Talk:From the river to the sea/Archive 2

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

EDIT REQUEST: osama bin laden letter to america series (letter #2)

U.S. Director of National Intelligence unclassified Bin Laden's second letter d. 2008-2016 (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ubl2016/english/To%20the%20American%20people.pdf; in his Letter to America series, first one published 2002), on Barack Obama's last months/day in office. End of first paragraph on last page (Pg. 4), Bin Laden states:

"If you want a real settlement that guarantees your security in your country and safeguards your economy from being depleted in a manner similar to our war of attrition against the Soviet Union, then you have to implement a roadmap that returns the Palestine land to us, all of it, from the sea to the river, it is an Islamic land not subject to being traded or granted to any party."

The sentence quote should be visibly included in its own section if not the complete four-page letter #2 since he talks about Israeli actions in the middle of only Middle Eastern/Arab countries (and never the same to paraphrase/summarize per lost context/points), and biased publications are politically removing their own content years later (i.e. The Guardian per below), getting sued (i.e. Gawker), going bankrupt (i.e. Jezebel), and people are likening the October massacre to terrorism.

The first letter published by the The Guardian in UK was notably taken down by them today, after it went viral in global/national press and social media today for providing 9/11 context reasoning straight from source's mouth to younger generations who previously simply listened to politicians w/out doing their own research.

Sources:

Osama bin laden letter to america (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is simply one example of use, which it would probably be WP:OR for us to use in any way. We would need a secondary source highlighting a distinct use by O-b-L (why/how he used the slogan)- the article after all is about that slogan, not about O-b-L or his letter. Even then, it would be unlikely to warrant more than a sentence or two. Some of your links (such as VoA), don't mention the slogan at all.

You don't propose any specific text, which would be the usual way to make an edit request. Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. I still stand by my removal of the request. Historyday01 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

As they are now banned this can be archived. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Doing that right now. Historyday01 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead dominant View

We must reflect the dominant view (WP:DUE). Indication of a use of a partisan source that is inadequate (WP:EXTRAORDINARY)

1) The dominant view, which is widely supported by independent and credible sources, has and is arguing that the slogan advocates for the dissolution of Israel and its replacement by a Palestinian Arab state. This interpretation is explicitly stated in Hamas's charter. Framing this perspective as merely that of "critics" is inaccurate. The dominant view should receive due weight and prominence per WP:DUE

2) In regards to Mr. Kelly, his piece is a poorly sourced partisan essay, its not research, and represents a fringe and exceptional view - this is not a high quality source; according to WP:EXTRAORDINARY, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. The claim that Fatah/PLO pivoted in the 1960s to support a peaceful 'single-state solution,' where Jews and Arabs could coexist, is in direct conflict with its charter. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Dovidroth (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone take the lead here in restoring clarity? The page was in very good place just a short while ago and is now a cluttered mess. This is a statement with historical provenance that has subsequently found a second life as a protest slogan. I don’t see what is so controversial about stating the facts in order of their chronology and evolution. Mistamystery (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I tried very hard to balance the differing views expressed on this talk page. Let me know if this is acceptable.

The slogan has been used by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation. Its meaning is a subject of controversy. Some interpret the slogan, which references the geographical area that includes Israel, as a call for the destruction of the Jewish state, replacing it with a Palestinian state. This interpretation has been adopted by militant groups including Hamas, which explicitly vowed to destroy Israel after its formation in the late 1980s. Another interpretation suggests that the slogan calls for a one-state solution — a single state encompassing what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories, where people of all religions have equal citizenship.

Marokwitz (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, most academic discourse points toward this. Furthermore, organizations that fight Anti-Semitism repeatedly flag this phrase. Furthermore, one can simply read the words and objectives of organizations such as Hamas to understand the purpose of this phrase in their use of context. There is a place of course for the view, yet it is not the dominant view and not the one employed by several Palestinian organizations such as Hamas, PIJ etc. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

To which edit version are you referring? At this current time the lead has improved although not entirely satisfying. Well done for the effort and keep going! Homerethegreat (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I also don't find this very satisfying as I feel the Kelley source is very dubious in relation to the meaning of this slogan, however as the saying goes "The best deal is struck when no one leaves the table happy". Marokwitz (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense, an academic writing in a peer reviewed journal article cannot under any understanding of WP:RS be dismissed to promote views of much lower quality sources. Your dislike of the view published in WP:SCHOLARSHIP is unequivocally not relevant to its reliability, and it does not matter how many people say me too to that. We can take that to RSN and get the wider community involved of the effort to expunge the highest quality sources we have access to. Second, despite your repeated claims of a dominant view, reliable sources disagree with you. nableezy - 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a question of reliable sources. This is not a RS or RSN issue (despite my mistake in attempting to invoke that at the start). The two *specific* sources in mention each have claims cited by sources inside of their papers that don’t track or back their assertions. I’ve laid this out in detail above, and would appreciate at least someone rebutting my evidentiary analysis with evidence of their own, as opposed to this constant shielding behind professorship. Professors can be wrong. Review boards can miss things. It happens. Mistamystery (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

See above comments made in earlier threads just now, addressing this same point. None of this is how Wikipedia works.

No evidence has been brought to support the claims of the pro-Israeli interpretation being dominant – this evidence is required before acting on such a claim.

Scholarly research cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Frankly the idea of the pro-Israeli narrative being the “dominant view” defies logic – how can commentators with a clear conflict of interest against those who use the phrase possibly be the arbiters of the meaning of a phrase. Are they mind readers?

It reminds me of certain parts of American society proposing that the phrase “Black Lives Matter” meant that they matter more than White Lives. Well they are not the ones using the phrase so they don’t get to decide what is in the minds of those who are using it. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey there,

RS or not the assertions that are made by the scholar are considered false

Furthermore, I think we ought to disconnect the phrase from other phrases. The situation is different, it's different context. I think we should focus on From The River to the Sea. I don't think it serves well to compare to the "Black Lives Matter" since the context, conflict, peoples are different. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not a 'pro-Israeli narrative' . Are you saying Hamas who uses the term this way is pro Israeli ? This makes zero sense. Marokwitz (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery, @Homerethegreat, focusing on Hamas' interpretation of a slogan that is used globally by groups of varying ideologies doesn't pass the sniff test to me - it seems to give undue weight to one group's usage as well as raising alarm bells in my mind of recentism. The establishment of the state of Israel and the movements that oppose it for various reasons long predate Hamas and the recent spike in activity in this c.80 year long conflict.

Furthermore, personal interpretation of a scholarly source supported by de facto consensus as unacceptable is textbook original research - it is not our place to edit article content based on our personal interpretation of any source as unreliable. If you believe that "the assertions that are made by the scholar are considered false," your job is not to edit articles based on that, you need to establish consensus at RSN that the source is unreliable before making changes. See that Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves in SCHOLARSHIP, and that "original research" refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

In short, it does not matter at all that you investigated the source yourself and decided/felt/found that it is inadequate. Your self-described evidentiary analysis is just that - analysis, by a Wikipedia user, who should be following our core content policies, and therefore not editing based on personal analysis, as nableezy and Onceinawhile have repeatedly said. Engaging in analyses like this is a useful way to begin the process of challenging a source, but it alone cannot be the arbiter of whether something published in a peer-reviewed academic journal is unacceptably biased. If you want to establish consensus that this specific item from this source is not acceptable, raise the issue at RSN

All that said, even if this single source is found to be unreliable, there is a wealth of sources cited in the article that depict the slogan with a complete history, and its uses by various groups of people around the world by some as liberatory and by some as destructive rather than the exceedingly recent spate of articles that insist its sole meaning is destructive. We should be very careful to respect neutrality, due weight, and recentism here. PriusGod (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality demands that pages impartially reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint within those sources.

It is widely agreed and upon by these sources that the core message of 'From the river to the sea' in the context of Palestinian nationalism is a call for the establishment of a Palestinian state that spans the geographical area of what is currently Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Given the broad consensus on this aspect within the sources, it is appropriate for the article to state this as the leading point.

The greater contention arises over the envisioned nature of this state. Advocates of 'From the river to the sea' state of Palestine are split, with some calling for the removal of those they deem to be illegitimate colonizers, while others envision a binational state. The article should prioritize the discussion of these two viewpoints according to their prominence as determined by reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and appreciate your desire to maintain neutrality here. I'm not saying that the lede should only depict one interpretation or the other. The current state of the lede

1) puts undue weight on its use by militant organizations, especially Hamas, when the vast majority of the cited sources indicate its use as a chant or slogan at protests or by individuals/entities making statements. I do recognize the Economist's claim that Hamas uses the phrase in a certain sense, but giving Hamas basically an entire sentence in the lede for a slogan that has been around for 60 years smacks of recency bias

2) equates the concept of a "Palestinian state" with an Islamist one in which non-Muslims would be denied rights

3) places undue weight on religion as the subject of the slogan when many of the grievances related to it are secular (i.e. denial of access to and usage of property that individuals have never legally relinquished title to, segregation, the existence of settlements that were established against international law)

4) doesn't uphold the distinction between the users and the people making external interpretations - the contention is more than just what the users intend with it, because some use it to mean either establishing a state with equal protections or establishing an oppressive state/nation-state, and some interpret it to be either genocidal or anticolonial, and people who maintain either interpretation may apply their interpretation to those using it in either sense.

I'll take a shot at what I think would be a good rewrite of the second paragraph here.

The slogan has been in use by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation. Secular Palestinian groups have used it to refer to the abolition of Israel and the establishment of a state which affords all people equal protection under the law, whereas Islamist militant organizations have used it to refer to the establishment of an Islamist state. The slogan is a subject of controversy, as its critics interpret it to be an anti-Semitic call for ethnic cleansing, while its advocates see it as an anticolonial call to end oppression.

In my mind, this covers both the two major usages and two major external interpretations of the slogan, without putting undue weight on recent events and still reflecting the proportionality between the sources cited - the three sources cited in the second paragraph as it exists are one which sees both sides with a pro-Israel lean, one which sees both sides with a pro-Palestine lean, (which supports the "subject of controversy sentence") and one academic source which discusses the early history of the slogan (which supports the "have used it" sentence). I don't think it's bulletproof, but I do think it more closely reflects the sources cited and provides an overview of the slogan's history and its critiques/supporters, which mirrors the structure of the article body (usage -> interpretations of meaning). I'll self revert if we find issues with it, but for now I'll make the edit. PriusGod (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting start, but there are some incorrect generalizations here. I'll provide some sources that are not necessarily reliable ones just for sake of quick discussion.

Arab leaders such as Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party, which was secular in nature, or Muslim states like Iran that have advocated for a Palestine "from the river to the sea," cannot be characterized as 'Islamist militant organizations'.

