This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Should our article's first interpretation of this slogan's pro-Palestinian usage be what its users say it means or what those opposed to it claim that its users mean? Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Our article starts with a sentence explaining the simple geographic meaning of this phrase. The second sentence addresses its political meaning when combined with "free Palestine" or similar. In this second sentence, should the first interpretation that our article provides be:
Clearly the article will continue to cover both perspectives. The question which has been disputed here for many weeks is simply the correct order. Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Although, as noted in the intro, this slogan has been in use since the 1960s, the entry was added to Wikipedia only in October 2023. Most of the sources cited were also written around this time and after. This is not a coincidence. The slogan gained traction with the general public following the Oct 7 attack by Hamas, the ensuing war and demonstrations against Israel around the world, where it was commonly used. This use of the slogan in demonstrations provoked criticism and led to a wider public debate. While use of the slogan had indeed aroused interest in the past (Nasar, 2018), but the current context, the slogan's current use and the accompanying discussion alone constitute the reasons behind the broad interest in the slogan in general, and the justification for the creation of a unique Wikipedia entry in particular. This crucial context is completely absent from the intro. Whoever reads it will get a critically partial picture. The current context must feature prominently and centrally in the introduction.
I do not have permissions to edit the content, so this is an action item for someone who can. Zyakov ( talk) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Let the law be the measure by which all are judged, not propaganda and hateful, biased, spin steeped in racism. And to Israel's absurd assertion that Palestinians have a problem with people of Jewish faith, and give the impression that this is a religious conflict, let us say it loud and clear, this is not, and has never been about religion. Had the occupiers of our land, or the violators of our rights been Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or of any other conviction, we would have called them out all the same. Palestine has always been multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious. People of Jewish faith have lived in historic Palestine as Palestinians for centuries.
the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first wave of mass Jewish immigration.only applied from the mid-60s until the early 70s, and equally 'exclusionist' statements from that period were made by Israeli politicians.
20WattSphere, in your
edit summary you wrote these facts are common knowledge, not original research, thus don't need to be cited. See WP:BLUE
In fact, the content you added, the way it was characterized, and where it was placed is all your POV and in order for it to stay in the article it would absolutely need to be supported by a reliable source about the phrase 'from the river to the sea' per WP:Verifiability, and it would probably have to be attributed to the source. Also, see WP:REDSKY. إيان ( talk) 15:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Pincrete, please explain why you re-added the content below that WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION:
The cited sources, American historian Robin D. G. Kelley and Pakistani newspaper Dawn (not a scholarly source anyway), do not support these statements. Neither mention Fatah, and Fatah is mentioned nowhere else in this article as it stands. In Kelley's article, he states that the phrase started as a Zionist slogan, but this does not appear in the introduction.
References
إيان ( talk) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:ONUS. إيان ( talk) 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
the first hard evidence of the river-sea concept in political literature is the 1977 Likud. I don't see anything like the same level of coverage of early Zionist use, nor even r-wing Israeli use. I'm not even clear when the 'early' Zionist use was nor how/by whom used.
I was asked to explain to a friend yesterday why discussing the Israel Palestine conflict is so divisive. It is easy to condemn Oct 7 and easy to condemn the ongoing Gaza massacre. It’s only when you attempt to justify either event that it gets complicated. They asked me to explain a century of the two narratives in five minutes, and I did my best. It went something along the lines of the below:
Why was there conflict? | ||
---|---|---|
Core of the pro-Palestinian explanation | Core of the pro-Israeli explanation | |
Pre-1917 | Foreign colonies without integration, expelling peasants from their land | Antisemitism |
Mandate period | …plus country being “given away” by a third party | Antisemitism |
Post-1948 | …plus Nakba, expulsion | Antisemitism |
Post-1967 | …plus occupation, settlement and apartheid | Antisemitism |
Post-2005 | …plus blockade, mowing the lawn | Antisemitism |
The reason for putting this here is it seems to explain the dissonance between editors of this article over the last few weeks. The table shows that is understandable that those who lean towards the pro-Israeli narrative would see antisemitism in the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” because antisemitism is at the foundation of the entire century-long story they believe in. It is equally understandable that those who use the phrase, i.e. those who lean towards the pro-Palestinian narrative, consider such a claim abhorrent or manipulative, because antisemitism has never been a reason for anything that has happened in this conflict in their view of the history.
Long story short, as editors we should accept that the two groups will not and can not see eye to eye on this topic. Or on analogous matters such as the debates around Anti-Zionism = Antisemitism.
Perhaps the nuance here is whilst it is acceptable to say that some perceive the phrase in a negative way, we must not write any statements in wiki-voice that suggest the phrase is actively used in a negative way, because there are no cases at all where the user has stated such negative intentions to this specific phrase.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Why was there conflict? | ||
---|---|---|
Core of the pro-Palestinian explanation | Core of the pro-Israeli explanation | |
Pre-1917 | Foreign colonies without integration, expelling peasants from their land | Pogroms and violence over denial of claim to indigenous homeland |
Mandate period | …plus country being “given away” by a third party | ...plus continued denial of indigenous claim, millennia-denied opportunity for self-determination, massacres by Arab populations/governments |
Post-1948 | …plus Nakba, expulsion | ...plus Arab rejectionism, invasion, ethnic cleansing and expulsion from Arab countries |
Post-1967 | …plus occupation, settlement and apartheid | ...plus continued Arab & Palestinian rejectionism, invasion, terrorism, bombings, hijackings; antisemitism |
Post-2005 | …plus blockade, mowing the lawn | ...plus continued Arab & Palestinian rejectionism, rocket fire, terrorism, bombings, antisemitism |
…flat wrong and a bit shocking to read that "antisemitism has never been a reason for anything that has happening in this conflict."As per my original point, the key is that this is a view held unswervingly and wholeheartedly by every single protagonist on the Palestinian / Arab side of the history. That you are surprised by that illustrates the depth of the problem. I will quote again this speech by the State of Palestine in the UN a few days ago:
And to Israel's absurd assertion that Palestinians have a problem with people of Jewish faith, and give the impression that this is a religious conflict, let us say it loud and clear, this is not, and has never been about religion. Had the occupiers of our land, or the violators of our rights been Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or of any other conviction, we would have called them out all the same. Palestine has always been multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious. People of Jewish faith have lived in historic Palestine as Palestinians for centuries.
