Talk:From the river to the sea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested move 10 October 2023

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Article expansion

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

Here's one:

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

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

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

PLO charter

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

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

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

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

Not true. Hamas 2017 charter, Article 20:

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

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

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

Yousef Munayyer explanation

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

Palestinian-American writer Yousef Munayyer describes the phrase as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delineation needed

The article needs to delineate between:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

map

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

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

Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Palestine will be Arab"

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Hello there,

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

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

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

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

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)

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:[2]

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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

[5] Further info on PLO, PNC.

[6] Further info on Jewish referal

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

[8] 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.

[9] 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)

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

[11] "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? [12] (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)

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)

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)

“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)

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)

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.[13], [14], [15], [16],[17].
• 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)

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)

nytimes coverage

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

Another source for Likud usage, from an hour ago: AP News. It calls it "a version of the slogan" (i.e. the slogan being discussed here). DFlhb (talk) 17:23, 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)

That's why we are relying on sources, they have been repteadly sent here and there in this talk page. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:41, 11 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)

“…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)

There are other sources too in play. I added at least 9 sources, in regards in the discussion on overaliance on ADL. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

[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 regarding anti-Zionism etc.

[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"

I copied this from above, I think these sources could be useful here too. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:59, 11 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)

I've written several times in this talk page. It's sourced, and I added 9 sources even here in the talk page above. Scholary research, books etc... It's not OR. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sourced statements and WP:SYNTH are not mutually exclusive. In fact, synthesis is only possible when a user actually uses sources. I'm removing the sentence. Please show how any of these sources actually supports the inclusion on this page.VR _talk 18:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I can agree. Statements which are improperly sourced, and/or have improper synthesis, like the above sentence you noted on Nov. 10, need to be removed. These sorts of sentences should have no place in this article. Historyday01 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)