Before 1967, Arab Nationalists held the position that "what was taken by force must be regained by force," and when their aspiration was the liberation of Palestine "from the river to the sea," they were not advocating for an Islamist state. For example, see [1].

Yasser Arafat and the PLO have made statements about a 'democratic state', but this state had no provision for Jews who arrived in Israel after 1948 and their descendants. The PLO Charter states that "Jews 'of Palestinian origin' are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine." For reference, see [2].

Therefore, I contest the proposed rewrite on the following grounds:

Secularists have used the term to refer to solutions that include the expulsion of most of the Jews without advocating for an Islamist state. This usage has persisted both before and after 1967, continuing to the present day.
The phrase "establishment of a state which affords all people equal protection under the law" fails to acknowledge that this does not include most of the current inhabitants of Israel.

Marokwitz (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverted - given these sources and context, it may be best to avoid going into great detail about the precise positions proposed and the nature of the groups proposing it in the lede, which was more or less the status of the article before it expanded following the 7th. I think in order to provide the reader with a balanced and complete view of the subject, it would be difficult to include most of the major permutations of intent without losing the brevity that an article lede demands.

Something along the lines that the slogan has been applied to Palestinian liberatory as well as Arab nationalist ideologies, with critiques referring to antisemitism and advocacy referring to anticolonialism. This would not make hard-and-fast statements about the nature of the groups proposing it while still providing the gist of the intents behind it, and allowing the article body to take over the minutiae.

My proposal:

The slogan has been used by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation as well as Arab nationalism, and has its roots in the Palestinian National Council's original charters, demanding "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety." The slogan is a subject of controversy, as its critics interpret it to be an anti-Semitic call for ethnic cleansing, while its advocates see it as an anticolonial call to end oppression.

I think this does a better job than my previous rewrite of remaining within the sources cited, without oversimplifying the history and giving the article body the opportunity to handle the details. PriusGod (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@PriusGod - I kindly ask that you self-revert the changes during our discussion, as the current version of the lead contains inaccuracies. Marokwitz (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate the collaborative spirit which is not at all obvious these days.

I don't have objection to this part of your edit

The slogan has been used by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation as well as Arab nationalism, and has its roots in the Palestinian National Council's original charters, demanding "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety."

But I think we are doing a disservice to the readers if we avoid mentioning, explicitly, the fact that this call for establishment of a Palestinian state that encompasses the area that is today Israel and the Palestinian territories.

How about the following.

The slogan has been employed by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation, with origins in the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demand a Palestinian state geographically encompassing all of historic Palestine. The slogan's meaning is contentious. Some construe it as a call for the dismantling of the Jewish state. Conversely, the slogan may be interpreted as advocating for a democratic state of Palestine encompassing what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories, where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship.

Following this text, the embracing of the slogan and its interpretations by different organizations and leaders can be moved to a separate paragraph. Marokwitz (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me, no objections other than that the first paragraph already describes the geographic area referred to and that it might feel repetitive, but frankly it's so important to the fundamental meaning of the slogan as having some kind of unified vision for the region that the repetition is probably fine. PriusGod (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm still concerned about the fact that this overlooks the fact that this democratic state, as proposed by the PLO, for instance, does not extend citizenship to most of the current Jewish inhabitants of Israel, which makes the last sentence a bit misleading. But for now let's use it. Marokwitz (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@PriusGod, @Homerethegreat can you review the new version of the lead? Marokwitz (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Well written, seems neutral. I think it's appropriate. Well done for the effort and the balancing @Marokwitz. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz@Homerethegreat@PriusGod Would like to update this paragraph to the following:

The slogan has been employed by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for Palestinian liberation, with origins in the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demand a Palestinian state geographically encompassing all of historic Palestine, and a removal of a majority of its Jewish population (though this official demand later softened). Some insist it remains a call for the dismantling of the Jewish state. Conversely, the slogan may be interpreted as advocating for a democratic state of Palestine encompassing what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories, where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship. Mistamystery (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the source to be cited for :

'and a removal of a majority of its Jewish population (though this official demand later softened)'?

I think this wording is too vague, especially the parentheses .

The thing that bothers me is ' individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship' . This characterization overlooks the fact that this democratic state, as proposed by the PLO, for instance, does not extend citizenship to Jews that immigrated to Israel after 1948 and their descendents. Marokwitz (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Marokwitz. The proposal is less well crafted than what Marokwitz wrote earlier. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

1968 revision of Palestinian National Covenant made clear Palestinian citizenship was only to be afforded to Jews living in Palestine “prior to the Zionist invasion” - which means 1914 (approx Jewish pop. At time 100,000). “Softened” refers to Algiers 1988 and agreements onward (though apparently the Covenant was never technically updated) Mistamystery (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Also pls take a look at addition recently made in “usage” section Mistamystery (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@PriusGod indeed you're right. One cannot simply focus on recent events. Therefore we must look at the long conflict and the manner the Arab leadership and Palestinian groups referred to Israel. Indeed the PLO from the 60s until the 90s and then again recently has referred to this in the manner of a One State solution where all Jews who made Aliya/immigrated would be banished.

Indeed you're absolutely correct that we must not simply look at this periodic time and look at the entirety of Hamas' history from the 1980s until today, during all of which they have called for the destruction of the State of Israel in reference to this slogan.

Indeed, the conflict is about 100 years old, therefore it is wise to look at the terminology of Arab leaders (Nasser, for example) and the local leader of the Arab community, Mufti Amin al-Husseini... I believe most said a variation of driving the Jews to the sea and exterminating the Jewish State.

Therefore, if we must look at the context of the conflict. It is fair to assume that the phrase has been used mostly in the context of eliminating Israel in one form or another.

I agree we must endeavor for neutrality and the encyclopedic representation of the facts. It appears that overall, the majority of use is directed toward the destruction of Israel. Another view is the elimination of Israel as a Jewish State and the establishment of One Arab State. And another view that has been used in the minority is the view that it should be about establishing a democratic One State or the freeing of Palestinians from oppression. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to my previous reply - the idea of establishing a democratic One State from the river to the sea has been documented; however, this characterization overlooks the fact that this democratic state, as proposed by the PLO, for instance, does not extend citizenship to most of the current inhabitants of Israel Marokwitz (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an incorrect characterization of the PLO's primary position. You can support it by taking a very narrow point in early history, or by finding fringe voices, but it is simply not their primary or mainstream position and must not be implied or characterized as such. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your framing of this seems very unbalanced. What means the "destruction" or "elimination" of Israel to you--pretty emotionally charged terms--means to others the formation of a binational state in all of Historic Palestine, and an end to racial inequality. And when we are looking at what Palestinian liberation activists themselves say it means, it is pretty consistently not using the language of "destruction of Israel" to describe what they mean, but rather the equality and liberation of Palestinians to Israeli Jews and other national-ethnic groups.

When we are deciding the neutrality of the article, the connotation of these words matter. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Inserting a break here. After reaching a paratial consensus, the remaining point of contention is the portrayal of the slogan's implications for the remaining Jewish population Mistamystery has put forth a suggestion, backed by references. I said that the proposed phrasing is awkward and lacks clarity. It might be beneficial to separate the discussion about the fate of the Jews in relation to the 'river to the sea' concept into a distinct paragraph of the lead. What do you think? Marokwitz (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to add clarity and purpose to suggested edit here. To merely imply the origins of the phrase indicated desired sovereignty over Mandatory Palestine obscures a full half of the originally stated intent - which was possession of the land and removal of most of the Jews living there.

The addendum of “later softened” only seemed appropriate so editors wouldn’t think I was trying to railroad the PLO/PNC position solely based upon its 1964-1988 position alone. It’s not necessary, and the usage paragraph now goes into detail on the evolution of this point, but just to attempt more balance for the lede.

That said, I think its pretty important to be clear in the lede that the original demand included population removal, not just assertion of sovereignty. Mistamystery (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Note sure, but perhaps we can reference the 'original [[Palestinian National Covenant]]' and place additional information in a footnote for precision. Ideally an academic secondary source should be cited. Marokwitz (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok - proposing this then:

“The slogan has been employed by political groups 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 (though this official demand later softened).[1][2][3][4] Some insist it remains a call for the dismantling of the Jewish state. Conversely, the slogan may be interpreted as advocating for a democratic state of Palestine encompassing what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories, where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship. Others have simply said it stands for "the equal freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people.

Quotes to be cited from each source:

1. Article 6:

The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

2. “He stated that a precondition to a peace settlement would be "an explicit, declared change of the Palestinian Covenant. You cannot say, 'I am prepared to make peace with Israel,' holding this charter which states that Israel has no right of existence. that it must disappear, and that we want to establish a Palestinian state where only Jews living there before 1917 have the right of residence. This is impossible."

The Palestinian Charter: An Obstacle to Peace?

Author(s): Marc Rotenberg

Source: Harvard International Review, FEBRUARY 1980, :::Vol. 2, No. 5 (FEBRUARY 1980), pp. 8-10

Published by: Harvard International Review

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42759527

3. A further problem within the nationalist camp is represented by the revision of the Palestinian National Covenant. In the letter that Arafat wrote before the singing of the Declaration of Principles, he undertook to amend those parts of the Palestinian National Covenant calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, or any reference denying the legitimate right of existence of the Jewish state. The Oslo 2 Agreements confirmed (XXXI, 9) this pledge, and stated a two-months term from the inauguration of the Palestinian National Council. There is no real objection to the change of the Covenant, or to the adoption of a new covenant, because it is universally acknowledged that the text of the Covenant, adopted on May 28, 1964, is by and large outdated. Everybody knows that the declarations adopted by the Palestinian National Council (PNC) in Algiers, on November 15, 1988, which recognized the terms of the UN Resolution 242, implied the recognition of Israel and practically superseded the National Covenant. Thus, the criticism points, as usual, to the lack of democracy and to the fact that the change is not a result of free intra-Palestinian discussion, but the outcome of Israeli and American pressures.

THE PEACE PROCESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST: ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS

Author(s): Rodolfo Ragionieri

Soace Internati rationated of Pete i al ApproaChes an No. alcial Issue:

Specificities (July 1997), pp. 49-65

Published by: International Peace Research Association (IPRA)

Stable URL: https:/ / www.jstor.org/stable/45038320

4. At the beginning of February 2001, one hundred Palestinian personali-ties, including members of the Palestinian Authority's Executive Council and members of the PNC, met in Cairo under the chairmanship of the Speaker of the PNC, Saleem Za'nun. The participants decided to establish a National Independence Authority under the PNC. They passed a number of resolutions, one of which maintained that "the Palestinian National Covenant was still in force, because the PNC had not been convened for the purpose of approving changes in the Covenant and, especially, since the legal committee that should prepare the changes had not been set up."

