Talk:From the river to the sea/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wrong link

The link marked with (3) has nothing to do with the preumtion this slogan was created by zionists. Please be more careful. 91.80.83.35 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I cannot find any source of Mr. Kelley saying this quote besides things quoting this article. This claim should really be removed if no source exists. Jumper4677 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I found it (its noted here: https://rsaa.org.uk/blog/from-the-river-to-the-sea/), but its NOT that in that link, as it is in this article. Using Wikipedia Library, its on page 78 (the phrase is noted on the previous page), which says:

First, the odious phrase in question began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel. The Likud Party’s founding charter reinforces this vision in its statement that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” Indeed, as Seraj Assi wryly observed in a comment on Hill’s firing, “In a self-fulfilling prophecy, and thanks to Israel’s occupation and rapid expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea’ has become a reality on the ground. The tragedy is that, from the river to the sea, only one people is free.

So the citation of Mr. Kelley in the second sentence of the "History of the phrase" section should be changed to the following (remove the brackets) --> [<]ref>Kelley, Robin D.G (Summer 2019). "From the River to the Sea to Every Mountain Top: Solidarity as Worldmaking". Journal of Palestine Studies. 48 (2): 78. Retrieved April 29, 2024.[<]/ref> Historyday01 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have changed the citation so the quote is properly cited in the main article. I thought posting it here would have encouraged someone else to make the change, but since that has not happened, I decided to boldly make the change myself.--Historyday01 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible OR

Unfortunately, I suspect this edit, which includes what is presumably an objectively and observably true fact about the world, does not comply with the original research policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed it, looks like synth, can be restored with a quote from a source actually saying that. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is OR. OR are claims "for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources". This is clearly not the case here, for I have brought 3 published sources from the early 1970s that claim that the phrase "From the River to the Seas" was used then in the context of the "liberation of Palestine".

These sources prove the claim that the phrase appeared at least as early as the 1970s in two ways:

1. As primary sources testifying about themselves. The phrase appears in these sources, and they are from the early 1970s. So it an immediate and irrefutable logical deduction that this phrase appeared at least as early as the early 1970s. In this respect it doesn't even matter if these sources are reliable.
2. As secondary sources testifying that this phrase was used by others. The CIA source testifies that this phrase was used in Egyptian radio. The Lebanese scholarly source testifies that this phrase was used by some Arab delegation that negotiated with USSR. And the British journal about the Middle East, testifies that this is an existing slogan that "entailed the elimination of the Zionist structure". Admittedly I don't know much about the reliability status of the two last sources (though I have no special reason to suspect them of being unreliable), but I think the CIA can definitely be a reliable source for transcribing and translating public Egyptian radio programs.

Vegan416 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

OR is drawing a conclusion from multiple sources when said conclusion is present in none of them.

Which of the three sources says "The phrase appeared in English sources (that translated it from Arab sources) at least as early as 1970." ? Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately Vegan416, I think it is the case here. This seems clear if you ask the question, who is the person that observed the fact that "The phrase appeared in English sources (that translated it from Arab sources) at least as early as 1970." Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So the objection is to the word "English"? How then about changing it to "The phrase was publicly used in Arabic at least as early as 1970". Vegan416 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please answer the question I asked. Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The CIA source says that the phrase appeared in the Egyptian broadcast. And the Lebanese source says that the phrase was used by an Arab delegation. Vegan416 (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The specific words are not the problem. The problem is the observer. The question can also be stated as 'who is the person that observed the fact that "X is the case"?' The answer to that question is inconsistent with WP:OR. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The person who observed that the phrase was used then are the CIA and the Lebanese source and the British journal. Vegan416 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The conclusion "The phrase appeared in English sources (that translated it from Arab sources) at least as early as 1970." was drawn by yourself. It is not in any of the sources. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not a conclusion. This is a summary of the facts that are mentioned in the sources. If you have a problem with a summary then I can expand the sentence... Vegan416 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. What you can do is report what each source said.

After that, we will consider whether what each source said is WP:DUE, likely not. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

When the subject in this section in the history of the phrase than obviously the first known proven appearances of the exact phrase are definitely WP:DUE. So I'll rephrase the sentence at length as you suggest. Vegan416 (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that. I repeat, you can report what each source said, not your version of what they said. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If you find these arguments unconvincing/puzzling (and I don't blame you because a true observable fact is a true observable fact) you can use the WP:ORN. The Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_mere_observation_original_research? discussion may interest you. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I read that discussion now. Interesting, but I don't see how its relevant here. Unlike the questioner there I actually have published sources to support my edit. You don't have to travel to some godforsaken English village to verify my facts by observing the query. You just have to click on the links to Google Books that I put in the footnotes.

Anyway following my discussion with SelfStudier here is the new version I suggest:

In 1970 the phrase "From the River to the Sea" appeared in a discussion in Egyptian radio in which it was said that the Palestinian resistance, on its own, will not be able to achieve its goal of fully liberating Palestine from "the river to the sea", and it will require the help of the Arab states and particularly Egypt. [and here comes the ref to the CIA source] Vegan416 (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Who said it? (they are the source, the CIA is the publisher). Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You mean who said it on the Egyptian program? Vegan416 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I see the following sentence in the source

"Can the Palestinian resistance lead a popular resistance war which will end with the full liberation of the land from the river to the sea?"

