Talk:From the river to the sea

Multiple inaccuracies in picture titled "Peace in the Army"

Hello, there are inaccuracies in the description of the picture added recently with the title "Peace in the Army:

• The title is wrong, it is not peace in the Army, but Salem in the army. Check Salem (name).
• This is not the cover of an Egyptian military magazine, it is most likely Egyptian indeed, but it is not a military magazine. The text in Arabic says اقرأ واكتب which is Read and Write. The text at the bottom of the cover is سلسلة تعليم للكبار which means "A series for Adult Education". So this is not a military magazine, judging by what is written on the cover it is a publication made to compat illiteracy.

محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the image, which was added by @Shoshin000: on 20 August. Please clarify the details before restoring. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح @Selfstudier I merely took over the description from the file on Commons. I gleaned the text and also read Salam fil-jaysh, and did not pay attention to the smaller writings.

The drawing illustrates the trope very well however. I propose changing the description to "Egyptian magazine" Shoshin000 (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shoshin000 Egyptian book or Egyptian publication would be a better description. On the cover too, you will find the text الجزء الثاني which means Part Two, magazines don't come in parts typically. محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the file details on commons and it says there that this document has no copyright because it is an official document. Is this magazine an official document? Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, Salem, still in the army, having a read. Inside the other booklet Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

So Salem is a name? And now it's Syrian? Issued by the Syrian army? Hum. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The connection between this "Driving into the sea" and the subject of this article is not obvious, who is making that connection? Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

More likely the name than peace I guess, from the context. The connection seems to be from this journal.

"In zeitgenössischer islamischer Auslegung wird für die Apokalypse in der Literatur prophezeit: »Jerusalem ist arabisch-muslimisch und ganz Palästina vom Fluss bis zum Meer ist arabisch-muslimisch. Es gibt dort keinen Platz für diejenigen, welche vom Frieden und von der Herrschaft des Islam abweichen.«[68] Auf diese Passage beziehen sich der Slogan »Vom Fluss bis ans Meer« und der Schlachtruf »Treibt die Juden ins Meer«, die im Kontext des Sechstagekrieges 1967 – etwa in der ägyptischen Zeitschrift Salam fi al-dschaisch – Verbreitung fanden und auch in der Gegenwart noch genutzt werden."

Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

He says it is Egyptian, tho. "Cover der ägyptischen Zeitschrift salam fi al dschaisch (Friede in der Armee) am Vorabend des »Sechstagekrieges« 1967." Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

He is specifically saying, if I understand the translation correctly that the current usage is derived from the 67 usage. That's not what we say in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The mismatches don't instill much confidence. My Arabic is rubbish, but I can see the Syrian Arab Army in the booklet. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The drawing is unambiguous. And it seems to be indeed issued by the Syrian Arab Army. The seller is located in northern Israel; it might have been picked up on the battlefield, the only type of contact between the two nations. Shoshin000 (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The drawing is unambiguous as you say. However the description is not and the copyright is unclear. I don't think we should be using this image on WP. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Late reply :-) Well, can't we outline it as a literacy booklet issued by the Syrian Arab Army? Shoshin000 (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

"The majority of Jews consider the slogan to be antisemitic" in wikivoice

This article twice states that "[t]he majority of Jews consider the slogan to be antisemitic" with a citation to an article from the Telegraph. I think this should be removed as the Telegraph is in no way an authority on the subject & presents no evidence to support such an exceptional claim.

Whether "From the River to the Sea" is largely considered antisemitic by the Jewish community or not is highly controversial & should be handled with much more nuance than this. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't a proper edit request @Butterscotch Beluga. You need to be more specific, suggesting "change x to y for reason z". Please don't make additional comments about this issue except for precise edit request suggestions. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else have thoughts on this? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The source article is specifically about Britain, but it's been used to support a general, global-sounding statement. If it's used at all, it should be direct-quote attributed; the actual quotes are

Chants such as 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' are regarded by many Jewish people as genocidal in intent, but have become normalised

Chants calling for a global "intifada" (Arabic for "uprising") or "from the river to the sea", for example, are considered genocidal in intent by most Jews but do not currently meet the criminal threshold, and have become normalised