Book Title: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process

Book Subtitle: Oslo and the Lessons of Failure -- Perspectives, Predicaments, Prospects

Book Editor(s): ROBERT L. ROTHSTEIN, MOSHE MA'OZ, KHALIL SHIKAKI

Published by: Liverpool University Press. (2015)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.3485507.9

(Revised) Mistamystery (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the citations, the first is a primary source that doesn't explicitly mention 'removal of a majority of its Jewish population,' although I agree this is a logical interpretation. The second source is behind a paywall - does it explicitly say 'removal of a majority of its Jewish population'? I think that an academic source would be preferred for such a contentious topic . Marokwitz (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There are definitely sharper sources. Will tag you when they’re here for review

For any other editors wondering about the “logical interpretation” mentioned: The Jewish population of the region at the commencement of the Mandatory period (which in most PLO sources is considered between 1914-1920) was approximately 100000 people. Meaning had the PLO had been successful in defeating Israel at the time, according to their charter, they would have expelled 96% of the population.

The second source was for the “later softened” parentheses. The acceptance of 242 (and later 1996 agreement to amend their charter) meant they set aside their original intentions to expel the Jewish population and changed course to establish a state on 1967 lands in accordance to UNR 242 - which is self evident enough if anyone reads 242.

I can find an article that makes that more explicit.

Also, I’m insisting on the wording “later softened” because there are plenty of Fatah officials who still speak (in Arabic media, rarely English - there’s a source live in the current page) of “From the river to the sea” as if 1988/1996 never happened. Also (apparently) the PLO never actually changed their charter, they just affirmed intent to (should the statehood path during Oslo make progress), but they never did (and affirm as much that it remains unchanged).

Mistamystery (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like to suggest a reorganized wording that is entirely grounded on the existing sources but is more clear and accurate. Let me know what you think:

The slogan has been utilized by political groups since the 1960s to advocate for the liberation of historic Palestine in its entirety[3], tracing its origins to the Palestinian National Covenant. It is interpreted in multiple ways: some see it as a call for the dismantling of the Jewish state[4][5] and the establishment of an Arab-Palestinian State, while others view it as simply demanding for Palestinians to have equal rights.[6] The nature of the envisioned state under this slogan is a point of contention. Secular groups like Fatah advocate for a democratic Arab state where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship, whereas Islamist groups call for the establishment of an Islamic state.

. Marokwitz (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Who are the words "dismantling of the Jewish state and the establishment of an Arab-Palestinian State" sourced to?

I continue to feel that Marokwitz and Mistamystery are relying on claims made by pro-Israel commentators to substantiate claims they propose to make in Wikipedia's voice. These pro-Israel commentators are not the users of the slogan, are not mind-readers, and have no sources to substantiate their claims. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read the entirety of the recent few comments. This entire conversation (and insistences being made) is actually about making sure any significant proposed changes happen not only with sourcing, but very quality, inarguable, neutral sourcing. If anything, I am getting appropriate pushback on proposed changes to make sure they are better sourced, so I really don’t know where this critique emerges from.

And please do not conflate editors or their intentions. I am acting of my own accord, and only in service of proper attention to the article. There is a discussion about potential revisions, per policy, that is all.

That said - @Marokwitz - I’m still pulling those sources on the first proposed revision. Not sure how I feel about your more recent proposal above, but will circle back with those sources for the first, plus feedback on yours as soon as I’m ready.

A reminder to all editors (and *please* correct me if I’m wrong): This page is about the history and use of a slogan. If anyone thinks the overall mandate, priority, or focus of the article is something else, I encourage them to start a topic below and outline is, so there is no confusion from any editor contributing.

Mistamystery (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the previous suggestion to include links to reliable sources. The aim is to describe the use and history of the slogan in a neutral and non-controversial manner, supported by solid and non-partisan sources. If you notice any point that is not properly substantiated, please correct me.

@Mistamystery, I believe this wording is an improvement over your original proposal for the following reasons: There appear to be two distinct controversies related to the term. The first is whether the term advocates for replacing Israel with Palestine, which is the more common interpretation that is consistent with the historic usage. However, it seems from the cited sources that some present-day protestors deny that they are calling for replacing Israel by Palestine and use the term more as a general call for Palestinian rights without reference to specific territories (Note: I am not sure if this is actually common use of the term, as I have not found this idea in academic literature, only in the news sources). The second controversy concerns the nature of the state called for by the term 'river to the sea' Palestine and what this implies for the existing Jewish citizens of Israel. Different groups have used the term to suggest different kinds of political solutions. So - I was thinking these issues should not be conflated but rather addressed separately. Marokwitz (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You still have not sourced the claim that some see it as a call for the dismantling of the Jewish state[8][9] and the establishment of an Arab-Palestinian State. Neither the Economist or the Chicago Sun Times make such a statement in their own voice - they quote third parties, and they quote many alternate views. We should attribute clearly who is saying what. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! In its analysis, The Economist states in its own voice — without quoting others—that "the decades-old expression also contains a threat: the river refers to the River Jordan, the sea to the Mediterranean, and freedom, in this context, suggests the destruction of the state of Israel." You are right about the Chicago Sun-Times, which quotes Jessica Winegar, a sociocultural anthropologist with expertise in the cultural politics of the Middle East. While we don't strictly need this source given the information from The Economist, it remains valuable because: 1) Winegar is a recognized expert commenting within her field of expertise; 2) the Chicago Sun-Times is a reliable secondary source; and 3) the claim is not "exceptional" in the meaning of WP:REDFLAG. Consequently, I believe that direct attribution is not mandatory, even if this were the sole source we had. Marokwitz (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz I have revised my initial proposed paragraph above, with new citations. Please take a look.

Here are my issues with your proposed revision:

1.Interpretation is only a matter for civic and non-political users of the phrase. The political usage of the phrase is not only absolutely explicit in almost all circumstances, it is usually backed up by political platform, programme, charters, or documents.

2.The attempt to draw a distinction between Secular and Islamist groups is not only factually inaccurate and irreflective of the evolution of these groups demands, it establishes a false dichotomy that doesn’t really exist in real life. The Fatah demand (which technically is a past demand, not a present one, thought this is up for debate) only “advocated for a democratic Arab state where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship” on the inherent condition that that state have an absolute Arab Muslim majority. And that doesn’t necessarily mean that an Islamic demand exists counter to a secular one. (One could say that some demands were secular and others were Islamist, but the insistence that upon its democratic-ness gets into murky waters).

Fundamentally, as I’ve said numerous times, this is an issue of origination, chronology, and evolution. The term enters the public record explicitly around the PNC and PLO political platform in the 1960s, and meant exclusively (and explicitly) the desire to obtain sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine and expel (or kill) all of the Jews that came after 1917. This only begins to evolve politically starting in 1988 (when Fatah stepped away from the phrase, and Hamas picked up the mantle). Later, this slogan was adopted by protest and civic movements, and its in those circles (and those alone) that the issue of interpretation and meaning emerged.

If anyone would like to make the argument that the slogan’s adoption by popular protest movements (in a manner different than the pre-1988 PLO or post-1988 Hamas definition), then please provide a source, because I have not yet seen any indication that that is the case.

Mistamystery (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Your analysis is very good. Providing a simple explanation encompassing all the historical nuances is challenging. The world is indeed complex. In the words of Pascal, "I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter."

I attempted to convey the concept of an 'Arab Majority' succinctly by using the term 'democratic Arab state.' - which I think is non-controversial and backed by the sources. You might consider employing this term and elaborating on the nuances in a footnote. Ensuring that the lead provides a concise overview is crucial. I was not too happy about "(though this official demand later softened)" which laves the nature of this softening quite vague. Marokwitz (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If anything, the “softened” wording is the best I could get to to provide a semblance of balance in the sentence (it felt very off to finish the sentence with “removal of a majority of its Jewish population”, when in fact the official PLO/PA stance had (somewhat) changed, and was important to point that out.

The issue is (as I believe is laid out pretty clearly with those citations in order) is that while Arafat basically nullified any irredentist anti-Israel claims in 1998 (with the Declaration of Independence), and in 1996 and 1998 with interim draft resolutions with the PNC, they not only have not officially changed the language of the 1968 charter revision, the PLO/PNC have confirmed numerous times that the charter remains unchanged.

Happy for other suggestions. Here is one alternate that just came to mind:

“(though these official demands were later effectively withdrawn)”

Mistamystery (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with this but do suggest adding a footnote with the more complete explanation, as it is not entirely clear if they were withdrawn or not - as you said the the charter remains unchanged. Marokwitz (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Mistamystery (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Revised. Mistamystery (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Kelley 2019

In the section Use by the Israeli right the reference regarding the claim includes [5] - Kelley 2019.

It has nothing to do with this section and needs to be removed.

As I do not own the extended editing permission, could anyone take care?

Zyakov (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Quote from 2017 charter is truncated in a way that radically changes its meaning

Here is section 20 of the Hamas charter, taken from https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full, unabridged:

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.

Take note of the key word However that appears in that paragraph! The Charter says that Hamas ultimately rejects any alternative to liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea, BUT for the sake of national consensus (i.e. to allow them to work with moderates like Fatah) they are willing, for now, to work towards the establishment of a state along the 1967 lines. The only way this logically makes sense is if liberation "from the river to the sea" means something fundamentally different to establishing a fully sovereign & independent state along the 1967 lines. The first sentence of the section more of less tells us what that different meaning is: namely, the total elimination of the Israeli state (i.e. "the Zionist entity", which section 19, above, says Hamas reject the legitimacy of) such that all the land that is currently Israel will belong to the state of Palestine.

But the article merges two separate sentences together and removes the "however" to make it look like the phrase "liberation ... from the river to the sea" is instead being used to mean a state along the 1967 lines:

Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea [...] along the lines of the 4th of June 1967

This completely changes the meaning of the entire section of the charter, and also gives the the impression that in the context of the charter the phrase "liberation ... from the river to the sea" is used with a moderate meaning (just the establishment of a fully independent Palestinian state) when in reality it is used with an extreme one (the elimination of Israel as a state).

It seems to me that the simplest solution is to just delete that tacked on bit of another sentence - i.e. delete " [...] along the lines of the 4th of June 1967" from the article. This still leaves the reader at risk of being a little misled about what position the Hamas charter takes on Israel (which is somewhat nuanced - it can roughly be summarised as "we reject its right to exist and won't compromise on this... but we're willing to put that on pause and work towards a Palestinian state that cooexists with Israel, for now, as an intermediate objective"), but it's no more misleading about that than the current butchered quote is, and crucially it won't mislead the reader about how the charter uses the phrase "from the river to the sea" which is the whole topic of the article.

