How interpretations of the phrase 'from the river to the sea' made it so divisive

[sl8]

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211671117/how-interpretations-of-the-phrase-from-the-river-to-the-sea-made-it-so-divisive

How interpretations of the phrase 'from the river to the sea' made it so divisive

November 9, 2023 5:01 AM ET
By Joe Hernandez

In the days since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and Israel's military response, some Palestinian rights advocates have returned to a common refrain: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."

It's a geographical nod to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and the protracted tensions between Palestinians and Israeli Jews who live there.

But what does it actually mean? To some, it's a rallying cry for the liberation of Palestinian people across the region, from Gaza to the West Bank and within Israel. To others, it is a violent call to erase Israel from existence invoked by militant groups such as Hamas.

The phrase has become especially politically charged in the days since the deadly Oct. 7 attack by Hamas that killed 1,400 people in Israel. Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Congress have condemned the slogan, with one congressman referring to it as a "thinly veiled call for the genocide of millions of Jews in Israel."

[...]

[Richard D]

1. It's hardly thinly veiled

When they tell you who they are, believe them.

[Autumn]

2. I do appreciate our American media. They've taught me how to recognize propaganda when I hear it.

And that make me more curious to look at all sides of what they tell me. Then make up my mind.

[multigraincracker]

3. Same people and same genes.

Boils down to religion. Like most wars, it’s whose God is on my side. You can look at BiBi and his latest Scripture quote about killing all the others. Men, Women, Children and even their animals.
What ever happened to the Enlightenment?

[Beastly Boy]

4. Some very basic distortions of facts in this article.

Since the founding of Israel, and until the Camp David Accord in 1978, no Arab country recognized Israel's right to exist.

Since the founding of Israel, and until the Oslo accord in 1993, no Palestinian leader recognized Israel's right to exist.

So it is ridiculous and revisionist to claim that the phrase "from the river to the sea" in the 1960's meant anything other than annihilation of Israel as a sovereign entity . It has never been "a rallying cry for the liberation of Palestinian people across the region, from Gaza to the West Bank and within Israel", least of all representative of the 2 million Israeli Palestinians with full rights of Israeli citizenship.Hamas in particular, but not exclusively among the Palestinian factions, is still calling for the annihilation of Israel, and never ceased to threaten violence.

There can be no question what the phrase really means. People who are not calling for the destruction of Israel have ways of expressing support for the Palestinians other than this loaded phrase. This feeble attempt to deny the obvious is disingenuous and deceptive at best.

[Uncle Joe]

6. I don't know of any historical example of one nation or peoples

recognizing another without it being reciprocal.

Does Israel recognize Palestine?

There is no existence on a state level of Palestine, but you want one way recognition?

To my way of thinking, all that gets worked out at the negotiating table, both sides recognize each other and then you work out the details on the rest.

[Beastly Boy]

7. This is not a matter of recognizing a nation.

It is the recognition of Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state.

And yes, Israel recognized the State of Palestine in 1948, within the proposed borders of partitioned Mandatory Palestine. The Palestinians refused to recognize their own state, and so did every Arab country, leading to Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and Egypt's annexation of Gaza.

At this point, Palestine is not a viable state whose existence may be recognized within established international borders. Even under the limited administrative rule agreed upon in the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority is not in control of Gaza, and Hamas is not in control of the West Bank. However, Israel had been supportive of creating a sovereign Palestinian State as early as 2001. Every prime minister since then, with the exception of Netanyahu, reiterated this support.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Were there any representatives of the Palestinian people at the negotiating table?

"And yes, Israel recognized the State of Palestine in 1948, within the proposed borders of partitioned Mandatory Palestine. The Palestinians refused to recognize their own state, and so did every Arab country, leading to Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and Egypt's annexation of Gaza."

[Beastly Boy]

9. Of course there were

The Palestinian representatives were invited to the UN, along with Israelis, when the partition was discussed, both on equal terms. I don't know to what degree they took part in negotiations, but they had equal opportunity to do so.

[Uncle Joe]

10. That's not what it says here?

The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917.

Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine; within two months a memorandum was circulated to the Cabinet by a Zionist Cabinet member, Herbert Samuel, proposing the support of Zionist ambitions in order to enlist the support of Jews in the wider war. A committee was established in April 1915 by British Prime Minister H. H. Asquith to determine their policy towards the Ottoman Empire including Palestine. Asquith, who had favoured post-war reform of the Ottoman Empire, resigned in December 1916; his replacement David Lloyd George favoured partition of the Empire. The first negotiations between the British and the Zionists took place at a conference on 7 February 1917 that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership. Subsequent discussions led to Balfour's request, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration. Further drafts were discussed by the British Cabinet during September and October, with input from Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews but with no representation from the local population in Palestine.

