Talk:From the river to the sea

A few bits of fluff

I don't want to edit this article, but I'll record a few findings. From a quick search, it is clear that the Zionist version of this slogan has "Jordan" or "Jordan River" more often than just "river". The meaning is obviously the same. Details of these on request.

• "In a related development, Vice Premier Yitzhak Shamir said last Thursday the land of Israel, from the Jordan River to the Sea, will be Israel's for ever, and will never be partitioned again. Speaking at a meeting commemorating the founding of the Revisionist Movement..." — Detroit Jewish News⁩, 6 December 1985⁩, page 56.
• A poem about the Jewish Legion: "From Dan to Beer-Sheba, from Jordan to the Sea, O’er snowy-peaked Hermon in loved Galilee, The spirit of heroes of ages gone by, Shall guard our brave legion and ever be nigh." — The Maccabaean⁩, 1 November 1918⁩, p322.
• "the great and scarcely peopled tracts of Tranjordania with which our historical connection is hardly less clear than with the country from the Jordan to the sea" — The American Jewish World⁩, 9 October 1925⁩, p12.
• Article "From Jordan to the Sea" — ⁨⁨The Palestine Post⁩, 23 January 1935⁩, p8.
• Lyrics to be sung to the tune of "God Bless America": "From the Emek to the Negev, From the Jordan to the Sea, God bless all Israel with Liberty, God bless all Israel eternally" — ⁨⁨The Sentinel⁩, 9 May 1957⁩, p56.
• "Gen. Dayan said that Israel wants major changes, “not minor ones," in the 1967 lines on the West Bank. He urged Jews in Israel and aboard to regard the West Bank as 'our homeland, from the Jordan to tho sea, including Nablus and Jericho.'" — ⁨⁨Detroit Jewish News⁩⁩,⁨ 4 July 1969⁩, p9.
• Dayan: "The entire Land of Israel, from the River Jordan to the sea, is the Jewish homeland" — The Australian Jewish Times⁩, 17 July 1969⁩, p12.
• There are German uses in the 19th century, see "vom Jordan bis zum Meer" here for example (I haven't checked this or search further).
• "There is no reason why Israel should refuse on principle to talk to the PLO," says Professor Moshe Arens of the Likud bloc. "On the contrary, Israel should agree to talk to anybody and everybody. The real point is: what do we say to them? We have to tell the PLO, or anybody else, that they have finally to learn to live with Israel — an Israel which stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the River Jordan." — ⁨⁨The Australian Jewish Times⁩, 29 January 1976⁩, p15.
• Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir risked a new altercation with the United States recently when he asserted for the second time this year that large-scale immigration required a "Greater Israel." ... "The past leaders of our movement left us with a clear message to keep the Land of Israel from the sea to the River Jordan for generations to come, for the mass immigration and for the Jewish people, most of whom will be gathered into this country." — Detroit Jewish News⁩⁩,⁨ 30 November 1990⁩, p124.

Zero^talk 08:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have now a lot of time to explore this in depth. But a cursory glance seems to indicate that the pre 1967 quotes are not necessarily of a political nature, in the sense of the Palestinian version in this article. I'll try to write a more detailed analysis next week. I'll just comment that the 19th German quote (the only actual link you gave) predates Zionism by 50 years, and as far as I can tell (not really knowing German) doesn't even come from a Jewish source, but rather a Christian one about Biblical times. Vegan416 (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The psalm in question that is the ultimate source for the expression is of course Jewish.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad to discover that you recognize the fact the Jewish connection to this land goes as far back as Biblical times more than 2500 years ago, but read what I said in my latest response to Zero. Vegan416 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Vegan, you are probably correct about the old German one, but I disagree about the pre-1967 Jewish ones. Proclaiming a natural right to an area of land was just as political then as it is now. Zero^talk 02:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said I won't have time to look up your sources to see exactly what they say and in what context until next week, but as a general comment I would say this: There is a huge difference between proclaiming one's natural/historical/cultural right/connection to an area of land, and making a political manifesto that says that one must control/"liberate" it in the future.

I can bring myself as an example. I definitely think that the Jewish nation have natural/historical/cultural right/connection to the entire area between the Jordan river and the sea. However I recognize the fact that the Palestinian nation also have natural/historical/cultural right/connection to the entire area between the Jordan river and the sea. And therefore my political conclusion is that some compromise has to be made between the two nations, and therefore the Jewish nation cannot and should not rule the entire area between the Jordan river and the sea (my only qualifications regarding this have to do with security considerations, but that's a different discussion).