ExplodingCabbage (talk) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, people are cutting out whatever isnt convenient to the story line they want to tell here. nableezy - 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@ExplodingCabbage:

I made this edit and would only mean to do so for the purpose of using the relevant information that is clear and transparent. I did so in accordance with the reference I've cited which has made the quote in exactly the way I have done [7].
"Take note of the key word However that appears in that paragraph" this is WP:OR. You assert that it says "rejects any alternative" when it in fact says "the Zionist entity".
Even if I agreed with your conclusions, the resulting text is still fair and correct- " from the river to the sea means the liberations of Palestine [here are our motivations and reasons] along the 1967 lines.
I value your analysis and am happy to concede or reach a consensus but I have provided three references that validate my edit. If alternative sources can be presented then of course it can be edited to reflect such.
My consensus propsal would be to;

The first usage of the phrase was as part of it's 2017 revised platform where they state "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea [...] along the lines of the 4th of June 1967". this charter still did not recognise Israeli legitimacy but was conceded with the aim of building national consensus.

Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times directly says The slogan does not appear in Hamas’s founding covenant from 1988, which pledges “to confront the Zionist invasion and defeat it,” not just in historic Palestinian territory, but worldwide. It is featured, however, in a section of the group’s revised platform from 2017. In the same paragraph, Hamas indicates it could accept a Palestinian state along the borders that were in place before the 1967 war — the same borders considered under the Oslo Accords. nableezy - 14:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I did so in accordance with the reference I've cited which has made the quote in exactly the way I have done - huh? This simply isn't true; your source does not render the quote in that way. It doesn't directly quote from the 2017 charter at all, in fact, beyond noting that the slogan "from the river to the sea" appears in it!

"this is WP:OR" - with respect, if I were for the sake of argument to accept that it's impermissible "original research" to argue that splicing together clauses from two different sentences into a different sentence changes their meaning, then it seems to me that it's equally well "original research" to assert that such a splicing together preserves the meaning, and so we'd have grounds to eliminate the spliced quote on that reason alone.

Even if I agreed with your conclusions, the resulting text is still fair and correct- " from the river to the sea means the liberations of Palestine [here are our motivations and reasons] along the 1967 lines. - no, that's not correct, for the reason I outlined in detail above: in the context of the particular paragraph in which it is used in the Hamas charter, the phrase "liberation ... from the river to the sea" does not and logically cannot mean the establishment a state along the 1967 lines. There's room to argue that it's not synonymous with the destruction of Israel, but the one thing it unambiguously does NOT mean, given the word "however" appears in there, is the establishment of a state along the 1967 lines. That's not a matter of political interpretation; it's simply a matter of English grammar.

Splicing together sentences to imply that the paragraph uses the phrase in the opposite way is just objectively wrong in the same way as it would be to say that the charter states "Hamas believes that [...] the land of Palestine shall be compromised[...]. Hamas rejects [...] the full and complete liberation of Palestine". Sure, you're using phrases from the original as raw material, but you're constructing a passage out of them that simply contradicts the original meaning.

Re your final proposal - no, that doesn't fix it at all. The issue here isn't about the overall meaning of the Hamas charter, it's specifically about the usage of the phrase "from the river to the sea". "Liberation ... from the river to the sea" is the position Hamas say they ultimately want to achieve; however for national consensus they are willing to instead pursue the 1967 borders; the two are distinct, opposed positions, not identical ones as your proposed tweak still suggests!

~ ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I corrected that earlier but needed to self-revert, I will do so again later with the NYT source. nableezy - 15:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Relatedly, I just realised that @Jo Jc Jo also today changed this sentence, that appeared in the article at the end of yesterday:

Initially popularized by the Palestine Liberation Organization upon its founding in 1964 as a "main goal of the movement", the phrase carried official weight within the PLO until the 1988 Algiers Declaration, after which "the objective shifted to establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders."

to instead say this:

The phrase continues to be used by the PLO with the meaning shifting after the 1988 Algiers Declaration to "establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders."

I note that no new source has been added, and once again the edit has the effect of framing the phrase "[liberating/freeing Palestine] from the river to the sea" as equivalent to establishing a state along 1967 borders. Yesterday, the article said that the phrase initially denoted the "main goal of the movement" but ceased to "carry official weight" once the movement's objective changed to a two-state solution with the 1967 borders - i.e. the phrase got retired within the PLO because it was incompatible with the new objective of a two-state solution based on 1967 borders. Today, though, the article says the meaning of the phrase itself changed to reflect that new objective! These two versions of events - what the article said yesterday, and what it said today - are totally different and incompatible with each other.

I don't have access to the sources, but @Jo Jc Jo, unless you can provide direct quotes from the cited sources supporting your interpretation (in which the PLO continued to use the phrase but changed its meaning), I suggest we revert the edit. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason for this edit was that there was absolutely no source listed as saying "main goal of the movement" or "carry official weight". In fact, the references were not even linked to the PLO, they were completely irrelevant sources. fictitious. The source was from the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, unlinked to PLO. I'm happy for you to edit though, your correction is correct and was a hangover of the original that I conflated. You have my SUPPORT for an edit that removes that sentence, of course. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 16:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@ExplodingCabbage:Happy to receive you alternative proposal for consensus! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 15:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Already gave it in my first post - simply delete " [...] along the lines of the 4th of June 1967" from the quote. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I OPPOSE that edit as motivated by my previous comment. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 16:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

As noted, the reasons given in your previous comment are wrong, and objectively so; most importantly you state that the quote is given in the same way in your source and this is simply untrue. There's just no justification for keeping a fake quote in the article that materially misleads the reader, and its removal shouldn't require consensus-building. I'd have removed it myself already, but I cannot because I don't have enough past edits to be allowed to edit the article. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point. There has been an article recently that also indirectly dealt with the topic of Hamas' intentions in The Economist: I'll add it here for you to look at. [8]

Quote: By the un definition, Hamas is a genocidal organisation. Its founding charter, published in 1988, explicitly commits it to obliterating Israel. Article 7 states that “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them”. Article 13 rejects any compromise, or peace, until Israel is destroyed. Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed more than 1,400 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law.

Israel, by contrast, does not meet the test of genocide. There is little evidence that Israel, like Hamas, “intends” to destroy an ethnic group—the Palestinians. Israel does want to destroy Hamas, a militant group, and is prepared to kill civilians in doing so. And while some Israeli extremists might want to eradicate the Palestinians, that is not a government policy. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the 1988 charter is besides the point here, and any question about whether Hamas is a genocidal organisation or not or whether Israel is genocidal is even more besides the point. The only point about Hamas's charters that is relevant to THIS article whether the phrase "liberation ... from the river to the sea", as it is used in the 2017 charter, refers to the implementation of a two-state solution along 1967 lines.

The charter itself is unambiguous that the phrase does NOT mean that (since the charter states that Hamas supports liberation from the river to the sea, BUT will support a two-state solution along 1967 lines as a formula for national unity), but we currently give the opposite impression due to including what is basically a fake quote from the charter in the article, manufactured by sticking parts of two sentences together to produce a sentence with a totally different meaning. Someone needs to fix that. (I cannot, because I don't have the power to edit this article.)

~ ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

1RR violations

Appreciate everyone’s enthusiasm, but there are clear multiple 1RR violations that have been made over the past few hours.

Recommend parties self-identify, self-revert, and take a little more time planning and executing edits. No need for this to get kicked up to AE.

Mistamystery (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Since my removal of arguably the shittiest source Ive seen somebody seriously cite in an encyclopedia article in at least five years was I suppose a revert, I self-reverted my substantive change. Ill make it later, as that entire section fails OR and NPOV. nableezy - 14:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you (though please be assured this comment was not aimed at you - as well your edit note on that Hindustan times piece removal was the best laugh I’ve had on here in a while) Mistamystery (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo_Jc_Jo has asserted (in this talk page discussion) that today's run of edits are good faith and do not violate 1RR.

Disputing the vandalism claim made against @Recobben2 (I have reviewed all of this edits - they may be opinionated, they may be weak, but none remotely meet the threshold of article vandalism). But even if Recobben2 was vandalizing, at least two subsequent edits represent full reverts in violation of 1RR.

Would appreciate feedback and commentary from @Nableezy, @Homerethegreat, @Starship.paint or anyone else recently editing.

Mistamystery (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I think in light of discussions on talk we should all take more time. I agree with @Mistamystery in his his/her/their points. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I've been a part of that, with my edits, but I will try to keep it in mind. All in all, the page DEFINITELY needs to be revised. I am glad to see the criticism section in its current form, as it avoids any undue weight on any specific comments.Historyday01 (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: - Jo Jc Jo has probably not broken 1RR in the last 24 hours. JJJ's string of edits from 10 Nov 10:53 to 10 Nov 13:35, only interrupted by bot AnomieBOT rescuing an orphaned reference, effectively counts as one revert. WP:3RR says A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. Then, Jo Jc Jo did make a large removal at 14:38 after edits by D4R1U5 and Nableezy, but there's a good reason for doing that - the removed text is clearly duplicated in the article itself, with only the duplicate part removed, so I wouldn't hold it against them. starship .paint (RUN) 01:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

However, Jo Jc Jo made a significant mistake at 10 Nov 10:53 with the claim: Vandalism by Recobben2, restoring a large amount of removed content. I did a cursory look at the history of the page and didn't see Recobben2 making many net removals. It seems like the large net removals were made by Historyday01, including [9] and [10]. So no doubt, Jo Jc Jo must be much more careful here, having gotten the editor wrong, and the reason of vandalism is very likely wrong as well. starship .paint (RUN) 01:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint Possibly so. I primarily removed huge quotes as I felt it was undue weight. And I stand by those removals. Historyday01 (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Recobben2’s work was not remotely vandalism. That revert plus simply this one [[11]] breaks 1RR and all those changes from the day should be undone going all the way back to the initial revert.

Mistamystery (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: - please read what I wrote above again, especially the green part. Consecutive edits count as one revert total. Those were consecutive edits plus one removal of exactly duplicated content. starship .paint (RUN) 01:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If you are telling me that making 19 consecutive edits that contain multiple reverts of editors contributions (often times with spurious or no justification at all) does not violate 1RR, that is news to me.

And if you are implying that any editor is free to do the same, that means there are other editors who have been widely going around harassing people threatening to report 1RR violations that actually aren’t so. This is very troubling. Mistamystery (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: - you have to put the spurious or no justification at all aside when considering 1RR. An editor may be sanctioned for poor editing for reverting with spurious or no justification at all, just that this does not count as breaking 1RR. They are independent events (1RR and justification). If I make one revert on this article, restoring it to the version 24 hours ago, I may have reverted 20 editors in total, but that doesn't mean I break 1RR or 3RR, and it's the same if I had made 20 consecutive reverts, ultimately ending up at the version 24 hours ago, each reverting 1 editor. If you need me to look at other editors who have been widely going around harassing people threatening to report 1RR violations that actually aren’t so, let me know. starship .paint (RUN) 13:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This is correct. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Zogby and One State

James Zogby tweeted yesterday: On the "the river to the sea" controversy: 7 yrs ago we polled Israelis & Palestinians. A strong plurality in both favored 1 state. When asked how that would look: Israelis said it meant expelling all Palestinians; Palestinians said it meant equal rights in 1 state.