Who asked this question? Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it matters that much, but since you asked I looked up, and by scrolling one page up in the CIA book you can see that the speaker is Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, a very prominent figure in the Arab world on those days. So here is the 4th revision:

In 1970 the phrase "From the River to the Sea" was used by Mohamed Hassanein Heikal in his show on Egyptian radio. He said that the Palestinian resistance, on its own, will not be able to achieve its goal of fully liberating Palestine from "the river to the sea", and it will require the help of the Arab states and particularly Egypt. [and here comes the ref to the CIA book] Vegan416 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, to be more precise upon more thorough reading of all sources, a 5th revision:

In August 1970 the phrase "From the River to the Sea" was used by Egyptian Information Minister at that time, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, in an article he wrote that was read on Egyptian radio. He said there that the Palestinian resistance, on its own, will not be able to achieve its goal of fully liberating Palestine from "the river to the sea", and it will require the help of the Arab states and particularly Egypt. [and here comes the ref to the CIA book] Vegan416 (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he asked the question and then gave the answer himself.

In 1970 Mohamed Hassanein Heikal in his show on Egyptian radio, posed the question ""Can the Palestinian resistance lead a popular resistance war which will end with the full liberation of the land from the river to the sea?" and answered it in the negative.

Now the origins of the phrase is the relevant context, right? And Palestinian usage in particular. So why is this WP:DUE in that context? Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please read my new comment. You are not up to date. Vegan416 (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I repeat my question. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your first question, but as for the second question the answer is obvious. In a section about the history of a phrase it is obviously important to mention the first known documented example of the appearance of this phrase and as far as we know now it seems to be that. No earlier example is given in the article so far. Of course if someone will find an earlier source we will replace that with that. Also add that it was said by an important figure to millions of listeners, and I fail to understand how can be here any doubt as to it being WP:DUE. Vegan416 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The first question pertains to where you previously added this material, in the article section 'History of the phrase'. If you look at that section it discusses the origins of the phrase and then usage of the phrase, particularly by Palestinians.

So why is some random usage of the phrase by an Egyptian commentator relevant to that?

No earlier example is given in the article so far. That's false. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you show me an earlier example of this phrase in Arab sources in the article? All we have is the claim of Kelley that is was used in the 60s. But he doesn't provide any documented example.

PS to describe Heikal as a mere "commentator" shows your deep lack of knowledge of the subject matter. He was much much more than that, and as I mentioned when he said that he was in fact the Information Minister of Egypt. Vegan416 (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Arab sources? The article discusses Palestinian usage. The first sentence says "The precise origins of the phrase are disputed" But no, editor Vegan 416 insists that the phrase originated in 1970 on an Egyptian radio show. Wow, why doesn't anyone else know that? Has anyone reported that? At all? Anywhere? Besides the CIA.

If you can provide a bona fide historian or otherwise qualified commentator saying that this is the first (or even an early example) of usage of the phrase, we will be good to go. Egyptian radio commentators tossing the phrase about in a conversation with themselves don't count. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You are straw-manning again. I never said that "the phrase originated in 1970 on an Egyptian radio show", or anything remotely close to it. And that's obviously not true. I only said that this is the earliest documented appearance of the phrase in Arab sources that had been suggested in the article so far. And you have not able to disprove that. Vegan416 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In a section about the history of a phrase it is obviously important to mention the first known documented example of the appearance of this phrase and as far as we know now it seems to be that <- What you said. Doesn't say Arab sources either. Documented example is a bit rich as well, it's a CIA translation (presumably) of part of a radio show in Egypt.

About all we can say here is that an Egyptian (OK, a notable Egyptian but that's not really relevant) said "from the river to the sea" according to a CIA translation of said Egyptians discourse with himself on a Cairo radio show in 1970.

To which my personal reaction is "Yea, and?"

What happened to the other two references you were proposing? Are they not early examples of the phrase being used? Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone with any understanding of historical research knows there is a huge difference between "first known documented appearance of X", and the "origin of X". We can say that in 99.9% of cases the "first known documented appearance of X" is NOT the "origin of X", for the simple reason that only a fraction of what is said is documented, and only a fraction of what is documented survives for posterity and is discovered by historical research. That said there is still importance in noting what the "first known documented appearance of X" is, because it gives us a verified upper limit on how late can the "origin of X" be. An upper limit that can of course move backwards with further research.

And I'll come to the other examples later. In nay case this one from 1970 is the earliest among them. Vegan416 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

your deep lack of knowledge of the subject matter and and Anyone with any understanding of historical research.. You can keep trying to throw shade as long as you like, I have a thick skin.