In contrast the people who chant "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" are making a political manifesto for the future, saying that the Palestinian nation should rule the entire area between the Jordan river and the sea. This is an explicit political maximalist uncompromising program for the future ("will be free"). Not just talking about the past and about theoretical rights that can be compromised by recognition of the other nation rights and for achieving peace. Same it true of course for the Likud platform from 1977 in the other direction, but not neccearily so for the pre 1967 sources you brought. This is yet to be checked. Vegan416 (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Zionists before 1948 knew that other people lived there. When they declared a right to everything, they were intentionally excluding the others. It is more similar to the current maximalist Palestinian position than recent Israeli declarations are. Both are "it belongs to us" with the subtext "and not to them". Zero^talk 08:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as I demonstrated just now. I am also declaring a (theoretical) right to everything even now, but I don't support or express support for a political program to exercise this right to the total exclusion of others' equally valid rights. And the fact is that when a viable plan of partition of the land from the river to the sea between Jewish and Arab states was made by the UN in 1947 most of the Zionists accepted it. Vegan416 (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You aren't answering the point I made. Did any of the pre-1948 speakers that I listed add a caveat indicating a willingness to share? Or that their declaration was only on principle and not to be taken literally? I'd have to go back to the sources, but I'm sure a majority did not. So what they said is not the same as what you said. Your final sentence is misleading as actually it was a consistent aim of Zionism from the very beginning until now to get as much as possible. Zero^talk 13:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

To answer that I'll have to look up the sources and read their full context, and not only what you quoted. And I already said that I will be able to do it only next week. But I can say that even without any explicit caveats there is still a difference between saying "I have right to all of land X" and "I am going to liberate/rule all of land X".

As for you last sentence, I put a big "citation needed" on that. Furthermore even if some people wanted all the area from the river to the sea, the fact that they agreed for a partition plan shows that they were not committed to the idea that Jews should "liberate" all the area from the river to the sea. Vegan416 (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense, Zionists had been angling for that since the Paris Peace conference, even presented a map including bits of Transjordan, never mind the other side. Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

At the time of the Paris Peace conference the Palestinian national movement was only beginning to be born (some say that not even then, as in their opinion the struggle at those years was more of a all-Arab struggle against the Jews, than a specific Palestinian national one). Vegan416 (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of how much of that is true, it in no way contradicts the fact that the Zionists wanted as much as possible. Zero^talk 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Zero, I finally found the time to look up your pre-1967 sources, and here are the results:

1. The Palestine Post⁩ 1935: it has nothing to do with Zionism. It's part of an article describing a British oil pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa, the last part of which goes "from the Jordan river to the sea"...
2. The Maccabean⁩ 1918⁩: This is a song about the Jewish Legion that was part of the British Army that captured the holy land from the Ottoman Empire in WW1. These soldiers have indeed fought "From Dan to Beer-Sheba, from Jordan to the Sea".
3. The American Jewish World 1925⁩: The person who wrote this piece apparently believed in the Beitar slogan about statehood over both banks of the Jordan, that is already mentioned in this Wikipedia article. In the sentence that you quoted he says that the Jewish historical connection to Transjordan is as strong as to "the country from the Jordan to the sea" (this is not correct actually, but that's a different discussion), and therefor he expresses hope that Britain will eventually expand the Jewish state to Transjordan as well.
4. The Sentinel 1957: Though it may look so at first glance, this song actually doesn't literally describe the wished for borders of Israel for it puts the northern border "the Emek", i.e. Jezereel valley, thus giving up the entire Gallilea to the Arabs...

Please check your sources better next time before making others check them out for you. Vegan416 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You are correct about the oil pipeline and I'll strike it. The other three are fine. The Jewish Legion only fought in a small part of that region and the phrase in the song is a standard description of Eretz Israel rather than a factual statement of where they fought. Your comments on the other two are irrelevant. Zero^talk 01:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That depends on what is your criteria for relevancy and "fine", or in other words, what precisely was the point of bringing these sources here? Vegan416 (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Same as my edit here, to show that territorial ambitions from river to sea predate 1948 and that the influence of those positions continues today in successive Israeli governments. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the Introduction - use of word "Zionist"

The reference to "two sides of the Jordan" being a Zionist slogan is very sloppy: this is a slogan of Revisionist Zionism (which has its own page on Wikipedia, so it would be easy to reference it). To confuse Zionism and Revisionist Zionism is like confusing American with Republican. Republicans are American, but not all, or even most, of them. EGetzler (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be unnecessarily splitting hairs. If you can find a *reliable* source which describes it as a slogan of Revisionist Zionism, then you can propose a change, but otherwise, the existing sources do not appear to support your suggested change. Historyday01 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

A) Non EC editors may only make edit requests and that is not an edit request.