He makes a point of great significance for our article. He is saying that freedom between the river and sea means one state, and the key question is what does one state mean:

He says Palestinians think it means equal rights for all. Israeli propagandists claim that all Palestinians mean expelling people, and dig up and spin cherrypicked quotes from history to try to justify this.

The truth of course is that “one state” and “freedom” means different things to different people. This article must not attempt to attribute a blanket view on this question to particular groups of people. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I didn’t see a citation or source for the following paragraph. The phrase continues to be used by the PLO with the meaning shifting after the 1988 Algiers Declaration to "establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders." WhowinsIwins (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

If there isn't a citation, then feel free to remove it. This page needs a LOT of work, so the more unsourced content that is removed, the better. Historyday01 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was rewritten by a careless editor, who then also removed the previously accompanying citation. Standby, it will be restored.

Mistamystery (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok. There has been a lot of back-and-forth editing on here... Historyday01 (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Likud statement - Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

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 template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

The newly added statement "A similar slogan was used in the 1977 charter of the Israeli political party Likud.[2]" is incorrect. It should be removed. The source cited does not at all support this statement, nor this phrase is mentioned anywhere on that page. 2601:647:4200:EA20:4420:5E57:9336:C105 (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

“ The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”Mistamystery (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the idea that a similar phrase is not supported by the source is incorrect. For clarification change “A similar slogan was used in the 1977 charter of the Israeli political party Likud.[2]” to: In the 1977 charter of the Israeli political party Likud a similar phrasing is used describing its ambition that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”. 2001:8B0:BF85:7000:39AB:DBEE:4780:256D (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The cited source is a primary source, a document from 1977, that uses the wording 'between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.' There is nothing in the source to indicate that this is a 'similar slogan.' In fact, it is not a slogan at all, but rather a sentence. Unless this is corroborated by a reliable secondary source that links this sentence with 'From the river to the sea,' I believe it should be considered original research. Marokwitz (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a secondary source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/23/river-to-sea-jews-and-arabs-must-forge-shared-future

I agree it's not a slogan, although so would suggest 'slogan' be replaced by 'sentence' or 'phrasing'. Windsorchair (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, “phrase” or “sentence” would be more appropriate in that context. Mistamystery (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an Op-Ed calling for ' Each side in this bitter conflict needs to recognise the other’s fears and aspirations ' ; As such it can be used for facts only when properly attributed.

Our policy says: " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Marokwitz (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There's also 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? where the Guardian states in an explainer on the phrase that the charter from the Likud party "trolls" the Palestinian movement by using the same phrasing. What is the policy when multiple secondary sources make the same assertion? Windsorchair (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Article from today—clearly, they've lifted it from THIS page. What's more, it's from 1977, a detail they conveniently neglected to mention and instead linked it somehow to Benjamin Netanyahu. Surely the term "trolling" cannot be applied. This is nothing short of a sad joke and underscores the critical importance of properly verifying sources. Marokwitz (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve been looking for an updated Likud charter, but no luck (at least in English). Any luck anyone finding an updated one (Hebrew, English, other)?Mistamystery (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

They don't link the slogan to Netanyahu; they clarify that Likud, which readers may not have heard of, is Netanyahu's party. I see no basis to reject the source on that basis; though the fact that they use the same citation as us might indicate WP:CITOGENESIS. DFlhb (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Likud hasn't had a charter for many years. I agree; this is very likely an example of WP:CITOGENESIS. Thank you for introducing that term. Marokwitz (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is citogenesis, only that it's possible. Generally I wouldn't 'disqualify' a source based on that unless we had independent evidence that the source was factually incorrect, which we don't have here. DFlhb (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we had a direct copy of the 1977 charter, which we don’t (yet). And I would be comfortable removing until we do. I’ve seen other very verifiable things be removed for less pending direct sourcing. Mistamystery (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Another case of WP:CITOGENESIS has popped out just now ... Newsweek. Seems this Wikipedia page is going viral. [12] Marokwitz (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What a great new term!

Frankly, after a whole lot of digging trying to create an accurate chronology of the evolution of this phrase, it’s become pretty apparent that all reporting (at least available online) regarding the Likud party platform (it’s not a charter, and if this remains, it needs to be corrected) seems to only be sourced from the JVL. I will keep digging but I’ve yet to find a direct source confirming that this is in fact official Likud terminology from the 70s.

On these grounds alone (and considering the generally chilly reception JVL articles receive these days, I think it’s reasonable to remove these references until we can find a more reliable contemporary source (and also one that confirms exactly what this document was - charter? Party platform? General notes?) Mistamystery (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

After having revisited the JVL’s entry on Reliable Sources, I’m going to be removing mention of this Likud charter, party platform (whatever it actually is ultimately determined to be).

All contemporary news reports and studies either point directly to the JVL as the source, or only appear online after the JVL page was posted (and use the same terminology with no additional information that would indicate an independent source).

There are, in fact, only eight search results pointing to the phrase up until 2015, and we only see a boom in coverage of this point after the Hill scandal in 2018.

Encourage some deep diving (especially in academic journals and Hebrew language media) but in the meantime, this is going in the fridge. Mistamystery (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Uh no. Moughrabi, Fouad; Zureik, Elia; Hassassian, Manuel; Haidar, Aziz (1991). "Palestinians on the Peace Process". Journal of Palestine Studies. 21 (1). [University of California Press, Institute for Palestine Studies]: 36–53. JSTOR 2537364. As the Palestinians have become more moderate and willing to accept a compromise solution, the official Israeli position has become more intransigent. Most interviewees were not optimistic that peace is in the offing because the new geopolitical conditions in the region serve to reinforce the Likud's historic opposition to territorial concessions. The platform of the Likud coalition stated clearly in March 1977: "The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty nableezy - 23:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 23:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat@Marokwitz@priusgod can someone restore Nableezy’s above source to Likud section? Was accidentally deleted by a user yesterday during all the back and forth (and is a more sound, clearer citation from the source document).

I would myself but I just changed the word “charter” back to “platform” (another accidental revert by someone) I don’t want to waste a 1RR token on this. Mistamystery (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Mistamystery you said pending some other verification on the original charter, that has now been provided. Would you mind self-reverting? nableezy - 23:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Great find, NB. For good measure just give me a few minutes to review this Hebrew document quickly. Really want to see if we can pin down the exact nature of type of document (charter, plaftorm, or something else). But yes, will self-revert with appropriate citation very shortly. Mistamystery (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the 1977 Likud platform , original version in Hebrew. [13] . Doesn't seem to contain the text reported by JVL. I agree this should be removed until further verification. Marokwitz (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I just posted a peer reviewed journal article from 1991 with this information. Would be an odd case of citogenesis from Wikipedia. nableezy - 23:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so a few things:

1. The JVL uses this as a source for the quote - I will hunt down in a second, but if anyone has fast fingers and can find the exact quotation in the meantime; The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict, 6th Edition"

2. This is definitely not a party charter. The party was founded in 1973, not 1977. As well, none of the sources are using the word “charter” (that seems to have been inferred by the original contributing editor on the page, and cited later by journalists). All sources all say “platform.”

3. Having reviewed the Hebrew language document (with a translation app, a bit shaky in places - the apps are not great with 70s Hebrew vernacular apparently - but pretty clear on what’s within), I think its reasonable to say that both of these documents are a part of party platform materials for the Knesset elections in 1977. There is nothing as of yet to indicate they rise higher than election platform materials.

4. @Marokwitz is correct - the line “Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” does not appear in the Hebrew language document.

5. That said - and all editors must be reminded that 1977 was in between the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the 1973 Camp David Accords - the overall party platform contained herein is representative of a transitional political outlook and must be taken into the context as we decide on the appropriate text for this part of the article.

The Hebrew language documents do not merely state that sovereignty is hoped for over Judea and Samara, they lay out a platform for both sovereignty (and granting of “full rights for all its citizens and residents, regardless of race, nationality, religion, gender, or community”) for “the regions of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, in Ramat…the Golan and the Sinai.” So to directly imply that the Likud platform is directly correlated to a “River to the Sea” theology is not that simple - as the platform clearly envisions war-conquered territories well beyond the former Mandatory territory.

Would very much like to see the Likud original charter, the original Hebrew document (or full English translation) that Messrs. Moughrabi, Zureik, Hassassian and Haidar got their “sovereignty” quote from, as well as perhaps some insight on ‘73-‘78 Likud policy and internal discourse before we so simply assume that this was “the platform.” I don’t doubt this appeared on a document somewhere connected to the ‘77 election, but given some much larger implications laid out in the other source (such as - it seems - an envisioned Likud one state solution), I think we need to workshop what is to be said here before restoration. Mistamystery (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Found it - a free version at least with some redacted pages (it’s also available for purchase on Amazon):

https://archive.org/details/israelarabreader00walt/page/218/mode/2up?q=Samaria

I recommend searching the word “Samaria” and getting to work reading all of the appropriate pages connected to the Likud platform in the late 70s. It’s a doozy, and very complex. We have some work to do in deciding what to put here - but I can say with certainty, it’s not restoration of the previous line. I’m only two pages in, and there’s already complicating factors (and contradictory assertions in greater detail) that don’t line up with the simplistic notion of “the Likud platform said x”

I recommend all parties interested read all available documents and come back with proposals. I’ll do the same, but will take a bit. Mistamystery (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, but Im restoring this. You previously said you would when presented with further confirmation, then said you would when it was presented, and now we are going on this merry-go-round of well this Hebrew document says whatever. This is well sourced material that a number of other sources consider worthy of comparison. And so I am restoring it. nableezy - 03:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Well it already was, I just added the additional cite with the quote of the phrase. nableezy - 03:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

By all means. Just saying there are piles of additional context that will fundamentally alter the character of the assertion currently being made. If you’re interested in reviewing the additional sources just discovered, I think you’d agree some patience in the matter will be well warranted.

Also - the quote in your citation says “platform”, not “charter”. Recommend making that adjustment if you insist on restoring. Thnx. Mistamystery (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Corrected platform. You are welcome to present anything that challenges the sources we do have of course. If the statement is wrong it will go, but as of now it is well sourced and there is no reason not to include it. nableezy - 03:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. I just know it’s going to evolve so was just thinking about how that will come to be.