Better to stick to the point though. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Both claims were true though :-) And that was the point: while in 99.9% of cases "the first known documented appearance of X" is NOT the "the origin of X", it is still important to note the "the first known documented appearance of X" because it establishes an upper chronological limit on "the origin of X". Vegan416 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So one of them is a discussion between an Arab delegation and the Soviets in relation to Res 242 "there must be war for liberation of the land from river to the sea". Of course, Res 242 doesn't actually mention the Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the point. The Likud are not Palestinians either and yet their version of "from the river to the sea" is mentioned in this section. Why the Likud version is mentioned and the "Egyptian" (earlier) version not? Vegan416 (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Because Israeli Palestinian is the main context here. Not Arab Israeli, although that might well have been the case back in the early post 67 era. I'm not averse to investigating the AI connection to the phrase back then but I would like proper sourcing not snippets from here and there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The source of the Heikal quote is not a sniped but a full open access document (the CIA as a gov agency doesn't keep copyrights). And the source itself indicates a strong connection between AI and PI. The speaker/writer is Egyptian but he ascribes the goal of "liberation from the river to the sea" to the "Palestinian resistance", and says that they won't be able to achieve that goal without the help of the Arab states. Vegan416 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes but back then everyone was treating the Palestinians as second class citizens (some still are). Their opinion didn't count for much, they were a touchstone for the other players. So the Arab motivations behind the phrase, assuming it wasn't just rhetorical flourish, were likely not the same as those of the Palestinians. It's hard to say without scholarly commentary.

The CIA (read US government) source is just a bunch of transcripts (possibly mistranslated) and there is zero commentary being made there by them or anyone else (ie its a primary source, of the type that would get interpreted by scholars) so not much use. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There is really no reason to suspect mistranslation here. And the way the Palestinians were treated then or now is not relevant to the discussion of the history of the phrase. If it is fit to include the Likud version of the phrase I see no reason not to include the earliest (known to us) documented Arab version, for whatever motivation it was said. Vegan416 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't suspect it, I said it is possible. And even if you don't suspect it, it remains possible.

Anyway, we are now going in circles so suggest we wait and see what others have to say about it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you are getting this trot from now https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56356/is-from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-will-be-free-a-call-for-genocide Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We need a source saying when it was first documented. We can't deduce it from OR. Then the only phrase we could even theoretically use in that case would be: earliest documented use that could be found, according to the original research of Wikipedia editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

But I didn't propose to write in the article that it is the first documented mention of the phrase. On the contrary, my version in the deleted edit was that it appeared "at least as early as 1970" which explicitly distances the claim from saying that this is the first use or even the first documented use. And I was wise to do so, because now I found an earlier source in Arabic, in a book by Gaddafi from 1969. Here is the link

My Arabic is very very poor, but between it and Google translate it seems to me it says something like "when the Israeli occupation of Palestine from the river to the sea will end then a Palestinian state will be established". From your name I guess you are more fluent than me, so maybe you can translate it for us more accurately. Vegan416 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Gaddafi refloats one-state idea after Gaza war

"Gaddafi repeatedly called for Israel's Jews to be driven into the sea in the 1970s and 1980s when he was a champion of Arab nationalist positions opposing U.S. and Israeli policies."

So that's an AI position. Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In the source I gave here he said that the Israeli occupation has to end from the river to the sea so a Palestinian state can be established. So this is an AIP position. Vegan416 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh, I am still looking for a Palestinian saying it then, Arafat say (Egyptian born, I know) Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said before the Likud wasn't a Palestinian either Vegan416 (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Already discussed that. Here is an apparent ref to Palestinian usage in 1964 (so pre 67)

Upon its creation by diaspora Palestinians in 1964 under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, 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. Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but this is kind of a vague statement without any citation (similar to Kelley claims). Please understand, I definitely agree that the PLO charter from 1964 for example is certainly written in the spirit of the slogan. But the actual literal words "from the river to sea" do not appear there (as Colla correctly says). But here is another Palestinian citation where the words do appear. A 1971 book by Mahmoud Darwish the famous Palestinian poet. It seems to say something like "Palestine is occupied from the river to the sea, and from the mountain to the desert". Vegan416 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

What we need and do not have is interpretation of the words, in whatever form they might occur. Selfstudier (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

What we need is a better translation than mine. But I don't understand what kind of interpretation you think is needed. Vegan416 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As I have said several times already, some sort of scholarly authority commenting on the usage. We have Colla doing so and while it would be nice if he would have provided a source, it is not necessary, he is qualified to say it.

We can find, I should think literally hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of examples of usage, all of which are useless without interpretation (I suppose one could make a list article containing all of them, that's legitimate. Selfstudier (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

<- Vegan416, the problem is statements like "as far as we know now it seems to be that". Wikipedia articles are not meant to reflect our knowledge. We are not sources. Having said that (and this is why I am somewhat sympathetic to your position), the Brick article includes the following image and caption, which does not appear to have been challenged as original research. Is that a single brick? Who says it is a single brick?

A single brick.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's an artistic piece of lego. Or a pharmaceutical. Or a thing for screwing into something. Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, that's an extruded brick. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It is quite hard to resist the urge to change the caption to "A thing for screwing into something.". Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Colla is wrong is implying that the phrase "from the river to the sea" doesn't appear in 1970s

The current version of the article says "Colla wrote that he had not encountered the phrase – in either Standard nor Levantine Arabic – in Palestinian revolutionary media of the 1960s and 1970s". His exact words in his opinion piece in Mondoweiss are: "The Palestinian revolutionary media of the 60s and 70s is replete with rich and pithy political slogans—but in those sources, I have yet to encounter the phrase “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” or “min al-mayyeh li-mayyeh.”