And reliable sources, such as those in the article, absolutely suggest that the phrase has been used to call for "in a negative way"I suggest you look closely at each article and consider whether that reliable source is representing a particular viewpoint or otherwise claiming to have a solid fact. Also beware the faulty generalization – finding a handful of extremists on either side does not make a mainstream.
Is the tag still justified? As there has been no recent neutrality discussion, I'm going to remove the tag per WP:BRD. Pincrete ( talk) 10:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This section is rather confusing, I'm not sure its that needed. I added content that was important historical context to the slogan but apparently its irrelevant, since I assumed that this section is supposed to give context to the history behind the slogan. Perhaps its best to disperse this section all together since it only presents a narrow view. Also it's very little content. Furthermore, basing on Mondoweiss is problematic, which from my understanding is a newspaper whose staff views itself as anti Zionist. Homerethegreat ( talk) 11:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
According to Haviv Rettig Gur, that is the slogan actually used by Palestinians when chanting in Arabic, as opposed to the "will be free" English version, used abroad. There's no mention of it anywhere in the article. This would make the political meaning much clearer. Arminden ( talk) 14:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, this was probably unintentional, but you reintroduced the claim about Fatah that failed source verification. إيان ( talk) 17:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I know some try to spin the meaning of what they say, so a 3rd category must be "Controversial, equivocal meaning", including all hard-to-pin-down ones. But the essential first 2 categories can only be the exclusive options (Greater Israel & total Naqba, and anti-Israel, sometimes anti-Jewish, total genocide), and the well-meant civil/universal rights meaning. That's what MATTERS. Wishing the worst to millions vs. wishing them the best, realistically or not, naively or not, isn't that what ultimately matters to any right-minded person? Listing murderous & well-intended statements one next to the other, "neatly" by country and/or medium, is beyond stupid; we might as well close down Wiki, but also universities, media, humanity, pack up a dream ot two, and press the red button. All the red buttons, at once. The cycle back to the cave would be closed, but with no way back up. Fuck Wiki & everybody else for even getting so low. Arminden ( talk) 20:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there a source to support this sentence? As I recall it was already criticized beforehand. The use by Fatah/PLO/PNC has also being critisized. Homerethegreat ( talk) 10:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Mistamystery, when you removed the attributed claims of two distinguished historians,
Robin Kelley and
Omer Bartov, you wrote: Kelley source is NPOV and makes claim without actual citation of origin. Bartov anecdote is not relevant to this article - unless the specific usage of “from the river to the sea” is invoked, it does not belong here. Please refer to talk page and perhaps RFC if this page is to include intimations as well as literal use.
If the source is described as NPOV
and used extensively for other claims in the article, what's the issue? Many other attributed claims from people who don't cite their sources exist in the article. This claim is attributed. That should be enough.
Bartov speaks to the BBC in a segment entitled "من النهر إلى البحر" شعار أثار الجدل في أوروبا وبريطانيا، فما تاريخ هذا الشعار؟. 'From the river to the sea' is indeed specifically invoked. How is that not relevant? How does it not belong?
How does your removal of attributed claims of two distinguished historians improve the article? إيان ( talk) 16:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
text; Bartov is brought on to the BBC as an expert to speak about the history of ‘from the river to the sea.’ The segment—entitled "من النهر إلى البحر" شعار أثار الجدل في أوروبا وبريطانيا، فما تاريخ هذا الشعار؟ (in case a translation is needed: [‘From the river to the sea,’ a slogan that has stirred controversy in Europe and Britain; what’s the history of this slogan?])—is in Arabic, but Bartov speaks in English with Arabic subtitles. إيان ( talk) 06:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
regardless of what the name of the BBC piece is. The BBC piece may be mainly about the slogan, but our Bartov text isn't at all about it. Pincrete ( talk) 20:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
We seem to have come full circle The present text about the song establishes no relationship to the slogan
. No discernible one at least.
Pincrete (
talk)
05:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Adding quotation marks around ancestral homeland suggests that the claim is tenuous at best, and completely false at worse (see Scare quotes). Jewish culture and ancestry indisputably originates in the Holy Land/Palestine/Israel. Hell, the first definition for "diaspora" is Jews living outside of that region [1]. There is also no reason to think that these quotation marks are being used to suggest that the words are a direct quote from the source, because that doesn't provide any valuable information to the reader. The quotation marks should be removed. TimeEngineer ( talk) 07:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I acknowledge that a fair amount of text 'tweaking is atil happening, but it has been quite some time since anybody raised any significant NPOV concerns. I'll remove the banner if no one objects. Pincrete ( talk) 16:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, this article and concept is currently defined as a geographical concept. I would like to dissent on this. It is not a slogan or term used by geographers. It is a term used with a political meaning. The introduction itself largely expose its political nature, which we can at minima define as a slogan refering to an unified political entity in between the Jordan river and the mediterranean sea. This meaning is agreed upon in all cases cited, from moderates progressives, to ethno-nationalists from Israel and from Hamas. I suggested this change but was reverted. Can other editors review this proposal. Yug (talk) 🐲 15:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
> The precise origins of the phrase are disputed.
Demitri Coryton appears to be the editor of an "Education Journal", but I am unable to find this article or available copies of this journal, and Coryton himself does not appear to have any academic background as it relates to this phrase or the Arab-Israeli conflict. The citation of a recent article as the primary source on this statement implies influence by current political events, rather than established scholarship. If support for this can be found in older sources, those should be used. Otherwise, more credible citations should be added or the section should be removed.
> According to American historian Robin D. G. Kelley, the phrase "began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel."
The citation for this section does not contain this direct quote or anything resembling it.
> Israeli-American historian Omer Bartov notes that Zionist usage of such language predates the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and began with the Revisionist movement of Zionism led by Vladimir Jabotinski, which spoke of establishing a Jewish state in all of Palestine and had a song with the slogan: "The Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, and the other one too," suggesting a Jewish state extending even beyond the Jordan River.
This does not explain the phrase for which this article exists and its use as a political slogan; additionally the article cites an Arabic bbc report which plays a small excerpt of a video which doesn't represent established written scholarship. There's an obvious bias implication. ObviouslyCorrect ( talk) 14:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine, which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1947, although this was later revised to only include descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety". According to the 1964 Charter, "Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.' Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean[to whom?] one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".
Issue #1
According to the 1964 Charter, "Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.'
Advocating this be removed. On its own is misleading as to the full character of what the charter expressed, which is more fully outlined in the above sentence (“initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1947”) - which is a proper neutral characterization of what is in the charter. Expressing this twice, and including sentiment contained within the charter feels WP:UNDUE.