Good find, today. I had already exhausted google, had switched over to Arabic language sources, then you got me on a big academic journal deep dive on the history and usage of the term. Mistamystery (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the status of this debate is, but I have this book and it has "Platform of the Likud Coalition (March 1977)" with a footnote "Excerpts from Prime Minister Begin's election platform". The text says "between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". I don't see a reason for not using it; the editors Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin are not exactly Palestinian activists. Zero^talk 08:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Take a look above, the “so a few things” numbered list.

No issue with the verifiably of these election platform excerpts (it seems these “excerpts” were cited widely at some point. As they’re showing up elsewhere).

There is a much the wider context than those floating statements give privy to. The platform was much larger and more detailed than a mere assertion than Begin saying he wanted sovereignty over between the Jordan and the sea. Separate election platform documents from around the same time (in the chain, but in Hebrew) elaborate further on Begin’s plan: to a) annex also the Golan Heights and Sinai, and b) grant equal citizenship to everyone living in all of those areas.

Yes the term “between the sea and the Jordan” showed up in one document, but a later document outlines a fuller, different plan.

And once he got into office (and the beginnings of the Camp David accords started coming into focus), the plan changed again, this time stating: “Israel insists on its rights and demand for its sovereignty over Judea.Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Knowing that other demands exist. it proposes, for the sake of the agreement and of peace, to leave the question of sovereignty in those areas open.”

There’s a lot in the sources provided above that paint a far more complex picture. But in short:

The election platform was run on a general annexation plan stretching from the Golan to Sinai (and everything in between), not just Jordan to the Sea…I don’t know why an earlier document only mentioned that but it seems to have been dropped shortly thereafter (and prior to the election) for an expanded concept. So, no, it technically was not the election platform…merely an early version of it.
The Camp David peace accords started coming together almost immediately after Begin was elected, so whatever was first proposed evolved very quickly into various peace proposals.
Begin qualifies extensively his reasoning in one specific matter - not allowing consideration an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza run specifically by the PLO. He proposes a million other things, even co-administration with Jordan and the Palestinians (operating as a semi-autonomous administration) on a unanimous vote basis, but refuses to consider, most specifically, the PLO running anything independently, because they were - in his own words - “history's meanest murder organization, except for the armed Nazi organizations. [That] bragged about the murder of Hamdi al-Qadi, deputy director of the Education Bureau in Ramallah. It is a frightening proposition that someone's solution to the problems in the Middle East might be a single bullet dispatched to the heart of Egyptian President as-Sadat as the PLCs predecessors did at Al-Aqsa Mosque to King Abdullah.”

This is five years after Black September. I get it.

All said, just extra nuance I think is needed here, especially since - so far as rock solid theology as “from the river to the sea” meant for Palestinian groups, that doesn’t remotely seem to be the case here so far as whatever Likud was on - and to present it so simply enacts some false equivalence in many ways Mistamystery (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy someone reverted your most recent change (“platform” vs “ charter”). Don’t know why. Can you or someone revert this?

Also perhaps someone removed your source accidentally thinking it was one of the two questionable sources being discussed rn. Feel free to restore, or ask user to. Mistamystery (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it was Dovidroth, in this unexplained revert. See below. nableezy - 13:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth is there a reason you removed this source? nableezy - 12:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidrothcan you please restore Nableezy’s source provided yesterday - or anyone else active @Marokwitz or @Homerethegreat if you wouldn’t mind. (I’m offline for a while today) It’s a far more sound sourcing than Kelley, and we all agreed yesterday it was sound.

Also - change “charter” to “platform” - the source doesn’t say charter and its not a charter. Mistamystery (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times has now drawn the same connection in an article today: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/us/politics/river-to-the-sea-israel-gaza-palestinians.html

'Mr. Khalidi pointed out that Israel’s Likud party, which is led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, embraced a similar slogan in its original 1977 platform, which stated that, “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”'

Maybe we could just reference that?--Rxtreme (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to add this chunk of an interview with Omar Bartov, Brown U Genocide studies professor. It seems that the reference or the playing with borders, and claiming them, is a trope that dates back to pre-Israel. So in some sense, the PLO's taking it up is playing with existing terminology. Maybe this could be put in somewhere. Likkud is harking back to Jabotinksy, and perhaps so is PLO. IMHO The very fact that a phrase is that loaded is reason enough to retire it. I know my opinion is neither here nor there... Here's the source: https://www.democracynow.org/2023/11/10/bartov_two_state

AMY GOODMAN: And let me ask you about the term “from the river to the sea,” which the Israeli government takes, and those who charge others with antisemitism say, it means the annihilation of the Jewish population of Israel. I’m looking at the Likud party platform of March 1977, “The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel),” which is the land of Israel. And it says, “The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” That’s between the sea and the Jordan River, between the river and the sea. Can you talk about that term?

OMER BARTOV: Yes. You know, the originators of the Likud party, the Revisionist part of Zionism, under the great leader Jabotinsky, had a song that they used to sing. And the song was, “The Jordan has two banks / this one belongs to us, and the other one, too.” That is, they were not only talking actually about so-called historical Palestine, which is Mandatory Palestine of the interwar period; they were actually talking also about parts of the Jordan, of what is now the Kingdom of Jordan, as belonging to the future Jewish state.

S

Alfredofettucine (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

lead structure

The lead goes political slogan, some see as anti-semitic, slightly biased history lesson, some see it as not anti-semitic, then again it is regarded as hate speech and antisemitic and it is being criminalized. So we have a rebuttal sandwiched around the case for it being anti-semitic. Somebody explain to me how this is NPOV please? nableezy - 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: It is not the place of others to explain this to you but rather your responsibility to provide a proposal to improve as suggested by WP:TPG. I look forward to your proposal! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 14:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well I was asking the people who wrote it this way, namely Mistamystery, why they think it should be this way so I could take into account their views before I make changes I see as necessary, but sure I can just make the changes I suppose. Tomorrow looks like when it will have to be though. nableezy - 14:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Reject the assertion that I “wrote it this way” - it was battled about for over a week and then kicked to a talk page discussion, and has since been changed (and messed with) considerably by numerous editors.

There has been significant pushback from other editors who clearly are uncomfortable with the fact that the phrase has a political history at all (there was a very unpleasant and tendentious battle over this a week ago). This page should be about the meaning, origination, history, and evolution of use of a phrase and that’s it, and I have received some very nasty pushback by certain editors when fighting for basic logical elements like chronology of use.

I also fully reject any accusations of bias or synth. If a political organization has a clearly stated charter mandate, its leaders use a phrase (or similarly worded phrases) explicitly in line with stated items in charter and desired political goals, and there are - most importantly - no other directly cited prevailing uses of the phrase at the period of time in question, there isn’t even anything to contest. If anything, the counter assertion is what is both synth and heavily biased and leading. (Synth: “All of these clearly related elements do not in fact produce a clear picture of use and intent.”)

Going forward, I would kindly request anyone contending that the 1960s PLO’s goals were *not* explicit based upon political charter, general platform, and stated goals by leaders provide direct citation as to why we should not be taking these items simply at face value. If there is a quote out there saying that the 1960s PLO had any other intention than deportation of the Jewish population (i.e. subjecting them to a application process, giving them non-citizen residency, putting them in internal refugee camps), then I would like to see it. Otherwis, to consistently hammer away at this point is both disruptive and tendentious.

To address stated concerns with structure of lead:

1. The first paragraph should stop at “…and the Gaza Strip”. Someone came in a few days ago and pushed up the anti-Semitism claims to this paragraph, when they were previously in the fourth paragraph and should resume living there.

2. “Non-violent call for a one state solution” should be in the third paragraph.

3. Four paragraph should be the home for criminalization, hate speech, etc

Mistamystery (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If a political organization has a clearly stated charter mandate, its leaders use a phrase (or similarly worded phrases) explicitly in line with stated items in charter and desired political goals, and there are - most importantly - no other directly cited prevailing uses of the phrase at the period of time in question, there isn’t even anything to contest. If anything, the counter assertion is what is both synth and heavily biased and leading. Sorry, but no, you are saying source supporting A+source supporting B=material supporting C. That is textbook synthesis and original research. The conclusions we draw have to be explicitly supported by the sources, not presumed true based on what a Wikipedia editor thinks is supporting evidence. nableezy - 16:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Would like to see the citation from the textbook you refer to ;)

(Kidding….kind of)

I’m still perplexed and frankly would like commentary from an uninvolved (or less involved) veteran editor on what constitutes synth here. The purpose of a political charter is so that officials acting on behalf of the organization do not have to explicitly state their values at every turn. That’s why charters and constitutions exist.

The 1964 PLO charter says all Jews who arrived after 1948 won’t have citizenship. 1960s official PLO representative later clarifies those will Jews will be sent back to their countries of origin. Another official PLO representative later says Jews will be sent away and (likely) those who remain will not survive. Charter is then revised to say that all Jews who came after 1917 will not have citizenship. Then from that point on (1969 onward) a variety of conflicting voices enter the fray - with some still saying Jews will be deported, and others saying they want a one-state solution with equal citizenship for all. And all of this is while the 1968 charter remains unchanged.

How is it synth if either charter and charter representative either say the same thing…or charter says one thing, and then representative further clarifies meaning? Mistamystery (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting assessment @Mistamystery regarding organisation, could be a possible framework. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The arrangement of content in an article's lead section is crucial for reader comprehension. In this case, placing the paragraph about the slogan's history at the last paragraph of the lead might be more effective, as it seems that readers are primarily interested in understanding the present slogan's meaning and the controversies surrounding it, and the history could come later. This approach can provide immediate access to the most sought-after information, followed by historical context. To me this is not a critical issue, but a matter of organizational preference - I'll accept whatever is decided. Marokwitz (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw that the lead was again drastically changed and returned it to the 06:55, 12 November 2023 version by @Marokwitz. Despite having already formulated the content of the Lead in earlier discussions it seems there is constant changes to structure without discussion. Therefore I think it's important we get this matter sorted. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion thread. Care explaining why the 12 November 2023 version was restored and not any previous version prior to this discussion? Seems to me that this version was also subject to bold changes without any consensus here. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The "06:55, 12 November 2023 version" itself made changes to the lead. DFlhb (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Because that was acting in accordance to discussion on the lead a few days ago and the user was part of that discussion so I assume in goodfaith that it was done in accordance to that. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are meant for discussion of the pages, not just proposed changes. "Why is this the way that it is?" in a non-disruptive manner (i.e. not the hundredth new topic) is fine to make a new section on. SWinxy (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Over reliance on ADL

The ADL's position seems hugely over represented in this article and alternative sources should be found to to both counter their claims as well as to present their narrative from a more neutral position. Arguments;

The ADL are not a neutral commentator in the debate. They are explicitly Zionist which, even internally to ADL is controversial. A

The ADL (and this article more broadly) presents a heavily Americanised perspective of the subjects. Authors and commenters from the region or from other perspectives should be sought.

the Americanisation of this article has made it very biased to one side of the debate. This article reads, predominantly and in the main, as if the subject were always hateful predicated almost entirely on ADL's assertion that Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic in absolute terms. A argument that isn't absolute nor decided. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 12:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The ADL, when used, must be attributed and stated explicitly as a pro-Israel organization.