However in fact the phrase can be easily found in Palestinian literature from the 1970s. Even a simple google books search can come up with several results from the 1970, both in general Arab literature (as I have shown in another discussion on this page) and also specifically in Palestinian literature. I had already shown in the other discussion an appearance of “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” in a book by Mahmoud Darwish from 1971. And here is another source from 1970:

A book called مناقشات حول الثورة الفلسطينية (Discussions about the Palestinian revolution) by Nājī ʻAllūsh (a Fatah member) brings in p. 105 an editorial from "the special bulletin Fatah issued on February 16, 1970". In which the following sentence appears:

وجهة نظر الثورة الفلسطينية بكافة فصاثللها التي تتمد حرب الشعب الطويلة لمدى كطريقة لتحرير فلسطين من النهر الى آلبحر

Google translation: "The point of view of the Palestinian revolution with all its branches that extends a long-term people's war as a way to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea." (Fluent Arab speakers among the editors can supply a more accurate translation and context, but in any case there is absolutely no doubt that “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” appears here in the context of Palestinian liberation).

In google books there is only snippet view of this book, but you can download the full book for free here.

How do we fix this misleading information from Colla? There is no point in leaving these words of Colla when this phrase can actually easily be found in Palestinian literature from the 1970s. Vegan416 (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Also of course I think this Palestinian source from 1970 should be mentioned in the History section... Vegan416 (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

And here are 3 more sources from 1969: 1 2 3 in which “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” appears in the context of Palestine. Though I don't have time to explore if these are General Arabic sources or Palestinian sources, or how exactly they use the phrase. I'll leave this to others... Vegan416 (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The article does have Kelley saying that the phrase was adopted by the Palestine Liberation Organization in the mid-1960s which would tally with the AJ ref I gave up above. Remember we are concerned with the origin of the phrase, not mere examples of the phrase and it is also probable that the precise meaning given to it has varied with time and the context. Colley says "not encountered in Palestinian revolutionary media" so we can't just say that's wrong because you found some examples in books. Colley also says ""it is unclear when and where the slogan "from the river to the sea," first emerged within Palestinian protest culture". Have you found any examples in "Palestinian revolutionary media"? (whatever that actually means) Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

For heavens sake. You are continually shifting the goal posts. This 1970 book I found is clearly part of the "Palestinian revolutionary media" (whatever that means). Its title is Discussions about the Palestinian revolution", and the sentence I quoted says: "The point of view of the Palestinian revolution with all its branches that extends a long-term people's war as a way to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea". Also note this quote is from a bulletin of the Fatah, and so is the author. If a source from the Fatah is not good enough, what is??? Vegan416 (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have been consistent since the beginning of this entirely unnecessary conversation that mere examples will not suffice (as well as it being OR). We have two sources, both saying that the origins of the phrase are unclear and we can date usage (at least) to 1964. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

No. The sentence "In November 2023, Colla wrote that he had not encountered the phrase – in either Standard nor Levantine Arabic – in Palestinian revolutionary media of the 1960s and 1970s " clearly needs to be removed. You can look at it in either of two ways: (1) if "Palestinian revolutionary media" doesn't include the 1970 book I found then it has some weirdly specific and unclear meaning, and then it is completely uninteresting and misleading. For what difference does it make even if it doesn't appear in these mysterious "Palestinian revolutionary media", if it appears in a more general Palestinian literature??? (2) if "Palestinian revolutionary media" does include the 1970 book I found then all this sentence of Colla attests to is that his research was sloppy. Either way it should be removed.

To defend Colla from the accusation of "sloppy research" I must add that he himself doesn't to take this sentence of his too seriously. He didn't publish it in a peer-review article but rather in an opinion piece in some controversial web site. And he also qualifies his words with "I have yet to encounter" and "More research needs to be done". Well, we did the research and encountered this phrase for him... But while this point can save his face from accusation of sloppy research it is in itself another good argument why this sentence should be removed. Vegan416 (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Look, even if you succeed (and so far, you have not) in demonstrating that Colla is wrong on this one point, that will not disqualify him as a source and all the other points in the article will not change, the lead will remain the same, so I really have no idea what it is you are actually trying to achieve here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I was very explicit about what I want to achieve: Removing the sentence "In November 2023, Colla wrote that he had not encountered the phrase – in either Standard nor Levantine Arabic – in Palestinian revolutionary media of the 1960s and 1970s". And I have already proven that this sentence is either wrong or irrelevant and misleading. Vegan416 (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

He says he didn't encounter it, and that's what we say, attributed to him, are you calling him a liar? Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You are strawmanning again. I said explicitly what are the options: either he is wrong, that is not lying but making a sloppy research, or he limited his search on purpose to some weirdly specific and unclear subset of Palestinian literature in which case his results are completely uninteresting and also somwhat misleading when discussing the entire history of the phrase. Vegan416 (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't give a fig about your personal opinion of Colla, find an RS that agrees with you and add that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, but this is not mere opinion. This is based of facts. And it raises an interesting general question. It is agreed that we cannot add new information based on OR, but cannot we remove or correct information that had clearly been proven to be wrong or irrelevant based on OR?

