Talk:From the river to the sea

First Aliyah

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

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

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

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

In the section in question, the edit previously read

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

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

Specifically this citation, , which on page 10 appears:

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

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

represents the beginning of organized Zionism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Second lede paragraph

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

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

Correct misleading Hamas stmt in introduction

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

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

The footnote/reference can either directly cite paragraph 20 of the Hamas 2017 charter as here, or else directly quote the relevant text in a footnote:
Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, ...

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

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

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

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

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

FROM: Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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