lebanese newspaper named as the source in several places. The extra text seen at tinyeye is Hebrew and says something like "Closing of the Strait of Eilat; Egypt kicks Israel, the armies of Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria in a state of readiness. (Lebanese newspaper "Al-Jarida," 25.5.1967)". This text and the one at Bridgeman "the closure of the Gulf of Akaba" matches the image better than the "into the sea" explanation which seems to come from nowhere. Without a reliable source, we can't say that this image depicts Israel being thrown into the sea. In addition, if it is Lebanese the copyright status is different as it would only expire 50 years after the death of the author if the newspaper stated the author. Zerotalk 14:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:From_the_river_to_the_sea&oldid=1255402615"