Issue #2
Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".
While I respect that the writer is a respected academic, a quote casting a general aspersion with no further qualification or detail and has no place in the lede. This article is literally about the diversity of interpretations of the phrase - there is no place for an unqualified quote about a universal sentiment when the article clearly contradicts this. Mistamystery ( talk) 17:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
From the river to the sea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
"On November 11, 2023, the slogan was banned in Bavaria (Germany), and "the prosecutor's office and the Bavarian police warned that henceforth the use of this slogan, regardless of language, will be considered as the use of symbols of terrorist organizations. This may result in punishment of up to three years in prison or a fine."[83][84]"
to
On November 11, 2023, the slogan was banned by police in Bavaria, Germany, and "the prosecutor's office and the Bavarian police warned that henceforth the use of this slogan, regardless of language, will be considered as the use of symbols of terrorist organizations."[83][84] However on November 17, 2023, the Administrative Court of Münster in Bavaria gave pro-Palestinian gatherings interim legal protection overthrowing a police ban. The court ruled that the slogan not punishable in all but exceptional circumstances, because according to the understanding of an unbiased audience it does not objectively have a criminal meaning. On December 1, 2023, the Cologne Administrative Court in North Rhine-Westphalia reiterated the Münster court ruling and overthrew a ban issued by the Bonn Police.
[1] [2] Windsorchair ( talk) 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
References
Our text says :The slogan's use by such Palestinian militant groups (as Hamas) has led critics to argue that the slogan implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population ie we are saying that critics think that the slogan has become inherently genocidal - which is probably true. The source used (Malik Gdn) simply says that Hamas' use is genocidal: In the hands of Hamas, it is a call for the driving out of all Jews from the region, it doesn't even mention how critics see the slogan. Pincrete ( talk) 07:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I've altered the cites used to Dawn and AP who both speak of the more general criticism of the slogan as genocidal. Pincrete ( talk) 07:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there any valid reason for incuding this religious terminology in the lead without elaborating? It is only know as the "Land of Israel" by those that are religiously affiliated. Also why Holy Land would be unfit. JJNito197 ( talk) 11:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Mistamystery, you
reverted my edit removing al-Qaeda as the only non-state among states with the explanation that Section is pertaining to polity or entity. It’s not “international countries”- Pakistan is not appropriate, Bin Laden neither represented Pakistan, nor is it proven he was in Pakistan when he wrote the speech (despite it being recovered in Pakistan). It’s a statement attributed to the founder of an entity - think citing himself directly or the group he was leading is most appropriate.
The parent section is Use internationally—should the taxonomy then not be organized by nations/states? Bin Laden neither represented Pakistan
—is the assumption that all other usage in the section is to be considered representative of the nation state under which it is organized? Are professional footballers in the UK to be understood as "representative" of the UK?
Pincrete, you then changed Lebanon to Hezbollah. What are your thoughts on the organization of the section?
With al-Qaeda and Hezbollah at the top of the section, and with the above section "Use by Palestinian militant groups," it elides massive popular/civilian use of the phrase and gives UNDUE weight to use by Islamist militant groups. إيان ( talk) 18:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
We salute the Palestinian people of heroic mujahideen as well as every hero and heroine amongst the champions of self-sacrifice who confront the zionest aggression with their lives and thus foil the wrong ideas of the American administrations which have acted in alliance with their artificial zionist creation in the crimes they perpetrate and the shame they reap. Glorious and sublime are our martyrs in Palestine, Iraq and the nation as a whole. Glorious and sublime are our martyrs in Palestine, Iraq and the nation as a whole. Long live Palestine, free and Arab, from the sea to the river. Long live Great Iraq and its valiant army of Mujahideen.Long live our glorious Arab nation.
Mistamystery ( talk) 06:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)referred to the Palestinian people and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
Hello pro editors. I am just a professional historian and an amateur Wikipedia user and am evidently not skilled/qualified enough to make this change myself. I am not taking side on this issue.
But solely in terms of its history, the first iteration I can find of this phrasing is in the Bible: Joshua 23:4 -- "Behold, I have allotted to you as an inheritance for your tribes those nations that remain, along with all the nations that I have already cut off, from the Jordan to the Great Sea in the west."
Again, I'm not taking sides. But it seems this is a much earlier iteration (written sometime between the 7th-5th centuries BCE) of this phrasing than what is currently listed in the History section. I think it might be worth mentioning, no?
Just wanted to say I left a few edits on this page a month or so ago, and since then have come back to check it out. It looks a whole lot better than I remember, very well-written and beginner-friendly. Pats on the back. 20WattSphere ( talk) 21:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/tagged/from-the-river-to-the-sea
This link contains a number of useful pieces written by relevant scholars. Onceinawhile ( talk) 23:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I find this article to showcase bias. Rather than starting with the meaning(s) that the people chanting it offer, it goes very quickly to the criticisms. What meaning it does cover, starts with the most negative version.
Additionally, it seems to simply miss the way that the slogan is chanted. It's changed by people who see a future for Palestinians of Jewish and Arab and more heritages, living free of ethno nationalism that creates zero sum outlooks. The slogan is about being free, free from oppression and obligation to ethno-nationalist states.
This stands in contrast to the Likud party’s original manifesto in 1977 stated that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”
This is about freedom, not a specific prescription of two or one state "solutions" - it's about being free of ideologies. It's against Zionism.
Here's a decent sources: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/from-the-river-to-the-sea-what-does-the-palestinian-slogan-really-mean
I think starting off hewing much closer to the people who are chanting it makes much more sense. SubcomandanteOvashinsky ( talk) 05:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
showcase biasyou speak of. After describing the are referred to, we say: "In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine and later "Palestinian progressives use the phrase to call for a united democracy over the whole territory while others say "it's a call for peace and equality after ... decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians. By comparison, the 'critics' get little space. The CBC source is a good source, but it devotes a great deal more space to 'critics' than we do and echoes our approach. The Al Jazeera we already use. Pincrete ( talk) 06:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The article title should be 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free', not 'From the river to the sea'. The truncated form is only ever used by opponents of the slogan who seek to caricature and vilify it, and hide the fact that the slogan is a call for freedom, not a call for genocide. MathewMunro ( talk) 05:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Interesting article here. Can anyone find the original Hebrew transcript so we can verify that the translation is correct? Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the section titled "Context" could be removed. It only draws from a single source, and seems like is essentially restating the article's thesis, rather than providing empirical information. The list of events also seems designed to force an inference that Israel is single-handedly responsible for all fracturing of the region, which could lead to accusations of pro-Palestinian bias for the page as a whole. Orenstevens ( talk) 11:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
From the river to the sea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
− | The phrase was popularised in the 1960s | + | The phrase was popularised in the 1960s among the Palestinian population as a call for freedom from the rule of Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. |
The current text says "democratic" Palestinian state, which is not mentioned anywhere in the NPR source.