Case in point for example is the Extended-confirmed-protected edit request from today. If I wanted to use your delaying tactics I could have told this person that AP is a RS, and if they choose to say that Jews view this slogan as calling for the destruction of Israel without qualifications, then we cannot change this based on his OR that seems to indicate that some Jews don't feel this way, and he should go search for RS that says it explicitly. But I'm a simple and honest guy so since his OR made sense I accepted it as is, and made a change in the text. And interestingly you didn't object to it at all, despite the fact that the change was based on OR... Vegan416 (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

An edit request was made and you completed it, I had nothing to do with it other than completing the request box as answered, which you neglected to do. Correcting an error of fact will get no argument from me but correcting an "error of opinion" is just nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You could have objected to it as you seem to object to my suggestion here. And I am talking about correcting an error of fact. There is definitely an appearance of “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” in Palestinian revolutionary media as early as 1970. I proved that, even if via OR. Vegan416 (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Colla said he never encountered it and that's what we say, attributed to him. I believe I said this already. You really should go and look back at some your conversations on WP, an endless stream of mostly irrelevant verbiage, argument merely for the sake of it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why is it important that the readers of wikipedia should be notified about the voids in Colla's knowledge on this issue? Vegan416 (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion? Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Answer my question. Why are you fighting to leave in the article a sentence that all it does is inform the readers that Colla didn't encounter something that he should have easily encountered if he made a simple search in google books? How this contributes to the readers' knowledge of the history of the phrase? Vegan416 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Its an RS, we report what RS say. We don't report what non RS say (that's you, and me). Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You are straw-manning. I didn't ask you to report what I said. I asked you to remove a misleading and irrelevant thing that an RS said. Vegan416 (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

No you wrote a lot of stuff about what you found in books, that you wanted to include in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop these cheap evading tactics. We are not talking now about adding the first known documentation. That's a different discussion. We are talking now about deleting the sentence "In November 2023, Colla wrote that he had not encountered the phrase – in either Standard nor Levantine Arabic – in Palestinian revolutionary media of the 1960s and 1970s". You still didn't answer my question why is it important to include this sentence. The fact that it was said by an RS is not good reason. We never include each and every word that each and every RS says on a subject. And there is definitely no good reason to include a sentence that is irrelevant and misleading even it it was said by an RS. Vegan416 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a continuation of your effort to trash Colla, which has been your objective from the start. Please don't waste any more of my time. Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

OK. I won't bother you with this any further, but I'll just inform you in advance this: since you were not able to give any good reason why this sentence should stay in the article, I'll wait for a few days, and if no one else will come up with such good reason then I'm going to delete this sentence. Vegan416 (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The thing to do, as always in these cases, is to add reliable sources saying something different (not your OR). Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It is worth keeping an eye out for pre-1948 Zionist phrasings that are prior to the form this slogan assumed decades later among Palestinians. I suspect that the Zionist repetitions of their idea for a Greater Israel after 1923, 'from the Jordan to the sea' have something to do with the emergence of the Arabic expression. Of course, we need an RS that explores this possibility: the phrasing is almost identical. The contemporary cant that lambasts Palestinians for desiring their version of what Likud is actually implementing, in line with a project that goes back a century in Zionist discourse, is comical in its hypocrisy.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I recall that usage but I don't recall the Arabs reacting to it as such, which is not to say they didn't. I will have a look and see what's out there we might have missed. Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Who said that there was "from the river to the sea" slogan in Zionist circles before 1948, or even before 1977? All I am aware of is Beitar slogan "Two banks to the Jordan, this is ours and that too", which is even more maximalist, but quite different in its phrasing, and it was used only by the right side of Zionism. Vegan416 (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That's easily sourced "The Zionist arguments of 'from the river to the sea' Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please show me the sentence in this source which says that the slogan "from the river to the sea" existed on the Israeli/Zionist side before 1948 or even 1977. Vegan416 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I said it's easily sourced, if and when I add such sourcing to the article, you will see it then. Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL. I'm waiting with bated breath (not). Vegan416 (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course I should also add the slogan of ארץ ישראל השלמה (the complete Land of Israel) which emerged I think in 1967, but the phrasing of this slogan is even more far away from "from the river to the sea". Vegan416 (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Zero has shown how standard 'from the river to the sea' is in Zionism below. Read it. I'll be very busy in RL for a while but this whole article has to be recast because the Zionist and Palestinian versions are coterminous, with Zionism having the edge in precedence, and not as the recent political cliché fabricators assert, some antisemitic form of denialism of Israel among anti-Zionists. There's a lot on this out there, not used I.e.,

First, the odious phrase in question began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel. Robin G. Kelley, 'From the River to the Sea to Every Mountain Top,' Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. 48, No. 4 (192), Summer 2019), pp.69-91 p.78

