Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images
I was talking with someone about an article from The Hill that had come out earlier this week: “1 in 5 young Americans think Holocaust was a myth”, which drew this shocking statistic from a poll conducted by The Economist and YouGov. The poll collected data from 1,500 American Citizens between December 2nd and 5th, 2023 on various political topics, including whether they agree with the statement: “The Holocaust was a myth.” Of those between 18 and 29 years old, 20% provided an answer in agreement with Holocaust Denial (YouGov, 103). There is of course a major, or rather a small issue, with this analysis, and that is that only 41 people of that age agreed with the statement. Of the 1497 American citizens polled, only 207 were within the 18-29 age range. Despite this small sample size, The Hill still presented it like so: “While the question only surveyed a small sample of about 200 people, it lends credence to concerns about rising antisemitism, especially among young people in the U.S.” (Robertson, The Hill). Using a small sample size to make a general claim about a group is not only poor scientific analysis, it is poor reporting.
Although the person I was discussing this with agreed that using a small sample size to make this conclusion was improper, it led to him pointing out how genocidal calls were being made at rallies supporting Palestine, specifically “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” I disagreed with labeling the statement as genocidal, as it seemed to represent freedom for the Palestinians from Israeli occupation, bombing, displacement, harassment, and violence. In response, I was told I needed to read more, that the situation was complex but ultimately the slogan had its roots with removing the Jewish people of Palestine.
So I read more.
I researched the slogan, where it came from, who uses it and what they believe it means, and came to understand that characterizing the conflict as “complex” means more than most people say and it does more harm than one may realize.
Part 1: The Origin of the Phrase
So where did the phrase come from? There isn’t a concrete date or author, but there is some degree of origination in the period following the Nakba in 1948 and Palestinian displacement. Bryan Pietsch of The Washington Post and Ellen Ioanes of Vox both introduce scholars who present the slogan as emerging from “Palestinian activists and intellectuals who were made refugees by the 1948 war,” (Pietsch, TWP). Pietsch cites Maha Nassar, an associate professor of Middle East history and Islamic studies at the University of Arizona who argues that they developed the idea of a “free Palestine” as a “secular, democratic, free” state from “the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea,” (Pietsch, TWP). Ioanes discusses the slogan’s progression with commentary by Elliot Colla, a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at Georgetown University. According to Coalla, the phrase as it’s currently known first came about around the time of the first intifada and the Oslo accords process in the 1990s,” (Ioanes, Vox). According to Colla, an earlier version translates to “‘From the river to the sea’...or ‘from the water to the water, Palestine [is] Islamic,’” and a more common version was “‘Palestine is Arab,’” (Ioanes, Vox). Ioanes connects these earlier versions to the pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism movements as as they fell out of power, the version increasingly changed to “will be free,” (Ioanes, Vox). This difference does highlight how the phrase can be associated with antisemitism, and in all of the research I found discussing the phrase, there was one constant, best shown by Laurie Kellman’s article for Associated Press discussing it: “Many Palestinian activists say it’s a call for peace and equality after 75 years of Israeli statehood and decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians. Jews hear a clear demand for Israel’s destruction,” (Kellman, AP).
Fundamentally speaking, the phrase has two interpretations for what is meant, so how does this phrase actually get used in recent history?
Part 2: Who Uses the Phrase and Why
When I was researching the phrase, I knew that I would have to show that, although I am biased on this issue, I was at least being fair by exploring multiple perspectives. To that end, I found an article by the American Jewish Committee defining and explaining the sentence as part of their “#TranslateHate” series. The Committee is not a minor group, and is frequently referenced in the news articles and sources I had been reading and citing for this essay. They define the phrase as “The catch-all phrase symbolizing Palestinian control over the entire territory of Israel’s borders, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea,” (AJC Staff, AJC). It appears neutral, save for using “control” to refer to “self-determination”, but this apparent neutrality evaporates following their elaboration on how the phrase is used:
“[It] is a rallying cry for terrorist groups and their sympathizers, from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to Hamas, which called Israel’s destruction in its original governing charter in 1988 and was responsible for the October 7, 2023 terror attack on Israeli civilians, murdering over 1,200 people in the single deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.” (AJC Staff, AJC)
Putting aside how anyone who uses the phrase has now been characterized as, at minimum, a terrorist sympathizer, the AJC notably leaves out any context as to why these groups use the slogan and phrases this explanation in such a way as to make the phrase appear to be discussed solely as a genocidal call to action by these groups. Pietsch’s article for The Washington Post and Federica Marsi’s article on the subject for Al Jazeera both reference the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) having a similar principle in 1964. Marsi argues that the PLO called for “the establishment of a single state that extend from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea to encompass its historic territories,” which notably occurs in response to Palestine being divided into multiple territories (Marsi, Al Jazeera). Pietsch elaborates by adding that the phrase was taken up by supporters of the PLO and is popular “among different Palestinian factions,” (Pietsch, TWP).