spintheer ( talk) 02:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
References
This isn't the only source, and may not be the best. Here, it says "The slogan has been around for decades among Palestinians and pro-Palestinian campaigners and refers to liberating the territory that exists between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea in historic Palestine … The origins of the phrase date back to the original debate over partition in the 1940s." Another one of the 'explanatory' sources says "What started as a call to end an apartheid-like system in Israel and Palestine, is now conflated with being equal with antisemitism and a call for the destruction of the state of Israel". Pincrete ( talk) 15:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
From the river to the sea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Jewish-occupied Palestinian lands" needs to be removed it is an opinionnot fact. it is just called Israel, and it is a leagal country, political opinions and biases have no place in knowledge. 108.7.65.121 ( talk) 13:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done as phrase not found. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
From the river to the sea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From "The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety".[8] "
To
The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety, calling for the complete annihilation of the sovereign, legally created nation of Israel and its people.".[8] BrakeYawSelf ( talk) 23:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Response to criticism section, I think the wikilink to
/info/en/?search=Ahmed_Khalidi should be removed. It seems clear that the person who is quoted in the NYT article is not the person with a wikipedia page because they don't have the same exact name, they don't hold their PhDs from the same institution and they didn't teach at the same places. The link is very confusing because Ahmed Mubarak Al-Khalidi is a member of the PNA, so suggesting this is him responding to criticism in the NYT makes the response look very biased. Bio for the Oxford researcher:
https://www.gcsp.ch/our-experts/dr-ahmad-samih-khalidi . Thank you!
Ab930 ( talk) 11:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Its use by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to argue that it implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region.
A link to the English translation of Hamas charter: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full
I didn't see the relationship: I believe Hamas's reference to "from river to sea" is from the Article 20 of their charter, but in the same article Hamas stated its acceptance of the 1967 borders. Moreover, Hamas has stated in Articles 16 and 17 that they do not hate Jews and oppose Antisemitism. Why would Hamas's use of the slogan lead to it being explained as genocide of the Jews? This makes no sense.
It is a fact that Hamas quotes this slogan in their charter, and it may be another fact that some critics believe that this slogan means the expulsion of Jews, but is there a causal relationship between them?
Reference 8 makes no mention of the causal relationship, and the same goes for reference 10. Reference 10 simply quotes some "Jewish organization" saying there is a causal link, which is obviously an opinion, but the article describes it as a fact, this is a WP:SYNTH.
I think "Its use by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to argue that it implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region." should be changed to "Critics argue that its use by such Palestinian militant groups means it implicitly advocates the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region." ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This publication is not a reliable source on the topic. I'm deleting 2 sentences that cite this source. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Let's keep wikipedia encyclopedic. Badabara ( talk) 16:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
From the river to the sea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While the Likud Platform of 1977 made use of phrasing which is similar enough to "River to the Sea", no mention of river or sea, in Hebrew, are used in the Current Likud platform, which can be found here. More specifically, page 6 of the document, references terms and conditions for peace talks with the palestinians. The relevant passage reads as follows:
The current peace talks in Annapolis, which focus on achieving a final and quick agreement, miss the their purpose
We do not believe that the Palestinians are ready for a historic compromise that will end the conflict.
There is little evidence that the Palestinians are ready to accept even the minimum demands demanded by an Israeli leader. The Palestinians rejected far-reaching concessions that we, the Israelis, offered eight years ago and their position has not changed or moderated even today. As far as the core issues are concerned.
Instead of helping Abu Mazen and Fayed, Israel should focus its efforts on improving the daily lives of The Palestinians. Pointwise, we must help them develop their economic system. Although it will not lead to the resolution of the conflict, it will create a calmer environment and, therefore, a high chance of a settlement and successful delivery. A Likud-led government will immediately focus on changing the situation on the ground.
When the time comes for final negotiations for peace, the Likud will present clear red lines: the Likud and the one who heads it will insist that the responsibility for the peace of the citizens of the State of Israel will remain in the hands of Israel and that Israel's right to defend its borders will be preserved, a right enshrined in Resolutions 242 and 338 of the United Nations. Yaffalandis ( talk) 00:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
00:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Slogans can morph and get transplanted. Has anybody come across From the river to the sea, the Confederacy shall be free! The parallelism works. Pete unseth ( talk) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Despite his usage of the word "context", its from an opinion piece that does not provide a general neutral context to the use of the phrase but a rather POV one-sided take with a bunch of charged language.
Also contesting the solitary citation from Mondoweiss in this regard, as per RS, it should be treated with caution and its neutrality and reliability in this regard is not strong enough to stand on its own. Would prefer other more reliable sources to be providing "context" in this regard. Mistamystery ( talk) 05:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
is known for his heated essaysSays who? In 2006? Selfstudier ( talk) 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Anti Zionism is definitely denying the Jewish right of self-determinationis just rubbish). Selfstudier ( talk) 11:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
"A statement recently published in The New York Review of Books calls for “an Economic Boycott and Political Nonrecognition of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories”. You can pivot to some JVP blog if you like, but that's not the original statement you mentioned. Also, membership of an organisation doesn't imply that you believe in everything on one of its blogs. Even then, there's nothing wrong with boycotting Israel in general: it's perfectly reasonable – not least in the current context of plausible genocide. It's arguably a moral imperative for anyone that believes in human rights and disavows their abuse. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Selfstudier I strongly object to your editions:
1. There is no ground to remove Susie Linfield's opinion. Nothing here says that this section should contain only "experts in the subject matter". And what is exactly the subject matter anyway?
2. I think that we must include an explicit mention that Cola's statements here appeared in an opinion piece in a (not so) RS. It is required by WP:RSOpinion to make clear that this is only his political opinion and not a result of a research given in an academic publication.
Vegan416 ( talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Elliott Colla is an American scholar of the Middle East...Line 1 of Colla article.