And the article remains significantly unbalanced.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The ADL should not have been given emphasis in the article lede. It's been revised. As has more proper emphasis on modern civic usage in the lede.

Regarding any accusation of "Americanization" of the debate insofar as the term's meaning, I disagree, and I think the facts back it pretty clearly. We have basically two historical chapters of usage we're dealing with with the invocation of this phrase as part of the PI conflict: firstly usage by political groups 1960-2000, second its adoption by popular civic and protest movements.

The political usage (by PNC, PLO, Hamas, PIJ, etc) are always pretty explicit, and they go out of their way to be very clear as to what they mean by it. It's taken on a far more widespread interpretive bent the more it has come unto use by civic parties, and I think the article currently reflects this interpretive spread pretty well.

Mistamystery (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No it does not. The article remains unacceptably biased. As one of many examples, the highly contentious words you added to the lede "and a removal of a majority of its Jewish population"[14] are misleadingly sourced. The Rotenberg source you used to support it is quoting Shlomo Gazit, yet this is not made clear. This is not acceptable editing practice. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The 1968 revision of the PLO charter makes very clear on its own that the desired outcome at the time was the removal of all Jews “prior to the Zionist invasion” (which represented 96% of Jews present in Israel at the time of the drafting of that charter revision)

A secondary source was only even included at request by another editor to spell it out clearly (in case people had trouble inferrin what the charter said on its own). I can also add in quotes from the PLO leadership at the time that also spelled the desire to remove most of the Jewish population very clearly, but its an article lede, so it didn’t seem prudent to bombard it with a long citation run.

No Fatah historian would dispute any of this. It’s a well attested chronology and is by no means controversial.

If anything, the lede is excessively deferential to good faith interpretations of the PLO & PNC insofar as the charter articles in question are concerned. As pointed out here, as well as in Palestinian National Covenant, the 1968 Charter technically remains unchanged, despite proclamations they would do so.

And the clarification around Gatzit quote has been adjusted. As well there are numerous other available sources to spell out the meaning of Article 6. I was only abiding by a request.

Mistamystery (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC) (revised)

Again what you have written is misleading. You added a new source allegedly quoting Ahmad Shukeiri, but the same source said that Shukeiri immediately denied the press reports about the claimed statement. That is fundamental context missing. Your PLO charter interpretation is WP:OR and conflicts with secondary sources.

The claim you have made in the lede is of such significance that it needs the highest quality sources. You have brought no sources which directly confirm it.

This is just one example of many similar sourcing failures throughout the current version of this article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You are fundamentally mischaracterizing the source. In spite of Shukeiri's denials (which the source makes clear likely happened because he was professionally embarrassed) the summary of the piece (which is quote here in question) cites the likely conclusion as to whether or not Shukeiri said these things is that he did (to a Lebanese newspaper which is cited).

It's immaterial however, because Shukeiri himself confirmed he used the language in his own memoirs, and also confirmed it was used widely by other Arab Leaders at the time and he should not be bearing the blame (he received from critics on all sides - including Arab and Palestinian leadership).

I patiently remind the editor that we are to engage in WP:GOODFAITH, and to review sources and assertions thoroughly before contesting them.

Mistamystery (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Shemesh, Pg. 79

EVALUATION

The version in the Lebanese newspaper al-Yawm gives the impression of being closer to the truth than the doctored one in Shugayri's memoirs. Although radical, the statement does not appear to imply that he intended to throw the Jews who "remained in Filastin," into the sea "if any remained." His intention was that they would be deported overseas, by ship, to their countries of origin, in other words, by the same way they came to Israel. At the same time, his statement "in my estimate none of them would remain alive" obviously sounded like the intention to destroy or liquidate the Jews and that their fate was sealed. It certainly lent credibility to the claim that he had called for throwing the Jews into the sea. This statement was usually accompanied by reference to the extermination of the remaining Jews, or vice versa, namely the intention to annihilate the Jews was accompanied by a plan to throw them into the sea.''

Mistamystery (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Shemesh's "gives the impression" is weak language, because he had no actual evidence to parse between the different versions. His summary from Shuqayri's memoirs is below:

When asked whether this meant he was prepared to expel the Jews from Palestine, he answered: "This is not true. We oppose the State of Israel [but] not the Jews as such. We are struggling against Zionism and all the Zionists, whether in Filastin or abroad. The Palestinian Jews can remain in Palestine, so can the Jews who came from the Arab countries ... We ask nothing of them except one condition, and that is that they won't have any links [loyalty] to Zionism or the State of Israel." When asked, "What about the rest of the Jews?" Shuqayri stated, according to his account: "They will go back to where they came from. They came by sea, and by the sea they will return. We are ready to cooperate with the United Nations to facilitate their return to their first homeland." Afterwards he related how this slogan was transformed into the central theme of Israel's anti-Arab propaganda, and reiterated: "The story of throwing the Jews into the sea, that the Jews concocted in 1929, is similar to the anti-Semitic slogan they devised in Europe. What I stated at the press conference in Amman in June 1967 I already said a decade earlier—in 1957—in the United Nations with emphasis on 'we do not wish to throw the Jews into the sea.'

Whatever one reads into this, the public furore over the statement at the time was precisely because this was the only such statement claimed to have been made by a senior Palestinian politician at the time. To take one particular interpretation of this, and extrapolate it to claim that, as you have written: "...the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demanded... a removal of a majority of its Jewish population", is simply false. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

“Doctored one” - in reference to Shukayri’s memoirs, is a far stronger statement than the supposedly weak “impression” insistence you make. He is stating clearly that Shukeiry was lying in his memoirs, and there is a contemporary Arab news source stating clearly that Shukeiry directly intimated that the Jews not shipped out would be killed. It’s literally in the quote. There is zero historical debate that he said “in my estimate none of them would remain alive” - the only debate was if he said “Throw the Jews in the sea”.

That said, “Throw the Jews into the sea” was a very common motif made by Arab leadership from the 1940s-1960s, and this is beyond common knowledge. That is quite an extraordinary claim to say that this is the only instance of a claim of a senior Palestinian official in this period saying such things, when dozens upon dozens of quotes can be produced by arab leadership during this period making such claims. I would insist that you produce a citation affirming that all such claims are false or propaganda and that this is the only instance of such accusation before you make such a claim that the early PLO/PNC movement did not demand the removal of all or most of the Jews in Israel.

But, like I said - Shukeyri confirmed it *himself*. Not sure what memoir Shemesh was referring to, but as you may or may not be aware, Shukeyri wrote a bunch of books in his enforced retirement, including Dialogues with Secrets and Kings, in which he himself confirmed he used such language, and lamented he got so much blame for the 1967 war failure when the use of that language was common place amongst Arab leaders:

https://books.google.com/books?id=CFYBAAAAMAAJ&q=Apologia

Shukairy sank into obscurity, and later (in May 1971) published his apologia, which he called Dialogues and Secrets with Kings (in Beirut in Arabic). In it he defended his notorious demand 'to liquidate the state of Israel and throw the Jews into the sea' as being the accepted view then of the Arab heads of state, Arab politicians, who had since turned on him and prised him from office as had the Arab press..."

Again - like I said - practice good faith when challenging editors claims and edits. Mistamystery (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a red herring. What you wrote in the lede was "...the Palestinian National Council's initial charters, which demanded... a removal of a majority of its Jewish population", is simply false. It has been removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because you disagree (or are concerned it paints historical Palestinian leaders in a light you find unfavorable) does not make it a “red herring” simply because you claim it to be so, and your removal of these well researched and attested facts around the clearly stated desires of 1940s-1960s Arab & Palestinian leaders.

There are sources that have been cited, and I am requesting to see sources that indicate *any other* definition used by Arab and Palestinian leaders from this era when invoking “from the River to the sea” that doesn’t mean their removal.

If the 1968 charter (which, mind you, I still active) said that only Jews of Palestinian Origin were to remain citizens, what does it imply for the remaining 95%+ of Jewish Israeli citizens? Are you to imply that they had an alternate plan for all of those people that did not result in their removal?

Mistamystery (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding sourcing on this topic. Mark Durie is a senior fellow and research fellow here in Melbourne on this topic and the ME Forum. Perhaps adding from this page could give broader view and not just ADL.

https://markdurie.com/a-qa-primer-on-hamas-part-4/ HeddyV56 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Middle East Forum is not considered a WP:RS. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Are these enough sources regarding recognition of Israel, extermination of Jews?

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

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

[17] Further info on PLO, PNC.

[18] Further info on Jewish referal

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

[20] 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.

[21] 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)

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

[23] "PLO's phased strategy, which gives the illusion of peace without renouncing its goal of Jewish extermination"

Homerethegreat (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

After checking these I believe most of these sources are put far out of their context and do not justify the universal interpretation that "From the river to the Sea" means the "extermination of Jews," and even still appear cherry-picked out of a range of other sources demonstrating otherwise. Recognition of Israel is also a completely separate topic from whether the mentioned groups support exterminating Jews--as plenty of the sources in the article demonstrate, to civic organizations and many activists, it means forming a single binational state that lends equal land rights in all of Historic Palestine to Jewish and Arab people, along with equal participation in a democratic and secular system. Just seems very emotionally charged to ignore all of this and then still misinterpret your own sources. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's in reference to PLO, PNC charters and their aims. Which was doubted and therefore these sources brought up. Regarding anti-Semitic connection, you have enough other sources that were brought up. Although I have seen repeatedly that sources have been erased. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

B'Tselem report

The israeli human rights organization B'Tselem has released a publication ([24]https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid) titled "A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid". This publication was widely reported by the media (NBC,Haaretz). I think it is relevant to the article's topic and should be mentioned. محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Misleading and biased information in Lead

This is highly misleading

The slogan has been used by Palestinians, Israelis and their supporters. For the Palestinian side, the slogan has come to be interpreted by some as advocating for a single democratic Palestinian state encompassing what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories, where individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship

Critics often regard the slogan to be antisemitic or hate speech, suggesting that it denies the right of Jews for self-determination, or advocates for their removal or extermination, as the slogan has also been used by militant groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It has come under scrutiny in the United States and Europe, including being criminalized in some countries

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

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

The current version is just a hasty paste job done in the middle of a minor edit war, and reflects none of the research or sources presented over a (mostly) healthy two week development process from numerous editors.

Best to restore from the most recent “stable” version (before the revert fest from sunday) and talk it forward from there.