To begin with, it is worth comparing the slogan to the equivalent position among Jews (and non-Jews) who support Greater Israel. For if we accept that a Palestinian calling for the ‘liberation of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean sea’ wants to expel the Jews from Israel, then fairness requires that the opposite should also hold true: that anyone who has ever supported Greater Israel – from the poet Nathan Alterman (one of the most important Israeli poets, who identified politically with the Labour party) and the signatories of the Greater Israel Manifesto in 1967 to the current government and the public that supported it at the ballot box – actually supports the annihilation or expulsion of the Palestinians.'Amos Goldberg and Alon Confino ‘From the River to the Sea': One slogan, many meanings,' The Review of Democracy 27 March 2024 Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2024

[Many Palestinian activists have called it "a call for peace and equality" after decades of Israeli military rule over Palestinians while for Jews it has been "a clear demand for Israel’s destruction.]

It makes zero sense to say "for many Palestinians" the phrase means one thing and then say "for Jews" it is something else. This phrasing implies Jews are a monolith. This is also a dangling quote. Who said the words "clear demand for Israel's destruction?' It is not Jews, it is the author of an AP article. It is not hard to find examples of Jews who disagree with the author:

https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/11/07/wire-statue-of-liberty/

The quote is an individual's assessment of what Jews broadly believe. This is not a fact like the number of days in December, so there needs to be additional context added about the claim such as information about the author or where the claim it was made. TexasTyrant (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I added the word "most" before "Jews" Vegan416 (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

On completion of an edit request, mark the request as answered. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not a completion of the request. The dangling quote remains and was not addressed by the edit. TexasTyrant (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source(s) saying the same thing but attributing the phrase "clear demand for Israel's destruction"? AP said it in their own voice so we should go with that unless there is contradictory sourcing. Off the top of my head, I think I might have seen sources attributing this view to pro Israel groups and/or watchdogs. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@TexasTyrant you should understand that the quotes in such cases only mean that we quote verbatim from the source. Not that we directly quote the Palestinians or the Jews. This is common wikipedia practice. So there is no dangling quotes and that's why I think your request should be rejected on this point. Vegan416 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Bill's article:

I am an expert on yo-yos. Some people think they're lame, but most women think yo-yos are pretty nifty.

Dangling quote using Bill's words:

There is controversy about yo-yos. Most women "think yo-yos are pretty nifty." [1]

Properly contextualized quote citing Bill:

There is controversy about yo-yos. According to yo-yo expert Bill, many women "think yo-yos are pretty nifty." [1]

This is not common practice. Every other quote in the article is properly introduced. TexasTyrant (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed the quote and replaced it with prose. Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually it is a common practice in wikipedia to add quotation marks to verbatim text taken from a source. This is done to avoid accusations of plagiarism. The president of Harvard had recently lost her job because she didn't do that meticulously enough in her academic publications... Vegan416 (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Maha Nassar point

@إيان please explain why you removed Maha Nassar opinion from the Context section? Why do you think it is WP:UNDUE? Vegan416 (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that being returned, she appears qualified to give that opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Because it's cherry-picked POV-pushing. What the Forward source says is:

And Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, living under Jordanian and Egyptian rule respectively, faced authoritarian crackdowns that prevented them from being able to fully express their political views.

This is not explicitly about the context of the phrase and it should not be given undue weight. إيان (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, then fix the wording up, the article discusses the phrase and I think it is relevant. It is a Palestinian perspective, that should be clarified. Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@إيان You are completely wrong. You are quoting only part of the relevant passage from the Forward. I can only hope you did that by mistake and not nefariously. Here is the full context from the Forward, I bolded the sentences which say exactly what I wrote in the article:

"And Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, living under Jordanian and Egyptian rule respectively, faced authoritarian crackdowns that prevented them from being able to fully express their political views. In other words, after 1948, Palestinians were not able to live with full freedom and dignity anywhere in their homeland. That’s how the call for a free Palestine “from the river to the sea” gained traction in the 1960s. It was part of a larger call to see a secular democratic state established in all of historic Palestine. Palestinians hoped their state would be free from oppression of all sorts, from Israeli as well as from Arab regimes."

This is also how Nassar's point was summarized in one sentence by NPR:

"According to University of Arizona professor Maha Nassar, the phrase "from the river to the sea" gained momentum in the 1960s among a fractured Palestinian population hoping to break free from the rule not only of the Israeli government but also those of Jordan and Egypt."

So I am going to put this paragraph back as it is. I'll just replace the source with NPR, because it is more succinct, and because WP is to prefer high quality secondary sources over opinion pieces.