Susie Linfield is a social and cultural theorist...Line 1 of Linfield article.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Should our article's first interpretation of this slogan's pro-Palestinian usage be what its users say it means or what those opposed to it claim that its users mean? Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Our article starts with a sentence explaining the simple geographic meaning of this phrase. The second sentence addresses its political meaning when combined with "free Palestine" or similar. In this second sentence, should the first interpretation that our article provides be:
Clearly the article will continue to cover both perspectives. The question which has been disputed here for many weeks is simply the correct order. Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Although, as noted in the intro, this slogan has been in use since the 1960s, the entry was added to Wikipedia only in October 2023. Most of the sources cited were also written around this time and after. This is not a coincidence. The slogan gained traction with the general public following the Oct 7 attack by Hamas, the ensuing war and demonstrations against Israel around the world, where it was commonly used. This use of the slogan in demonstrations provoked criticism and led to a wider public debate. While use of the slogan had indeed aroused interest in the past (Nasar, 2018), but the current context, the slogan's current use and the accompanying discussion alone constitute the reasons behind the broad interest in the slogan in general, and the justification for the creation of a unique Wikipedia entry in particular. This crucial context is completely absent from the intro. Whoever reads it will get a critically partial picture. The current context must feature prominently and centrally in the introduction.
I do not have permissions to edit the content, so this is an action item for someone who can. Zyakov ( talk) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Let the law be the measure by which all are judged, not propaganda and hateful, biased, spin steeped in racism. And to Israel's absurd assertion that Palestinians have a problem with people of Jewish faith, and give the impression that this is a religious conflict, let us say it loud and clear, this is not, and has never been about religion. Had the occupiers of our land, or the violators of our rights been Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or of any other conviction, we would have called them out all the same. Palestine has always been multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious. People of Jewish faith have lived in historic Palestine as Palestinians for centuries.
the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first wave of mass Jewish immigration.only applied from the mid-60s until the early 70s, and equally 'exclusionist' statements from that period were made by Israeli politicians.
20WattSphere, in your
edit summary you wrote these facts are common knowledge, not original research, thus don't need to be cited. See WP:BLUE
In fact, the content you added, the way it was characterized, and where it was placed is all your POV and in order for it to stay in the article it would absolutely need to be supported by a reliable source about the phrase 'from the river to the sea' per WP:Verifiability, and it would probably have to be attributed to the source. Also, see WP:REDSKY. إيان ( talk) 15:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Pincrete, please explain why you re-added the content below that WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION:
The cited sources, American historian Robin D. G. Kelley and Pakistani newspaper Dawn (not a scholarly source anyway), do not support these statements. Neither mention Fatah, and Fatah is mentioned nowhere else in this article as it stands. In Kelley's article, he states that the phrase started as a Zionist slogan, but this does not appear in the introduction.
References
إيان ( talk) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:ONUS. إيان ( talk) 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
the first hard evidence of the river-sea concept in political literature is the 1977 Likud. I don't see anything like the same level of coverage of early Zionist use, nor even r-wing Israeli use. I'm not even clear when the 'early' Zionist use was nor how/by whom used.
I was asked to explain to a friend yesterday why discussing the Israel Palestine conflict is so divisive. It is easy to condemn Oct 7 and easy to condemn the ongoing Gaza massacre. It’s only when you attempt to justify either event that it gets complicated. They asked me to explain a century of the two narratives in five minutes, and I did my best. It went something along the lines of the below:
Why was there conflict? | ||
---|---|---|
Core of the pro-Palestinian explanation | Core of the pro-Israeli explanation | |
Pre-1917 | Foreign colonies without integration, expelling peasants from their land | Antisemitism |
Mandate period | …plus country being “given away” by a third party | Antisemitism |
Post-1948 | …plus Nakba, expulsion | Antisemitism |
Post-1967 | …plus occupation, settlement and apartheid | Antisemitism |
Post-2005 | …plus blockade, mowing the lawn | Antisemitism |
The reason for putting this here is it seems to explain the dissonance between editors of this article over the last few weeks. The table shows that is understandable that those who lean towards the pro-Israeli narrative would see antisemitism in the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” because antisemitism is at the foundation of the entire century-long story they believe in. It is equally understandable that those who use the phrase, i.e. those who lean towards the pro-Palestinian narrative, consider such a claim abhorrent or manipulative, because antisemitism has never been a reason for anything that has happened in this conflict in their view of the history.
Long story short, as editors we should accept that the two groups will not and can not see eye to eye on this topic. Or on analogous matters such as the debates around Anti-Zionism = Antisemitism.
Perhaps the nuance here is whilst it is acceptable to say that some perceive the phrase in a negative way, we must not write any statements in wiki-voice that suggest the phrase is actively used in a negative way, because there are no cases at all where the user has stated such negative intentions to this specific phrase.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Why was there conflict? | ||
---|---|---|
Core of the pro-Palestinian explanation | Core of the pro-Israeli explanation | |
Pre-1917 | Foreign colonies without integration, expelling peasants from their land | Pogroms and violence over denial of claim to indigenous homeland |
Mandate period | …plus country being “given away” by a third party | ...plus continued denial of indigenous claim, millennia-denied opportunity for self-determination, massacres by Arab populations/governments |
Post-1948 | …plus Nakba, expulsion | ...plus Arab rejectionism, invasion, ethnic cleansing and expulsion from Arab countries |
Post-1967 | …plus occupation, settlement and apartheid | ...plus continued Arab & Palestinian rejectionism, invasion, terrorism, bombings, hijackings; antisemitism |
Post-2005 | …plus blockade, mowing the lawn | ...plus continued Arab & Palestinian rejectionism, rocket fire, terrorism, bombings, antisemitism |
…flat wrong and a bit shocking to read that "antisemitism has never been a reason for anything that has happening in this conflict."As per my original point, the key is that this is a view held unswervingly and wholeheartedly by every single protagonist on the Palestinian / Arab side of the history. That you are surprised by that illustrates the depth of the problem. I will quote again this speech by the State of Palestine in the UN a few days ago:
And to Israel's absurd assertion that Palestinians have a problem with people of Jewish faith, and give the impression that this is a religious conflict, let us say it loud and clear, this is not, and has never been about religion. Had the occupiers of our land, or the violators of our rights been Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or of any other conviction, we would have called them out all the same. Palestine has always been multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious. People of Jewish faith have lived in historic Palestine as Palestinians for centuries.