In modern discourse however, the name on everyone’s tongue is Hamas, which currently controls the Gaza Strip. By 2023, Hamas had absolutely begun to use the slogan as part of its war against Israel. According to Kellman’s AP article, the former Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal, gave a speech where he said: “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” (Kellman, AP). However, the AJC article said that Hamas called for Israel’s destruction in 1988 while discussing “From the river to the sea,” so when did Hamas actually begin to use it? An article published by the Middle East Eye in 2017 by its editorial staff detailed Hamas’s entire 2017 charter, where they actually first used it. In order to make sure that I was not missing any information, I found a copy of the 1988 charter via the Yale Law School and the Lillian Goldman Law Library’s Avalon Project which archives legal documents. The 1988 charter (found here: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp) never once uses the phrase “from the river to the sea” or any variation of it. In the 2017 charter, Hamas uses the phrase like so: “20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and 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,” (MEE Staff, MEE). Hamas’s terrorism has been thoroughly discussed, however it is notable that when given the option to use the recent charter that does actually use “from the river to the sea” as part of its mandate, the AJC uses the 1988 charter as a way of making Hamas’s use of the phrase appear to be more genocidal than how Hamas presents it.
Even if you argue that this mandate and the earlier claim that “16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion,” (MEE Staff, MEE) is propaganda and Hamas is pretending to not be antisemitic in the charter, the AJC still portrays Hamas as an organization that uses the slogan as a genocidal mandate. This rhetoric has been frequently used in discourse on the slogan, especially since October 7th, 2023. Kellman’s article for AP cites an open letter from 30 Jewish news outlets that states “Have no doubt that Hamas is cheering those ‘from the river to the sea’ chants, because a Palestine between the river to the sea leaves not a single inch for Israel,”(Kellman, AP).
Marsi’s article for Al Jazeera cites Yejudah Mirsky, a rabbi and professor of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University. Mirsky argues that “to Jewish Israelis what the phrase says is that between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, there will be one entity, it will be called Palestine - there will be no Jewish state - and the status of Jews in whatever entity arises will be very unclear,” (Marsi, Al Jazeera) and further argues that those who chant the slogan are “supporters of Hamas,” a claim refuted by another of Marsi’s sources: Nimer Sultany, a lecturer in law at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London who argues against equating protestors to supporters of Hamas, (Marsi, Al Jazeera). Holly Huffnagle, the US director for combating antisemitism for the AJC told Vox that “Antisemitism isn’t static, it’s dynamic” and “We saw what ‘From the river to the sea’ looked like on October 7,” though Ioanes notes that despite the claim that antisemitism isn’t static, Huffnagle insists that “from the river to the sea” has “always been antisemitic,” (Ioanes, Vox). The argument here is that because groups like Hamas have used the phrase in the past, regardless of the meaning it meant to convey, it is genocidal. According to this argument, Palestinian freedom means the destruction of the Jewish state and thus the removal of the Jewish population of Palestine. It doesn’t matter if “free” is used to express “the need for equality for all inhabitants of historic Palestine,” (Marsi, Al Jazeera) or that its use is not only used to protest Israel but additionally the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank (note: not the part of Palestine controlled by Hamas) and its President Mahmoud Abbas (Ioanes, Vox). So if that is the case, why does Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his political party Likud use the phrase in reference to Israeli sovereignty?
Part Three: Hypocrisy
In 1977, the original platform of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party, Likud, stated that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” and argued that establishing a Palestinian state “jeopardises the security of the Jewish population” and “endangers the existence of the state of Israel,” (Marsi, Al Jazeera). This is verified by both AP (Kellman, AP) and Vox, which adds that this was issues during “the height of the Palestinian armed resistance movement” and “denied any possibility of a two-state solution,” (Ioanes, Vox). This is not just an old party mandate, after all, I did just criticize the AJC for using older political rhetoric to describe Hamas, however this rhetoric has not been removed. Under Netanyahu, the “Two-State Solution” continues to be opposed and in 2018, Likud instituted a basic law declaring the right of national self-determination in Israel as “unique to the Jewish people,” which, according to Ioanes, “further entrenched the inequality between the country’s Jewish and Palestinian citizens, who make up about 21 percent of the population in Israel,” (Ioanes, Vox). Furthermore, Likud describes itself as “conservative and nationalist” and Marsi notes that they are additionally staunch promoters of “Eretz Israel”, or “the Bible-given right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.” (Marsi, Al Jazeera).