PS I'm not sure what POV pushing you think there is in Nassar's quote here, but I can also say that in my opinion this whole Context section with only Colla's opinion in it, is a blatant POV pushing, and all I'm trying to do here is balance it a bit. Which reminds me that I have yet to find additions/replacement to the Linfield quote that was removed. I planned to it this week, but was distracted by other things. So it will hopefully happen next week. Vegan416 (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Undue

"The phrase was popularised among Palestinians in the 1960s as a call for liberation from living under Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian control." this feels like a minor viewpoint expressed by one professor that has been given undue weight. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are other sources keying on the mid 60s as well. maybe the thing to do is have a sentence re the origin among Palestinians dating to then with multiple sources, and mention Colla's view as a minority position (he never encountered it). Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I agree here with Makeandtoss. While it is obvious that, in some sense, the spirit of the phrase was common among Palestinians since 1918, I have yet to encounter an explicit verbatim appearance of the phrase before 1969. So it may be premature to put it in the lead section. But it is fit to put it attributed in the Context section, as I'm going to do now. Vegan416 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement for it to be verbatim. Adding Palestine will be free to it already renders it as not verbatim. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the phrase "From the river to the sea" as a political platform, not the wider idea of maximalist Palestinian (or Israeli) plans which can take many different forms of expression, though of course by definition there is overlap between the subjects, as the former is a subset of the later. Vegan416 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the phrase Nope, that's just the title. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope. If the subject of the article was maximalist Palestinian (or Israeli) ideas and plans then it would have to be hugely expanded and traced much earlier than the 60s. For both the Palestinians and part of the Jews had such plans and ideas starting at least as early as 1918. Also I forgot to mention regarding your earlier comment that "From the river to the sea" actually appears verbatim in "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free". Vegan416 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Scope, not subject. The article already discusses deviations (because they are in scope). Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

See if you can make your reply shorter than mine. Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I can. I don't understand what you mean by "Scope, not subject" :-) Vegan416 (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scope#Scope of articles Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok. So what is the scope of the article in your view? Vegan416 (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You tell me, per that wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

I'm okay with adding a link to the 2017 policies document. Instead of "in paragraph 20" I would write "in the Position toward Occupation and Political Solutions section but that's a minor quibble. Alaexis_¿question? 12:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@VR and Alaexis:

Thank you Alaexis. This works well. I notice that the new link to the Wikipedia page for the 2017 Hamas charter currently includes:

It advocated for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, describing this as a "formula of national consensus", but at the same time strove for the "complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea"

So, the reference to that page achieves the clarification that I was looking for. Gene (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be ok with that formulation. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

New usage by Israeli gov

Netanyahu Minister to Nations Recognizing Palestine: 'Only Israel From the River to the Sea' Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Cola quote

Given the status of Mondoweiss as a source WP:MREL I don't think it should be used on this article. Thoughts? MaskedSinger (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No reason not to use it here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Merely being Mrel is not a sufficient reason. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

First affirmative ruling in Germany

[1]

Any preference on how it should be included? FortunateSons (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I saw that, they fined someone for saying it ("The court concluded that the use of the phrase “could only be understood as a denial of Israel’s right to exist and an endorsement” of Hamas’s October 7 attack" which is obvious rubbish), a ruling that is going to be appealed, so I'd wait for that. Her lawyer said "an assault on free speech" and "a dark day for freedom of expression". One trusts a higher court will agree. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the fact that’s it’s likely to be appealed should be included as well. I wouldn’t bet on the appeal going either way, we’ll see. FortunateSons (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, I don't think it should be included (and maybe not even after it is appealed). Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Given how widely it is reported, the fact that a court found it is denial of Israel's right to exist seems WP:DUE?

However, looking at the article, it seems WP:UNDUE to dedicate as many words to Israeli usage as Palestinian? Reliable sources overwhelmingly focus on the latter, and all that is likely to be due in the lede is a passing mention. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be closer in line with how it’s covered by RS, which is overwhelmingly about the use for pro-Palestinian purposes. FortunateSons (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I disagree then, with the speed of German courts, appeals can take years, and there is enough detailed coverage for it to be due. FortunateSons (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I disagree then, with the speed of German courts, appeals can take years Even more reason to exclude. As well, forgotten in a week. Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The ruling can both be discussed in media (and maybe even scholarship) and the appeal can take years, those facts are not necessarily contradictory. FortunateSons (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As much as I think such a ruling is utter nonsense to have been handed out. Due to the profile of the case, it is worth including. While the appeal may not occur for an age, I'm sure we will see a couple dozen articles discussing and analysing this result in the coming days/weeks. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Only if they have nothing better to write about. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it the first affirmative ruling? Any mention of this (and I am not opposed to mentioning this here) would have to include a paraphrase of the remark made by the defense counsel,.i.e.,

Schließlich verweist die Verteidigung auf einen Vermerk der Berliner Staatsanwaltschaft, nachdem es beim Verwenden der Parole stets auf den Kontext ankomme. Auch das Landgericht Mannheim befasste sich bereits mit „From the river to the sea“ und kam laut Verteidigung zu dem Schluss, dass eine Mehrdeutigkeit vorliege.