The "most Jews" quote is also commingling sentiment on intifada, and not from the river... alone. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably go in the "United Kingdom" country-specific section. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Marking done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Cartoon edit war

The cartoon in the criticism section should removed. It's currently being edit warred over. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Why should it be removed, and what is the status quo? BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Undue for inclusion in this article. The "pushing the Jews into the sea" phrase is mentioned only once in this article where an ADL leader alleges a connection to the phrase "from the river to the sea". Why should this have an image to accompany it? Very clearly undue for inclusion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be a graphic depiction of most of that section, and is directly connected to the text by that phrase. Given that it is the only graphic we currently have arguing against the use of the term - the rest just show diverse and widespread use of it - I don't think we can remove it without violating NPOV, unless we have a replacement? BilledMammal (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems likely that it could be WP:OR to connect the image to the phrase without a reliable secondary source. I assume attorneysdefendingisrael.blogspot is not an RS for this connection. My rubbish Arabic can see the image only seems to contain the words Aqaba, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. This image from the same source might be a better choice in that it seems to have Zionist and sea at the bottom, if a connection to the 'From the river to the sea' phrase can be made via an RS. This is a reminder for me that the topic area doesn't seem to cover the rich history of visual propaganda very well. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have never really understood the fuzzy disputed border region between 'self-evident/obvious' and 'original research' when it comes to visual things, the first image in Brick being my favorite example. Maybe the OR noticeboard can help in this case. Or maybe there are some decent books about visual propaganda in the Arab-Israeli conflict out there. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Even though I'm quite aware that images like this appeared in Egyptian newspapers, no reliable source is being presented for this one. So why is it permitted to have it at all? Incidentally, a more relevant and more easily sourced image is this one of Bibi at the UN holding a map showing Israel from the river to the sea. I don't know if he used the phrase "from the river to the sea", but the map shows exactly that. It's not even the only time. The Egyptian cartoon has neither the phrase nor the depiction. Zero^talk 13:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Image was added on 20 August, its provenance appears unclear, Here someone is claiming a copyright, saying it is from the Lebanese newspaper Al Djarida 1967, TinEye shows the same image in other unsatisfactory places with an additional text at the bottom.. As a recently added image with an unclear provenance and no secondary source, I don't think we should be using this. Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I see a Lebanese newspaper named as the source in several places. The extra text seen at tinyeye is Hebrew and says something like "Closing of the Strait of Eilat; Egypt kicks Israel, the armies of Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria in a state of readiness. (Lebanese newspaper "Al-Jarida," 25.5.1967)". This text and the one at Bridgeman "the closure of the Gulf of Akaba" matches the image better than the "into the sea" explanation which seems to come from nowhere. Without a reliable source, we can't say that this image depicts Israel being thrown into the sea. In addition, if it is Lebanese the copyright status is different as it would only expire 50 years after the death of the author if the newspaper stated the author. Zero^talk 14:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• The cartoon of Nasser kicking an Israeli into the "sea" has an Arabic sign saying "Aqaba", presumably a reference to the Gulf of Aqabah. The sea in the slogan "From the river to the sea" implies the Mediterranean Sea, not the Red Sea. So that cartoon appears to be about something other than this topic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  This, in addition to the fact that no WP:RELIABLESOURCE is cited and it is WP:UNDUE POV. إيان (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Category dispute

This edit dispute should be discussed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=From_the_river_to_the_sea&diff=next&oldid=1255704741

@Qualiesin

I myself don't think this category is appropriate. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah obviously this is an undue POV categorization. إيان (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:Defining. إيان (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's perfectly appropriate. When the phrase is used to call for the ethnic cleansing or genocide of Jews in Israel, it's absolutely incitement. And over the past year we've seen countless instances of it being used for exactly that. Qualiesin (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to cite some WP:reliable sources. إيان (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Gideon Sa'ar recent comment as minister

Gideon Sa'ar, as the new foreign minister of Israel has welcomed the ruling of a German court that criminalizes the use of the phrase "From the river to the sea", saying " The new antisemitism that is based on the denial of the Jewish state's right to exist must be uprooted!". The article mentions that he himself used this phrase in 2019 to say only Israel will exist between the river and the sea. I think this recent comment he made should be added to the article. (Jerusalem Post) محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)