And reliable sources, such as those in the article, absolutely suggest that the phrase has been used to call for "in a negative way"I suggest you look closely at each article and consider whether that reliable source is representing a particular viewpoint or otherwise claiming to have a solid fact. Also beware the faulty generalization – finding a handful of extremists on either side does not make a mainstream.
Is the tag still justified? As there has been no recent neutrality discussion, I'm going to remove the tag per WP:BRD. Pincrete ( talk) 10:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This section is rather confusing, I'm not sure its that needed. I added content that was important historical context to the slogan but apparently its irrelevant, since I assumed that this section is supposed to give context to the history behind the slogan. Perhaps its best to disperse this section all together since it only presents a narrow view. Also it's very little content. Furthermore, basing on Mondoweiss is problematic, which from my understanding is a newspaper whose staff views itself as anti Zionist. Homerethegreat ( talk) 11:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
According to Haviv Rettig Gur, that is the slogan actually used by Palestinians when chanting in Arabic, as opposed to the "will be free" English version, used abroad. There's no mention of it anywhere in the article. This would make the political meaning much clearer. Arminden ( talk) 14:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, this was probably unintentional, but you reintroduced the claim about Fatah that failed source verification. إيان ( talk) 17:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I know some try to spin the meaning of what they say, so a 3rd category must be "Controversial, equivocal meaning", including all hard-to-pin-down ones. But the essential first 2 categories can only be the exclusive options (Greater Israel & total Naqba, and anti-Israel, sometimes anti-Jewish, total genocide), and the well-meant civil/universal rights meaning. That's what MATTERS. Wishing the worst to millions vs. wishing them the best, realistically or not, naively or not, isn't that what ultimately matters to any right-minded person? Listing murderous & well-intended statements one next to the other, "neatly" by country and/or medium, is beyond stupid; we might as well close down Wiki, but also universities, media, humanity, pack up a dream ot two, and press the red button. All the red buttons, at once. The cycle back to the cave would be closed, but with no way back up. Fuck Wiki & everybody else for even getting so low. Arminden ( talk) 20:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there a source to support this sentence? As I recall it was already criticized beforehand. The use by Fatah/PLO/PNC has also being critisized. Homerethegreat ( talk) 10:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Mistamystery, when you removed the attributed claims of two distinguished historians,
Robin Kelley and
Omer Bartov, you wrote: Kelley source is NPOV and makes claim without actual citation of origin. Bartov anecdote is not relevant to this article - unless the specific usage of “from the river to the sea” is invoked, it does not belong here. Please refer to talk page and perhaps RFC if this page is to include intimations as well as literal use.
If the source is described as NPOV
and used extensively for other claims in the article, what's the issue? Many other attributed claims from people who don't cite their sources exist in the article. This claim is attributed. That should be enough.
Bartov speaks to the BBC in a segment entitled "من النهر إلى البحر" شعار أثار الجدل في أوروبا وبريطانيا، فما تاريخ هذا الشعار؟. 'From the river to the sea' is indeed specifically invoked. How is that not relevant? How does it not belong?
How does your removal of attributed claims of two distinguished historians improve the article? إيان ( talk) 16:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
text; Bartov is brought on to the BBC as an expert to speak about the history of ‘from the river to the sea.’ The segment—entitled "من النهر إلى البحر" شعار أثار الجدل في أوروبا وبريطانيا، فما تاريخ هذا الشعار؟ (in case a translation is needed: [‘From the river to the sea,’ a slogan that has stirred controversy in Europe and Britain; what’s the history of this slogan?])—is in Arabic, but Bartov speaks in English with Arabic subtitles. إيان ( talk) 06:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
regardless of what the name of the BBC piece is. The BBC piece may be mainly about the slogan, but our Bartov text isn't at all about it. Pincrete ( talk) 20:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
We seem to have come full circle The present text about the song establishes no relationship to the slogan
. No discernible one at least.
Pincrete (
talk)
05:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Adding quotation marks around ancestral homeland suggests that the claim is tenuous at best, and completely false at worse (see Scare quotes). Jewish culture and ancestry indisputably originates in the Holy Land/Palestine/Israel. Hell, the first definition for "diaspora" is Jews living outside of that region [1]. There is also no reason to think that these quotation marks are being used to suggest that the words are a direct quote from the source, because that doesn't provide any valuable information to the reader. The quotation marks should be removed. TimeEngineer ( talk) 07:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I acknowledge that a fair amount of text 'tweaking is atil happening, but it has been quite some time since anybody raised any significant NPOV concerns. I'll remove the banner if no one objects. Pincrete ( talk) 16:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, this article and concept is currently defined as a geographical concept. I would like to dissent on this. It is not a slogan or term used by geographers. It is a term used with a political meaning. The introduction itself largely expose its political nature, which we can at minima define as a slogan refering to an unified political entity in between the Jordan river and the mediterranean sea. This meaning is agreed upon in all cases cited, from moderates progressives, to ethno-nationalists from Israel and from Hamas. I suggested this change but was reverted. Can other editors review this proposal. Yug (talk) 🐲 15:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
> The precise origins of the phrase are disputed.
Demitri Coryton appears to be the editor of an "Education Journal", but I am unable to find this article or available copies of this journal, and Coryton himself does not appear to have any academic background as it relates to this phrase or the Arab-Israeli conflict. The citation of a recent article as the primary source on this statement implies influence by current political events, rather than established scholarship. If support for this can be found in older sources, those should be used. Otherwise, more credible citations should be added or the section should be removed.
> According to American historian Robin D. G. Kelley, the phrase "began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel."
The citation for this section does not contain this direct quote or anything resembling it.
> Israeli-American historian Omer Bartov notes that Zionist usage of such language predates the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and began with the Revisionist movement of Zionism led by Vladimir Jabotinski, which spoke of establishing a Jewish state in all of Palestine and had a song with the slogan: "The Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, and the other one too," suggesting a Jewish state extending even beyond the Jordan River.
This does not explain the phrase for which this article exists and its use as a political slogan; additionally the article cites an Arabic bbc report which plays a small excerpt of a video which doesn't represent established written scholarship. There's an obvious bias implication. ObviouslyCorrect ( talk) 14:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine, which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1947, although this was later revised to only include descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety". According to the 1964 Charter, "Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.' Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean[to whom?] one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".
Issue #1
According to the 1964 Charter, "Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.'
Advocating this be removed. On its own is misleading as to the full character of what the charter expressed, which is more fully outlined in the above sentence (“initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1947”) - which is a proper neutral characterization of what is in the charter. Expressing this twice, and including sentiment contained within the charter feels WP:UNDUE.