This means in short there was a preceding judgment on such an incident which determined that the slogan was ambiguous, and a precise and independent reference to that independent decision (which is alluded to vaguely here) is needed. For all we know, the Mannheim ruling may have closed the case due to the ambiguity, or ruled, as in Berlin, that it is the context which counts for either condemning the person indicted, or letting them off the rap. The Berlin judge said that the context as reconstructed by police reports indicated that the German-Iranian woman was effectively calling for the annihilation of Israel. All of this is bullshit of course, but we have to report significant crap, but only by phrasing it neutrally, and that means bringing in more context, namely an independent reference to the Mannheim case.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

How widely reported has the defence’s comment been? BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the full length would be too much, but a quick reference is fine, though I would paraphrase it by contrasting the relevant factor between this and the two (admin and crim) Mannheim decisions as explanation, basically focusing on the fact that the intended meaning is the factor regarding whether or not it is a crime. someone should stop me if the law stuff gets to bland/detailed

OT: the answer to the question of “when is it illegal” would likely be “it depends”, and one could argue that this person with the defence counsel prejudiced a worse result than a more respected attorney with a less *like that* client would have received. FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

In short,

The Mannheim Regional Court ruled in May 2024 that the slogan was not a Hamas symbol, and dismissed opening a criminal case. Three weeks later, in another case, the Higher Administrative Court ruled the opposite way.(Dr. Max Kolter Wie ein Verwaltungsgerichtshof ein Landgericht übergeht Legal Tribune Online 25.June.2024.)

That is the prelude to the Berlin decision, where the judge ruled against the defendant counsel's use of the Mannheim precedent.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Wasn’t necessarily a Hamas symbol might be closer to the core here, see this

There are basically three core issues here, each of which may cause prosecution:

-use of terrorist symbols

-endorsing a severe crime (after Oct 7, which wasn’t the case for the first decision, see the explanation for this one: Link)

-‘public incitement to hate’

the core of the issue is the (assumed or proven) intent of the perpetrators, and the issue that many of the relevant laws have extensive past rulings for right wing extremism, but fewer or none for cases like this. FortunateSons (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's not wikilawyer the other opinion in the source out of existence. If one source is being used, it is irrelevant that we need independent sources to confirm what the defence is reported as claiming.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the first ruling, that’s what the title (“verhängt erstes Strafurteil”) implied for me, and I’m not familiar with any other, though it is quite possible that I either missed or a criminal ruling, so far, I’m only aware of affirmative administrative rulings, which have a different (read: lower) standard. FortunateSons (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A slogan as a 'terrorist symbol/cymbal'? Since when have terrorists an exclusive patent on popular sayings within any language? I remember singing as a child of six in our backgarden ladybird, ladybird fly away to my 4 yr old sister to soothe her fright when a ladybird beetle settled on her arm. That began as a chant used by Protestants as an augury that their Catholic neighbours might disappear or die out. As Catholics we used to hear several such rhymes against us, Micks or Irish apes, as we went to school. I suppose some politically correct dickhead will come out and press for a law forbidden these songs, rhymes and slogans as well. Bejayzus. We just shrugged them off. No one thought of legislating the prejudice out of all visibility.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m just the messenger. But just for the uninvolved readers: this is standard in Germany, banned symbols (link is correlated, but not always analogous) are common FortunateSons (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This article just tells me the lower German courts are just making it up as they go along. "A Bavarian court ruled in June that the phrase expected to be used in an upcoming demonstration in Munich did not constitute a crime and could not be banned outright, finding that the “benefit of the doubt” around the slogan must prevail." Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Two German courts say pro-Palestinian slogans 'legal', after solidarity group wins case Idem, that was last year, Munster and Cologne, best write an article about the vagaries of the German court system instead. Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hesse in March. Yawn. Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the German lower courts. However, as we don’t really do case law, it is in fact highly dependent on context. FortunateSons (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I suspect it is highly dependent on the judges as well. Like I said, they are just making it up. Hesse is a HAC. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Making it up or interpreting and applying law? FortunateSons (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Just making it up. Judicial activism, maybe. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have met enough German judges (only half a dozen ones that primarily or exclusively do crim law though) to consider this exceedingly unlikely, for both those in favour and against punishing such conduct. FortunateSons (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's all irrelevant why they make contradictory judgements, just that if you include the one, I will include the others, even though I don't think any of them are worthy of inclusion. Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You should include the other criminal one as well, sure! As long as we’re clear on the described factors (time, action, relevant laws) and the distinction between the criminal and administrative, including both judgements (and any future judgements that provide significant changes) is reasonable. FortunateSons (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Let's make a whole, completely irrelevant section about German court cases and another one for the countries that don't have such cases (all of them). Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering how limited the legal status section is, a few more details (or a separate article, if there are enough people who know and care) sounds reasonable. If you can be prosecuted for a phrase, that’s probably significant FortunateSons (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well add more to it. Here's the Dutch update, after having found no case to answer in 2023. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A majority of the Dutch parliament declared the phrase to be a call for violence. The judiciary, however, ruled in August 2023 that the phrase was protected on free speech grounds, being "subject to various interpretations", including those that "relate to the state of Israel and possibly to people with Israeli citizenship, but do not relate to Jews because of their race or religion". The decision was later upheld by the Dutch Supreme Court.

In May of 2024, a parliamentary motion calling for the criminalization of the slogan passed with a single-vote majority. As a result, prosecutions for inciting violence and hate speech when using the slogan are theoretically possible; however, prosecutions remain difficult in practice. (Why?)

Thoughts? FortunateSons (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Just add it to the article, it's what you wanted to do, add stuff, right? Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going for something specific, but sure; it’s added FortunateSons (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)