B) The current Likud government (and Netanyahu specifically) are Revisionist/Jabotinsky inspired, so its not even wrong (this is in the article already). Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In fact, most Israeli governments since Menachem Begin. Zero^talk 03:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

First Aliyah

@Mistamystery: I found this edit puzzling in which you flip the meaning of the sentence without changing the source. The sentence was: "was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah, although this was later expanded. And you changed it to: "which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1947, although this was later revised to only include descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah".

I looked at the citation cited, From the River to the Sea to Every Mountain Top: Solidarity as Worldmaking, and I didn't find any references to the word "Aliya" or "Aliyah". But I did find this: "Likewise, Fatah leaders shifted from promoting the expulsion of settlers to embracing all Jews as citizens in a secular, democratic state".

In other words the source, and the original article wording, clearly state that the slogan became more inclusive towards Jews with time but you changed the wording to imply the slogan became less inclusive with time.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent this is simply a matter of a citation existing elsewhere in the body, but accidentally not making it into the lede where the same adjustment was being made.

In the section in question, the edit previously read

In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah, although this was later expanded

The above was not only unclear, but inaccurate. The citation remedying this matter is contained in this section prior to your excisions just now.

Specifically this citation, , which on page 10 appears:

Concerning the position of Jews in the Palestine to be liberated, the 1964 Charter stipulates that "Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine" (article 7), "Palestinian" being defined in article 6 as those who "normally resided in Palestine until 1947." The 1968 Charter, written after the 1967 war had brought what remained of historic Palestine under Israeli control, shows a regression in this regard; article 6 states that "the Jews who had resided normally in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion shall be considered Palestinians" (emphasis added).

"the beginning of the Zionist invasion" is commonly asserted to be synonymous with the First Aliyah (which per that article:

represents the beginning of organized Zionism

...hence the usage of that term to be a more clean indicator of the statement contained in the 1968 PNC revision.

As for the NPR piece, I did not place that citation there, so have no clue as to the bearing of its contents on the paragraph in question.

I'm not routinely in the business of blanking others citations without glaring issues (hence why the Robin Kelley citation remained in the lede), Regardless, the Muslih citation is sufficient to address the questions raised here.

I'll correct this now with the citations in the appropriate place. Mistamystery (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You are violating WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICKING.

WP:NOR: the source doesn't say Aliyah anywhere. It says "beginning of the Zionist invasion", which could mean a different event.

WP:SYNTH: most importantly, the source doesn't say at all whether this is connected to the phrase "From the river to the sea". Your SYNTH is basically: "PLO used that phrase, PLO also said X about Jews, hence that phrase implies X".

WP:CHERRYPICKING, the same source (Muslih) says in 1969 (just one year after the 1968 document you're quoting) the PLO accepted all Jews:

from 1969 through 1973, was characterized by a shift of objective...liberation underwenta significant change,from a primarily Arab state to one that would be shared with all Jews resident in Palestine if they renounced Zionism. There was no longer any stipulation, as there had been in the two National Charters, concerning the Jews' length of residence in Palestine. (page 13)

They declared themselves prepared to share their homeland, which they considered to be wholly theirs by right,with the Jews, the vast majority of whom had come recently to Palestine as immigrants and who were perceived to have displaced them. Moreover, by adopting the concept of a secular democratic state,the Palestinians were attempting in their own fashion to reach out to all the Jews who were by that time already established on Palestinian soil. (page 14)

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I've read numerous sources that have stated that the interpretation of "beginning of the zionist invasion" to be equated to the start of the Zionist movement in 1881. If there are concerns, the line can always be changed to reflect the quote. Either way, it doesn't change that there was a shift in the scope of citizenship criteria between those two versions of the PNC.

I made a correction to an existing paragraph which I did not originally author. Whomever was inserting Kelly references was the one who made an insistence that the original PLO charter reference to "the homeland in its entirety" equated to "from the river to the sea." I recommend looking back at whomever made that original assertion and take up the issue with them. This paragraph is only here because Kelly insisted that the Palestinian usage equated to the statements made in the various Palestinian National Covenant drafts, and those statements either need be contextualized appropriately, or we alternately can leave any mention of citizenship criteria out of it if it proves either unnecessary or too cumbersome.

And finally, there was no cherrypicking intended. I was clarifying a single generic assertion that was not reflective of the charters references in Kelley's quote. If Musih expounds upon *eight* additional revisions to the PNC (that, it should be noted, are incredibly difficult to source online and are not even referred to on the Palestinian National Covenant page itself), then each revision should be noted individually. Mistamystery (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

But most of this is not connected directly to the phrase "From the river to the sea". The only one making the direction connection is Kelley, so we should limit to that in the lead, if not the rest of the article too.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Second lede paragraph

Feels more like the article is about the PLO's usage of the slogan rather than the slogan itself. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss:, this is being discussed above in the section called "First Aliyah". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct misleading Hamas stmt in introduction

The introduction says: Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Usage of the phrase by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to claim that it advocates for the dismantling of Israel ...
If one actually reads paragraph 20 of the 2017 chapter, where "from the river to the sea" appears, it does not talk about the dismantling of Israel.