Issue #2
Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".
While I respect that the writer is a respected academic, a quote casting a general aspersion with no further qualification or detail and has no place in the lede. This article is literally about the diversity of interpretations of the phrase - there is no place for an unqualified quote about a universal sentiment when the article clearly contradicts this. Mistamystery ( talk) 17:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
From the river to the sea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
"On November 11, 2023, the slogan was banned in Bavaria (Germany), and "the prosecutor's office and the Bavarian police warned that henceforth the use of this slogan, regardless of language, will be considered as the use of symbols of terrorist organizations. This may result in punishment of up to three years in prison or a fine."[83][84]"
to
On November 11, 2023, the slogan was banned by police in Bavaria, Germany, and "the prosecutor's office and the Bavarian police warned that henceforth the use of this slogan, regardless of language, will be considered as the use of symbols of terrorist organizations."[83][84] However on November 17, 2023, the Administrative Court of Münster in Bavaria gave pro-Palestinian gatherings interim legal protection overthrowing a police ban. The court ruled that the slogan not punishable in all but exceptional circumstances, because according to the understanding of an unbiased audience it does not objectively have a criminal meaning. On December 1, 2023, the Cologne Administrative Court in North Rhine-Westphalia reiterated the Münster court ruling and overthrew a ban issued by the Bonn Police.
[1] [2] Windsorchair ( talk) 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
References
Our text says :The slogan's use by such Palestinian militant groups (as Hamas) has led critics to argue that the slogan implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population ie we are saying that critics think that the slogan has become inherently genocidal - which is probably true. The source used (Malik Gdn) simply says that Hamas' use is genocidal: In the hands of Hamas, it is a call for the driving out of all Jews from the region, it doesn't even mention how critics see the slogan. Pincrete ( talk) 07:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I've altered the cites used to Dawn and AP who both speak of the more general criticism of the slogan as genocidal. Pincrete ( talk) 07:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there any valid reason for incuding this religious terminology in the lead without elaborating? It is only know as the "Land of Israel" by those that are religiously affiliated. Also why Holy Land would be unfit. JJNito197 ( talk) 11:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Mistamystery, you
reverted my edit removing al-Qaeda as the only non-state among states with the explanation that Section is pertaining to polity or entity. It’s not “international countries”- Pakistan is not appropriate, Bin Laden neither represented Pakistan, nor is it proven he was in Pakistan when he wrote the speech (despite it being recovered in Pakistan). It’s a statement attributed to the founder of an entity - think citing himself directly or the group he was leading is most appropriate.
The parent section is Use internationally—should the taxonomy then not be organized by nations/states? Bin Laden neither represented Pakistan
—is the assumption that all other usage in the section is to be considered representative of the nation state under which it is organized? Are professional footballers in the UK to be understood as "representative" of the UK?
Pincrete, you then changed Lebanon to Hezbollah. What are your thoughts on the organization of the section?
With al-Qaeda and Hezbollah at the top of the section, and with the above section "Use by Palestinian militant groups," it elides massive popular/civilian use of the phrase and gives UNDUE weight to use by Islamist militant groups. إيان ( talk) 18:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
We salute the Palestinian people of heroic mujahideen as well as every hero and heroine amongst the champions of self-sacrifice who confront the zionest aggression with their lives and thus foil the wrong ideas of the American administrations which have acted in alliance with their artificial zionist creation in the crimes they perpetrate and the shame they reap. Glorious and sublime are our martyrs in Palestine, Iraq and the nation as a whole. Glorious and sublime are our martyrs in Palestine, Iraq and the nation as a whole. Long live Palestine, free and Arab, from the sea to the river. Long live Great Iraq and its valiant army of Mujahideen.Long live our glorious Arab nation.
Mistamystery ( talk) 06:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)referred to the Palestinian people and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
Hello pro editors. I am just a professional historian and an amateur Wikipedia user and am evidently not skilled/qualified enough to make this change myself. I am not taking side on this issue.
But solely in terms of its history, the first iteration I can find of this phrasing is in the Bible: Joshua 23:4 -- "Behold, I have allotted to you as an inheritance for your tribes those nations that remain, along with all the nations that I have already cut off, from the Jordan to the Great Sea in the west."
Again, I'm not taking sides. But it seems this is a much earlier iteration (written sometime between the 7th-5th centuries BCE) of this phrasing than what is currently listed in the History section. I think it might be worth mentioning, no?
Just wanted to say I left a few edits on this page a month or so ago, and since then have come back to check it out. It looks a whole lot better than I remember, very well-written and beginner-friendly. Pats on the back. 20WattSphere ( talk) 21:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/tagged/from-the-river-to-the-sea
This link contains a number of useful pieces written by relevant scholars. Onceinawhile ( talk) 23:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I find this article to showcase bias. Rather than starting with the meaning(s) that the people chanting it offer, it goes very quickly to the criticisms. What meaning it does cover, starts with the most negative version.
Additionally, it seems to simply miss the way that the slogan is chanted. It's changed by people who see a future for Palestinians of Jewish and Arab and more heritages, living free of ethno nationalism that creates zero sum outlooks. The slogan is about being free, free from oppression and obligation to ethno-nationalist states.
This stands in contrast to the Likud party’s original manifesto in 1977 stated that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”
This is about freedom, not a specific prescription of two or one state "solutions" - it's about being free of ideologies. It's against Zionism.
Here's a decent sources: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/from-the-river-to-the-sea-what-does-the-palestinian-slogan-really-mean
I think starting off hewing much closer to the people who are chanting it makes much more sense. SubcomandanteOvashinsky ( talk) 05:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
showcase biasyou speak of. After describing the are referred to, we say: "In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine and later "Palestinian progressives use the phrase to call for a united democracy over the whole territory while others say "it's a call for peace and equality after ... decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians. By comparison, the 'critics' get little space. The CBC source is a good source, but it devotes a great deal more space to 'critics' than we do and echoes our approach. The Al Jazeera we already use. Pincrete ( talk) 06:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The article title should be 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free', not 'From the river to the sea'. The truncated form is only ever used by opponents of the slogan who seek to caricature and vilify it, and hide the fact that the slogan is a call for freedom, not a call for genocide. MathewMunro ( talk) 05:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Interesting article here. Can anyone find the original Hebrew transcript so we can verify that the translation is correct? Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the section titled "Context" could be removed. It only draws from a single source, and seems like is essentially restating the article's thesis, rather than providing empirical information. The list of events also seems designed to force an inference that Israel is single-handedly responsible for all fracturing of the region, which could lead to accusations of pro-Palestinian bias for the page as a whole. Orenstevens ( talk) 11:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
From the river to the sea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
− | The phrase was popularised in the 1960s | + | The phrase was popularised in the 1960s among the Palestinian population as a call for freedom from the rule of Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. |
The current text says "democratic" Palestinian state, which is not mentioned anywhere in the NPR source.