Mistamystery (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree - it should be reverted to the most recent “stable” version per WP:BRD, the current version is highly misleading. It is also missing all historical context. Marokwitz (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This page doesn't really have a stable version: it has been evolving continuously since it's re-creation as a page in September, so I would encourage forward, not backwards editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

So you encourage a more biased version who falsely represents information and ignores it's sources? Why so? dov (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't currently cite any sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right. I recall that we had agreed to a version of the Lead some days ago that was stable for about a week. We should return to that version. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Read the Zogby quote above. Not only does he confirm that a majority of Palestinians support equal rights, he points out that if you want to raise this topic you must also note the equivalent view amongst Israelis… Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The topic of discussion isn't about what the 'majority' view is. Are you denying that there are users of this phrase who reject the idea of a democratic state with equal rights for Jews? Marokwitz (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, people hold extreme views on both sides. This new public controversy is just the "is-anti-Zionism-antisemitic" well-poisoning debate revisited. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please can someone substantiate the assertion that there is controversy within Palestinian society [that] "individuals of all religions would have equal citizenship" - this appears to be bald assertion. If this a reference to the stated ideology of Hamas, and whether it is antisemitic or simply anti-Zionist, that is a topic for several other pages where there are active discussions on the degree to which this still applies in the context of its 2017 charter. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Like it or not , the existence of a controversy among the users of the term is clearly backed by the cited reliable sources. [25]

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

Marokwitz (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

So, that's again, anti-Zionist, which for sure Hamas is. Yes, it absolutely opposes the existence of Israel as a political entity, just as Israel opposes a Palestinian political entity. That doesn't directly imply it "denies the right of Jews for self-determination, or advocates for their removal or extermination". That's an inference that has been widely made, but inference it is, and the Economist certainly doesn't state it. The Guardian piece by Malik cited by Pincrete below is actually a better example of a piece that states this, but also opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I see you're point and I think it's best to reflect that facts and not the perception. You also right in that Hamas won the last election in the PA, and therefore it would be incorrect to refer to this phrase without the connotation Hamas has given it which is seeking to establish an Islamic Palestinian state. This tied with their calls to destroy Israel, the Jews and their racism towards Jews also is ample in order to weaken the statement you raised, that they are seeking to establish a democratic state over the entire region. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Besides, the use as advocating for a single democratic Palestinian state, ('one-state solution'), the slogan is clearly also used to stand for "the equal freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people. as detailed in the 'Civic usage' section ( what might be called a 'justice for all' demand). I note this partly because I have just finished reading the Kenan Malik Gdn piece, which we correctly cite - and quote - to support Malik's opening claim that the slogan had (fairly neutral) origins, but was adopted by Hamas etc, acquiring genocidal connotations. Ironically, Malik ends his piece by using the slogan: Whatever one’s views on Zionism, the aspirations of the 6.9 million Jews now living in the region cannot be ignored. Nor is corralling Palestinians into their own territories while denying them control over their lives any “solution”. From the river to the sea, “self-determination” in that piece of contested land that is Israel/Palestine can only be the self-determination of all the people who live there, Palestinians and Jews, in a single shared future.. I appreciate that this is use rather than description and not usable here for that reason, but it is ironic that someone we cite to indicate the anti-zionist/anti-semetic/genocidal connotations of the slogan, is actually using it for purposes that are none of these, or certainly not the latter two. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Well said. The same is true for the statement by Andy McDonald (politician) "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". He was suspended by his party pending investigation, due to the media's recent demonization of a geographic shorthand. It will be easier to land this once the current conflict is over and emotions have calmed. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't see how its so clear. Since Hamas does not advocate a democratic secular state. Also we've presented above already a lot of evidence and sources on PLO, PNC use of phrase in their wish to remove the majority of Jews. The scholar said that its impractical to move 6.9 million Jews. But it doesn't change the intended intention of the phrase used. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone meant that Hamas's specific use was anything other than their wish to drive out/wipe out all Israelis - but the fact that one group uses a slogan with a particular implication doesn't mean that everyone using the slogan endorses - or intentionally echoes that reading. Ignorance of the darker meaning of a slogan, or a conscious wish to reclaim a slogan may also be motives.

Until I heard of the recent furore over the 'darker meaning' slogan, on the few occasions I had heard it, it had never ocurred that it was anything other than a poetic way to refer to 'all of (historic) Palestine'. But nothing of this is usable of course, since I am not a WP:RS. Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The six words in the title of this article are, as you say, nothing more than a poetic way to refer to historic Palestine. The pro-Israeli claims only kick in when the concept of historic Palestine is connected with the evil word “free”. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Arabic vs. 'Palestinian Arabic'

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

No sources have been provided on this addition, and a cursory search on the matter in arabic provides very few results...still waiting for a citation that indicates this is in wide usage in Palestinian circles. Mistamystery (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Some sources added. It's not explicitly a matter of what Palestinians say vis-a-vis what "Arabs that live outside of Palestine" say, as the IP formulates it. Min al-mayeh lil-mayeh ('from the water to the water') just a popular, 'folksy' formulation used among Palestinians, whereas min an-nahr ’ilā l-baḥr is more standard and prescriptive. إيان (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m seeing ample online chatter that the “water to water” variation also includes (commonly? Need clarification) a rhymed variant in Arabic that translates to english as “From water to water, Palestine is Arab”

Found this link here - but what is your awareness of this variant and how common is the usage (as opposed to just “water to water” on its own)?

https://zaytouni.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/chants-for-protesting-in-english-and-arabic/ Mistamystery (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If we are in including variants, should we include "from the Jordan to the Mediterranean" and "From Dan to Beersheba"? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't see really how relevant... Dan is Tel Aviv area, Beer Sheba is south of it, it doesn't really fit. Also is not used in modern Israeli discourse, or by Arab or Palestinians.

From Dan to beersheba was used in the bible, in Joshua's book if I'm not mistaken. A quick look now showed me British politicians used it in the 1910s. Don't see how it's really relevant. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The Dan in "from Dan to Beersheba" refers to an ancient northern town near the border of Lebanon. Not to be confused with the tribal territory of Dan around Jaffa/Tel Aviv. They're homonyms but completely different referents. (Those articles could use dab hatnotes!) Don't feel bad, I didn't know that either until I looked it up. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

From water to water is relevant. Because its just another way of saying from the river to the sea... It's a variant of the phrase in question. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It is true that "from water to water" and "from the Jordan to the Mediterranean" are variants of River to the Sea and in-scope of this page. "From Dan to Beersheba" has a very different geographical meaning . Marokwitz (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Use by the Israeli right

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

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

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

As I've said elsewhere, if there isn't a reliable source (or sources) to support a statement, it should be removed, with the explanation you have outlined here. Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pincreteif you cannot access refs, you shouldn't be removing anything.

The further Begin policies are absolutely relevant because they clarify and qualify the usage of "from the river to the sea" in election platform materials - and are, in effect, extensions of the same materials in which the phrase exists. This page is about the usage and interpretation of the phrase, and removing those sections effectively removes any context to the usage by the Likud during their 1977-1982 leadership phase. The text should be restored. Mistamystery (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Mista here. To remove a statement for failing verification, you first need to actually verify that it has failed verification. If you can't access the refs, you can't verify this. Loki (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say I cannot access ALL refs, and didn't/wouldn't remove or modify text because I was unable to access the source. A source that doesn't anywhere mention the slogan obviously cannot support its use by anyone. The present text covers instances of right-wing use and is supported I believe. The removed source can be used attached to text it supports - but I cannot see where that would be, The source - "Prelude to the Accord" - uses the similar expression "west of the Jordan river", which describes much the same area, but is this article about policies towards the area, or the slogan's use and meaning(s)? Pincrete (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a literalism battle in which mere absence of specific use precludes the validity of sources. The Likud used the phrase (well...kind of...if we're being specific about it...they didn't actually say "from the river to the sea") but did not expound upon exactly what they meant by it...and then they explained what they meant about it in later, connected platform documents. The relevance is direct.

Previous invocations of this citation were made to appear that their meaning and use was self-evident, which it obviously was not (most especially when there is such debate surrounding other usage).

It is absolutely relevant pertaining to the larger discussion on the page that the Likud's ultimate interpretation of this "sovereignty" item was pertaining to the upcoming peace discussions with Egypt, effectively included a "one-state solution" of sorts, and had very specific attitudes pertaining to the Palestinian national movement at the time, and should be included. Mistamystery (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you think this should go - it obviously can't support the specific fact of Likud using the slogan, which is all the text at the time said.Pincrete (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Platform/manifesto

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

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

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

Thank you for bringing this up. Perhaps political platform? [26] A "political platform" is a more fitting term for a document or set of ideas that represent a political party's or candidate's aims and principles in the context of a specific election or political campaign. The term "manifesto" can sometimes imply a more permanent or broader set of beliefs, not necessarily confined to a specific electoral context. I'm ok with either word as long as it is clear this was their 1977 election manifesto . Marokwitz (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

1977 election manifesto then? or perhaps 1977 political platform. I'm not sure which is clearer, both are sourced, albeit different sources. Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

1977 election manifesto sounds fine to me. Thanks for educating me on this difference between US and UK English. Marokwitz (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that it's a UK/US distinction. Cambridge dictionary usually record that and they don't seem to for either 'platform' or 'manifesto'. But yes prefacing with 'election' clarifies it as a transient, rather than foundational document - so I've made the change. Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually I learned it is a UK/US difference, see Party platform Marokwitz (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I just learnt something else on that page: "Across the Western world, political parties are highly likely to fulfill their election promises". Who'd believe it! Pincrete (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

LOL! Marokwitz (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Historically inaccurate lead

References to throwing the Jewish state, or Jews, into the sea predate the examples given in this article. Example 1 from NYT article dated 1948 [27]https://www.nytimes.com/1948/08/02/archives/aim-to-oust-jews-pledged-by-sheikh-head-of-moslem-brotherhood-says.html?fbclid=IwAR0R3w7gzc6hX0QGYWeFfeIsva7MbP7KVxHHyNcsu9POimvCQqLbpyKO3fs

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

Researcher175, there is no mention in the article anywhere of anyone throwing anything or anyone into the sea! The article is about a particular slogan mainly recently associated with pro-Palestinian groups. Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The first article from 1948 has a quote from the Muslim Brotherhood “If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea.” and the second articles quotes Assad in 66 stating “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.” 68.7.164.77 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Those citations aren’t mentioned in the wiki page which suggests it started with Fatah calling for a democratic state without including the other usage. This is deceptive and selective editing for narrative building. 68.7.164.77 (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you not tell the difference between the slogan "From the river to the sea" and "drive/throw them into the sea" - apart from anything else, the first describes an area and the second an intent/action. Similarly blood-thirsty statements were made on both sides prior to 1948 and since then, but they aren't the subject of this article. Pincrete (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)