Remember the article by the AJC? It described the slogan as “a rallying cry for terrorist groups and their sympathizers” (AJC Staff, AJC). The article also doubled-down on that false dichotomy by describing its use by activists: “It is also a common call-to-arms for pro-Palestinian activists, especially student activists on college campuses. It calls for the establishment of a State of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, erasing the State of Israel and its people,” (AJC Staff, AJC). Before, this was merely an oversimplification that ignored the previous non-extreme uses of the slogan, but within the context of how Likud took this phrase for Palestinian liberation and transformed it into a mandate to ignore the “Two-State Solution” and erase Palestine, it reads as a projection.
There’s an idiom that “Every Israel accusation is a confession” and I don’t see it being more true here with how the AJC characterizes calls for Palestinian self-determination as antisemitic and genocidal. After falsely equating all pro-Palestinian liberation protestors and supporters with terrorists, the AJC makes the most enlightening statement in the article:
“There is of course nothing antisemitic about advocating for Palestinians to have their own state. However, calling for the elimination of the Jewish state, praising Hamas or other entities who call for Israel’s destruction, or suggesting that the Jews alone do not have the right to self-determination, is antisemitic.” (AJC Staff, AJC)
After providing no concrete evidence that the phrase “from the river to the sea” is inherently antisemitic, characterizing anyone who uses it as a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, the AJC suddenly tries to argue that it's perfectly alright for Palestinians to advocate for themselves so long as they don't do so in a way that the AJC doesn't like. The AJC does this by lying about what the slogan means again. The phrase does not mention, let alone "praise" Hamas, mention Israel, or mention Jews at all. All of these claims are interpreted by the AJC. This exact criticism of the AJC was made by Yousef Munayyer in his article for Jewish Currents where he cites Nassar here as well. According to Nassar, there has never been an “official Palestinian position calling for the forced removal of Jews from Palestine,” and furthermore this seems to originate from “an Israeli media campaign following the 1967 war that claimed Palestinians wished to ‘throw Jews into the sea’,” (Munayyer, Jewish Currents).
One final note on the hypocrisy by those claiming that the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free” is genocidal while the phrase “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” is not. Mirsky, who you’ll recall argued that pro-Palestine protesters who used the slogan were Hamas supporters, has a curiously “neutral” argument for the “Eretz Israel” concept. According to Marsi, “Mirsky, of Brandeis University, said that while Israeli public figures were using the biblical concept to claim political authority over all disputed territories, the issue was “hotly debated” within modern Israel,” (Marsi, Al Jazeera). Suddenly, people are not a monolith and shouldn’t be characterized as all being supportive of one specific ideology.
Conclusion
I was told that it’s a complicated issue. I was encouraged to research, but after presenting initial evidence, I was asked to move on to another topic. Some people will always be ready to talk about how the phrase “from the river to the sea” is genocidal, but when confronted with evidence against it or against Israel’s conduct, the issue suddenly becomes “complex” and “nuanced”. Somehow, the same people who gladly argue that Palestinians and Jews are completely separate identities, that all Palestinians and Palestinian groups are monolithic, and that a phrase that has had multiple uses and version by both Palestinians and Zionists is a genocidal antisemitc slogan are unable to make a clear judgement about anything going on.
Whenever someone describes the issue as “complex” and “nuanced”, do they really mean that the history of Palestine has multiple perspectives and factors that can and should be examined? Or do they instead mean: “It’s only complicated when discussing Israel’s conduct and simple when condemning Palestine’s.” When discussing the atrocities of Hamas, it’s cut and dry. When it comes time to discuss Palestinian self-determination or Israel’s atrocities, suddenly it becomes a political Gordian Knot that cannot be properly explained so we shouldn’t bother and we should talk about something else. I found these sources on my phone in the car. This is not a difficult issue to research and explore, unless you are unwilling to challenge your beliefs.
Sources:
AJC Staff. ““From the River to the Sea” | #TranslateHate.” American Jewish Committee. October 25, 2023
Ioanes, Ellen. “The controversial phrase “from the river to sea [sic],” explained.” Vox Media. November 24, 2023
Kellman, Laurie. “‘From the river to the sea’: Why these 6 words spark fury and passion over the Israel-Hamas war.” Associated Press. November 11, 2023.
Marsi, Federica. “‘From the river to the sea’: What does the Palestinian slogan really mean?” Al Jazeera. November 2, 2023
MEE Staff. “Hamas in 2017: The document in full.” Middle East Eye. May 2, 2017
Munayyer, Yousef. “What Does “From the River to the Sea” Really Mean?” Jewish Currents. June 11, 2021
Pietsch, Bryan. “‘From the river to the sea’: Why a Palestinian rallying cry ignites dispute.” The Washington Post. November 14, 2023.
Robertson, Nick. “1 in 5 young Americans think Holocaust was a myth.” The Hill. December 8, 2023.
YouGov. "The Economist/YouGov Poll: December 2-5, 2023 - 1500 U.S. Adult Citizens." YouGov. 1-119.
Comments