spintheer ( talk) 02:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
References
This isn't the only source, and may not be the best. Here, it says "The slogan has been around for decades among Palestinians and pro-Palestinian campaigners and refers to liberating the territory that exists between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea in historic Palestine … The origins of the phrase date back to the original debate over partition in the 1940s." Another one of the 'explanatory' sources says "What started as a call to end an apartheid-like system in Israel and Palestine, is now conflated with being equal with antisemitism and a call for the destruction of the state of Israel". Pincrete ( talk) 15:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
From the river to the sea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Jewish-occupied Palestinian lands" needs to be removed it is an opinionnot fact. it is just called Israel, and it is a leagal country, political opinions and biases have no place in knowledge. 108.7.65.121 ( talk) 13:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done as phrase not found. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
From the river to the sea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From "The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety".[8] "
To
The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety, calling for the complete annihilation of the sovereign, legally created nation of Israel and its people.".[8] BrakeYawSelf ( talk) 23:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Response to criticism section, I think the wikilink to
/info/en/?search=Ahmed_Khalidi should be removed. It seems clear that the person who is quoted in the NYT article is not the person with a wikipedia page because they don't have the same exact name, they don't hold their PhDs from the same institution and they didn't teach at the same places. The link is very confusing because Ahmed Mubarak Al-Khalidi is a member of the PNA, so suggesting this is him responding to criticism in the NYT makes the response look very biased. Bio for the Oxford researcher:
https://www.gcsp.ch/our-experts/dr-ahmad-samih-khalidi . Thank you!
Ab930 ( talk) 11:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Its use by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to argue that it implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region.
A link to the English translation of Hamas charter: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full
I didn't see the relationship: I believe Hamas's reference to "from river to sea" is from the Article 20 of their charter, but in the same article Hamas stated its acceptance of the 1967 borders. Moreover, Hamas has stated in Articles 16 and 17 that they do not hate Jews and oppose Antisemitism. Why would Hamas's use of the slogan lead to it being explained as genocide of the Jews? This makes no sense.
It is a fact that Hamas quotes this slogan in their charter, and it may be another fact that some critics believe that this slogan means the expulsion of Jews, but is there a causal relationship between them?
Reference 8 makes no mention of the causal relationship, and the same goes for reference 10. Reference 10 simply quotes some "Jewish organization" saying there is a causal link, which is obviously an opinion, but the article describes it as a fact, this is a WP:SYNTH.
I think "Its use by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to argue that it implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region." should be changed to "Critics argue that its use by such Palestinian militant groups means it implicitly advocates the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region." ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This publication is not a reliable source on the topic. I'm deleting 2 sentences that cite this source. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Let's keep wikipedia encyclopedic. Badabara ( talk) 16:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
From the river to the sea has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While the Likud Platform of 1977 made use of phrasing which is similar enough to "River to the Sea", no mention of river or sea, in Hebrew, are used in the Current Likud platform, which can be found here. More specifically, page 6 of the document, references terms and conditions for peace talks with the palestinians. The relevant passage reads as follows:
The current peace talks in Annapolis, which focus on achieving a final and quick agreement, miss the their purpose
We do not believe that the Palestinians are ready for a historic compromise that will end the conflict.
There is little evidence that the Palestinians are ready to accept even the minimum demands demanded by an Israeli leader. The Palestinians rejected far-reaching concessions that we, the Israelis, offered eight years ago and their position has not changed or moderated even today. As far as the core issues are concerned.
Instead of helping Abu Mazen and Fayed, Israel should focus its efforts on improving the daily lives of The Palestinians. Pointwise, we must help them develop their economic system. Although it will not lead to the resolution of the conflict, it will create a calmer environment and, therefore, a high chance of a settlement and successful delivery. A Likud-led government will immediately focus on changing the situation on the ground.
When the time comes for final negotiations for peace, the Likud will present clear red lines: the Likud and the one who heads it will insist that the responsibility for the peace of the citizens of the State of Israel will remain in the hands of Israel and that Israel's right to defend its borders will be preserved, a right enshrined in Resolutions 242 and 338 of the United Nations. Yaffalandis ( talk) 00:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
00:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Slogans can morph and get transplanted. Has anybody come across From the river to the sea, the Confederacy shall be free! The parallelism works. Pete unseth ( talk) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Despite his usage of the word "context", its from an opinion piece that does not provide a general neutral context to the use of the phrase but a rather POV one-sided take with a bunch of charged language.
Also contesting the solitary citation from Mondoweiss in this regard, as per RS, it should be treated with caution and its neutrality and reliability in this regard is not strong enough to stand on its own. Would prefer other more reliable sources to be providing "context" in this regard. Mistamystery ( talk) 05:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
is known for his heated essaysSays who? In 2006? Selfstudier ( talk) 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Anti Zionism is definitely denying the Jewish right of self-determinationis just rubbish). Selfstudier ( talk) 11:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
"A statement recently published in The New York Review of Books calls for “an Economic Boycott and Political Nonrecognition of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories”. You can pivot to some JVP blog if you like, but that's not the original statement you mentioned. Also, membership of an organisation doesn't imply that you believe in everything on one of its blogs. Even then, there's nothing wrong with boycotting Israel in general: it's perfectly reasonable – not least in the current context of plausible genocide. It's arguably a moral imperative for anyone that believes in human rights and disavows their abuse. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Selfstudier I strongly object to your editions:
1. There is no ground to remove Susie Linfield's opinion. Nothing here says that this section should contain only "experts in the subject matter". And what is exactly the subject matter anyway?
2. I think that we must include an explicit mention that Cola's statements here appeared in an opinion piece in a (not so) RS. It is required by WP:RSOpinion to make clear that this is only his political opinion and not a result of a research given in an academic publication.
Vegan416 ( talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Elliott Colla is an American scholar of the Middle East...Line 1 of Colla article.
Susie Linfield is a social and cultural theorist...Line 1 of Linfield article.