I'd like a minor edit:
FROM:
Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter.
TO:
Hamas used the phrase in paragraph 20 of its 2017 charter, referring to a two-state solution. [FOOTNOTE/REFERENCE]

The footnote/reference can either directly cite paragraph 20 of the Hamas 2017 charter as here, or else directly quote the relevant text in a footnote:
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, ...

The current Wikipedia article seems to entirely ignore the Hamas sentence: However, ... 4th of June 1967, ...
An objective reading of that sentence in the Hamas 2017 charter seems to imply a "two-state solution" based on the borders of "4th of June 1967", while still refusing to recognize the state of Israel. The Hamas 2017 charter certainly does not speak about the "dismantling of Israel". Gene (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that the current version is better. It simply states that the phrase is mentioned in the charter.

I'm not sure whether you wanted to say that the "phrase" or "paragraph" referred to the two-state solution. If it's the former (phrase) then it's inaccurate, since it's actually in a different sentence.

If it's the latter (paragraph) it wouldn't be neutral. While some scholars believe that Hamas accepted the two-state solution in this document, others disagree with this and say that the "complete liberation of Palestine" remains the goal. This article is not the right place to discuss it. Alaexis_¿question? 08:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Would the following edit be more appropriate?

FROM: Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter.

TO: Hamas used the phrase in paragraph 20 of its 2017 charter.

I would change the link to a citation, of course. As you say, it's not the job of Wikipedia to discuss what that paragraph means. But it is the job of Wikipedia to provide the information in a neutral format, and allow the reader to locate the relevant information. Gene (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting point Gene. But can you find some WP:SECONDARY sources for this discussion? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, VR and Alaexis. To be clear, I agree with Alaexis's point that: "This article is not the right place to discuss [the interpretation of paragraph 20 of the Hamas Charter]." My goal is simply to allow the reader to view the primary source, and then make an individual decision. This should be in keeping with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality.

My primary concern is that the current formulation in Wikipedia loses neutrality, because it is misleading. It currently says:

    Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Usage of the phrase ... has led critics to claim that it advocates for the dismantling of Israel

This is misleading because critics are referring to much earlier quotes from Hamas. They are not relying on the 2017 charter.

As Alaexis correctly points out, paragraph 20 of the 2017 Charter can be ambiguous. The paragraph includes both of these phrases:

1. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, ...

2. Hamas considers the establishment ... along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, ..."

The critics of Hamas are referring to earlier (pre-2017) unambiguous statements by Hamas. It is misleading to say that they are referring to the 2017 Charter.

VR, you asked about secondary sources. Because of the controversy, objective secondary sources are hard to find. I don't recommend this one for Wikipedia, but here's the best that I could find:

from a Vox site. Gene (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@VR and Alaexis: (Pinging now; see above) Gene (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If Hamas used the phrase, then its good for inclusion. If they used the phrase in a confusing or contradictory way, that's also valid for inclusion, we shouldn't just rely on a single interpretation of what is meant. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Citation 3 contradicts statement it is cited for

Does not match the reference, nor is the statement backed by historical evidence. Statement and citation should be removed. 2607:FEA8:1C41:7B00:4CD3:103E:6087:53D5 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Racist statement should be removed

The following statement

> Many Palestinian activists have called it "a call for peace and equality" after decades of Israeli military rule over Palestinians while for Jews it is seen as a call for the "destruction" of Israel

is in the lead. This seems to me transparently racist as it ascribes a belief to an entire ethnic group. However, interestingly enough, a similar statement is made in the cited AP article (which is odd since I'd expect this to violate their editorial guidelines). Despite this I think it should be removed and replaced with something non-racist. JDiala (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

We should try to find another reference because it is unclear what AP means, all Jews, everywhere, Israeli Jews, most Israeli Jews, or what. Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that it means "most Jews everywhere". It is quite common, even in highly reliable sources to say "X" when you mean "most of X". Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill. I thought I already resolved this by adding "most" before "Jews". How did that get removed? Vegan416 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"Obvious" won't do, that's OR. this is more balanced, it is interesting that Israel's Likud is inspired by the same call in the other direction and I don't hear anyone saying that Palestinians are hearing a call for their own destruction, read apartheid and genocide by a settler colonial state. better remove this oversimplification entirely. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL. You "don't hear anyone saying that Palestinians are hearing a call for their own destruction, read apartheid and genocide by a settler colonial state"??? This is said again and again all over the media... Vegan416 (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's put it in then. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome... Vegan416 (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

References