[ A Palestinian historian explores the history, meaning and intent
of scrutinized slogan]
[[link removed]]

‘FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA’ – A PALESTINIAN HISTORIAN EXPLAINS
 
[[link removed]]


 

Maha Nassar
November 16, 2023
The Conversation
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ A Palestinian historian explores the history, meaning and intent of
scrutinized slogan _

,

 

What does the call “From the river to the sea
[[link removed]],
Palestine will be free” mean to Palestinians who say it? And why do
they keep using the slogan despite the controversy that surrounds its
use?

As both a scholar of Palestinian history
[[link removed]] and someone from the
Palestinian diaspora, I have observed the decades-old phrase gain new
life – and scrutiny – in the massive pro-Palestinian marches in
the U.S.
[[link removed]]
and around the world
[[link removed]]
that have occurred during the Israeli bombing campaign in the Gaza
Strip in retaliation for Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Pro-Israel groups, including the U.S.-based Anti-Defamation League
[[link removed]], have labeled the phrase
“antisemitic
[[link removed]].”
It has even led to a rare censure of House Rep.
[[link removed]]
Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, for
using the phrase.

But to Tlaib, and countless others, the phrase isn’t antisemitic at
all. Rather, it is, in Tlaib’s words
[[link removed]], “an
aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful
coexistence.”

I cannot speak to what is in the heart of every person who uses the
phrase. But I can speak to what the phrase has meant to various groups
of Palestinians throughout history, and the intent behind most people
who use it today.

Simply put, the majority of Palestinians who use this phrase do so
because they believe that, in 10 short words, it sums up their
personal ties, their national rights and their vision for the land
they call Palestine. And while attempts to police the slogan’s use
may come from a place of genuine concern, there is a risk that tarring
the slogan as antisemitic – and therefore beyond the pale – taps
into a longer history of attempts to silence Palestinian voices
[[link removed]].

An expression of personal ties

One reason for the phrase’s appeal is that it speaks to
Palestinians’ deep personal ties to the land. They have long
identified themselves
[[link removed]] –
and one another – by the town or village in Palestine from which
they came.

[An old map shows a land mass next to a sea.]A 1902 map of Palestine.
The Print Collector/Getty Images
[[link removed]]

And those places stretched across the land, from Jericho and Safed
near the Jordan River in the east, to Jaffa and Haifa on the shores of
the Mediterranean Sea in the west.

These deeply personal ties were passed down over generations through
clothing [[link removed]], cuisine
[[link removed]] and
subtle differences in Arabic [[link removed]]
dialects
[[link removed]]
that are specific to locations within Palestine.

And those ties continue today. Children and grandchildren of
Palestinian refugees often feel a personal connection
[[link removed]]
to the specific places their ancestors hailed from.

A demand for national rights

But the phrase is not simply a reference to geography. It’s
political.

“From the river to the sea” also seeks to reaffirm Palestinians’
national rights over their homeland and a desire for a unified
Palestine to form the basis of an independent state.

When Palestine was under British colonial rule
[[link removed]] from 1917 to 1948, its
Arab inhabitants objected strongly to partition proposals advocated by
British and Zionist interests. That’s because, buried deep in the
proposals, were stipulations that would have forced
[[link removed]] hundreds of thousands
of Palestinian Arabs off their ancestral lands.

In 1946, the Delegation of Arab Governments proposed instead
[[link removed]]
a “unitary state” with a “democratic constitution” that would
guarantee “freedom of religious practice” for all and would
recognize “the right of Jews to employ the Hebrew language as a
second official language.”

The following year, the United Nations instead approved a partition
plan for Palestine, which would have forced 500,000 Palestinian Arabs
living in the proposed Jewish state to choose between
[[link removed]]
living as a minority in their own country or leaving.

It’s in this context that the call for a unified, independent
Palestine emerges, according to
[[link removed]] Arabic
scholar Elliott Colla.

During the 1948 war that led to the formation of the state of Israel,
around 750,000 Palestinian Arabs
[[link removed]]
fled or were expelled from their villages and towns. By the end of the
war, Palestine was split into three
[[link removed]]: 78% of the land became part of
the Jewish state of Israel, while the remainder fell under Jordanian
or Egyptian rule.

Palestinian refugees believed they had a right to return
[[link removed]] to their
homes in the new state of Israel. Israeli leaders, seeking to maintain
the state’s Jewish majority, sought to have the refugees resettled
[[link removed]]
far away. Meanwhile, a narrative emerged in the West in the 1950s
claiming [[link removed]] that
Palestinians’ political claims were invalid.

Future vision

Palestinians had to find a way to both assert their national rights
and lay out an alternative vision for peace. After Israel occupied the
West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War,
the call for a free Palestine “from the river to the sea” started
to gain traction
[[link removed]]
among those who believed that all the land should be returned to the
Palestinians.

But it soon also came to represent the vision of a secular democratic
state
[[link removed]]
with equality for all.

In 1969, the Palestinian National Council, the highest decision-making
body of the Palestinians in exile, formally called for
[[link removed]]
a “Palestinian democratic state” that would be “free of all
forms of religious and social discrimination.”

This remained a popular vision among Palestinians, even as some of
their leaders inched toward the idea of establishing a truncated
Palestinian state alongside Israel in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and
East Jerusalem.

Many Palestinians were skeptical of this two-state solution. For
refugees exiled since 1948, a two-state solution would not allow them
to return to their towns and villages in Israel. Some Palestinian
citizens of Israel feared [[link removed]]
that a two-state solution would leave them even more isolated as an
Arab minority in a Jewish state.

Even Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip – those who stood
the most to gain from a two-state solution – were lukewarm to the
idea. A 1986 poll found [[link removed]]
that 78% of respondents “supported the establishment of a
democratic-secular Palestinian state encompassing all of Palestine,”
while only 17% supported two states.

That helps explains why the call for a free Palestine “from the
river to the sea” became popular in the protest chants
[[link removed]] of the First Intifada, or
Palestinian uprising, from 1987 to 1992.

Notably, Hamas, an Islamist party founded in 1987, did not initially
use “from the river to the sea,” likely due to the phrase’s
long-standing ties to Palestinian secular nationalism.

Two states or one?

The 1993 signing of the Oslo Accords
[[link removed]]
led many to believe that a two-state solution was just around the
corner.

But as hopes for a two-state solution dimmed, some Palestinians
returned to the idea of a single, democratic state
[[link removed]]
from the river to the sea.

Meanwhile, Hamas picked up the slogan, adding the phrase “from the
river to the sea” to its 2017 revised charter
[[link removed]]. The
language was part of Hamas’ broader efforts
[[link removed]]
to gain legitimacy at the expense of its secular rival, Fatah, which
was seen by many as having failed the Palestinian people.

Today, broad swaths of Palestinians still favor the idea of equality.
A 2022 poll found strong support
[[link removed]]
among Palestinians for the idea of a single state with equal rights
for all.

Offensive phrase?

Perhaps colored by Hamas’ use of the phrase, some have claimed
[[link removed]] it is a
genocidal call – the implication being that the slogan’s end is
calling for Palestine to be “free from Jews.” It’s
understandable where such fears come from, given the Hamas attacks on
Oct. 7 that killed 1,200 people
[[link removed]],
according to the Israeli foreign ministry.

But the Arabic original, “Filastin hurra,” means liberated
Palestine. “Free from” would be a different Arabic word
altogether.

Other critics of the slogan insist
[[link removed]] that by
denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, the phrase itself
is antisemitic. Under such thinking, protesters should instead be
calling for a Palestinian state that exists alongside Israel – and
not one that replaces it.

But this would seemingly ignore the current reality. There is strong
scholarly consensus
[[link removed]]
that a two-state solution is no longer viable. They argue that the
extent of settlement building in the West Bank and the economic
conditions in Gaza have eaten away at the cohesion and viability of
any envisioned Palestinian state.

Further demonization

There is another argument against the slogan’s use: That while not
antisemitic in itself, the fact that some Jewish people see it that
way – and as such see it as a threat – is enough for people to
abandon its use.

But such an argument would, I contend, privilege the feelings of one
group over that of another. And it risks further demonizing
[[link removed]]
and silencing
[[link removed]]
Palestinian voices in the West.

[A woman in a black and white scarf speaks into a microphone]Rep.
Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., speaks during a demonstration calling for a
cease-fire in Gaza. AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades
[[link removed]]

Over the last month, Europe has seen what pro-Palestine advocates
describe as an “unprecedented crackdown
[[link removed]]”
on their activism. Meanwhile, people across the U.S. are reporting
widespread discrimination
[[link removed]],
retaliation
[[link removed]]
and punishment
[[link removed]]
for their pro-Palestinian views.

On Nov. 14, George Washington University suspended
[[link removed]]
the student group Students for Justice in Palestine, in part because
the group projected the slogan “Free Palestine From the River to the
Sea” on the campus library.

Principle, not platform

None of this is to say that the phrase “From the river to the sea,
Palestine will be free” doesn’t have multiple interpretations.

Palestinians themselves are divided over the specific political
outcome they wish to see in their homeland.

But that misses the point. Most Palestinians using this chant do not
see it as advocating for a specific political platform or as belonging
to a specific political group. Rather, the majority of people using
the phrase see it as a principled vision of freedom and
coexistence.[The Conversation]

_Maha Nassar
[[link removed]] is Associate
Professor in the School of Middle Eastern and North African Studies,
University of Arizona
[[link removed]]_

_This article is republished from The Conversation
[[link removed]] under a Creative Commons license. Read
the original article
[[link removed]]._

* Palestine
[[link removed]]
* Israel
[[link removed]]
* Gaza
[[link removed]]
* West Bank
[[link removed]]
* Hamas
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]