(snip)

By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate, with two of Britain's allies not fully engaged: the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of a revolution with Bolsheviks taking over the government. A stalemate in southern Palestine was broken by the Battle of Beersheba on 31 October 1917. The release of the final declaration was authorised on 31 October; the preceding Cabinet discussion had referenced perceived propaganda benefits amongst the worldwide Jewish community for the Allied war effort.

The opening words of the declaration represented the first public expression of support for Zionism by a major political power. The term "national home" had no precedent in international law, and was intentionally vague as to whether a Jewish state was contemplated. The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine. The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage antisemitism worldwide by "stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands". The declaration called for safeguarding the civil and religious rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population, and also the rights and political status of the Jewish communities in other countries outside of Palestine. The British government acknowledged in 1939 that the local population's wishes and interests should have been taken into account, and recognised in 2017 that the declaration should have called for the protection of the Palestinian Arabs' political rights.

(snip)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#:~:text=Further%20drafts%20were%20discussed%20by,the%20local%20population%20in%20Palestine.

[Beastly Boy]

12. Balfour declaration? Did Balfour partition the mandatory Palestine into two states?

You are looking at the wrong reference.

Here is the page about the UN partition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

Reactions
Jews

Jews gathered in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to celebrate the U.N. resolution during the whole night after the vote. Great bonfires blazed at Jewish collective farms in the north. Many big cafes in Tel Aviv served free champagne.[12][8] Mainstream Zionist leaders emphasized the "heavy responsibility" of building a modern Jewish State, and committed to working towards a peaceful coexistence with the region's other inhabitants:[106][107] Jewish groups in the United States hailed the action by the United Nations. Most welcomed the Palestine Plan but some felt it did not settle the problem.[108]

--snip--

Arabs

Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition.[14] The Arab states' delegations declared immediately after the vote for partition that they would not be bound by the decision, and walked out accompanied by the Indian and Pakistani delegates.[119]

They argued that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[5][16] The Arab delegations to the UN issued a joint statement the day after that vote that stated: "the vote in regard to the Partition of Palestine has been given under great pressure and duress, and that this makes it doubly invalid."[120]

On 16 February 1948, the UN Palestine Commission reported to the Security Council that: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."[121}

--snip--

Retrospect

In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that the 1947 Arab rejection of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a mistake he hoped to rectify.[163]

[Uncle Joe]

13. The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended a partition of

Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181 (II).[1]

The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements, Palestinian nationalism and Jewish nationalism, or Zionism.[2][3] The Plan also called for Economic Union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.[4] While Jewish organizations collaborated with UNSCOP during the deliberations, the Palestinian Arab leadership boycotted it.[5]

The proposed plan was considered to have been pro-Zionist by its detractors, with 56%[6] of the land allocated to the Jewish state despite the Palestinian Arab population numbering twice the Jewish population.[7] The plan was celebrated by most Jews in Palestine.[8] The partition plan was reluctantly[9] accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine with misgivings.[10] Historians say that acceptance of the plan was a tactical step and that some Zionist leaders viewed the plan as a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over the whole of Palestine.[11][12][5] The Arab Higher Committee, the Arab League and other Arab leaders and governments rejected it on the basis that in addition to the Arabs forming a two-thirds majority, they owned a majority of the lands.[13][14] They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division,[15] arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[5][16] They announced their intention to take all necessary measures to prevent the implementation of the resolution.[17][18][19][20] Subsequently, a civil war broke out in Palestine,[21] and the plan was not implemented.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#References



From what I can tell, The Balfour Declaration was the original sin (no Palestinian representation at the negotiating table) which heavily influenced Mandatory Palesitine that the 1948 Partition Plan was based on and as the Palestinians boycotted 1948, to my way of thinking, that's not being at the negotiating table.

[Beastly Boy]

14. Yep, proposed, rejected by Arabs, and adopted in spite of their rejection.

Two parties, one accepting statehood and the other rejecting it. THAT, from what I can see, is being invited to the negotiating table and rejecting the invitation. None of Balfour's doing, and none of his business.

[Uncle Joe]

15. So they were made an offer, they couldn't refuse? n/t

Last edited Thu Nov 9, 2023, 08:44 PM - Edit history (2)

[Beastly Boy]

17. They were made an offrer, and they refused. This is factual.

The rest is guesswork. I don't like commenting on guesswork.

[Uncle Joe]

18. I can understand that,

but it's not the same as being at the negotiating table.

[Beastly Boy]

19. No it is not. It is like refusing a seat at the negotiating table.

[RainWalker]

5. I learned something from that article

I had absolutely no idea about this.

In fact, some have pointed out that Israelis have used a version of the phrase to refer to Israel. The Likud Party of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in its original party platform in 1977 that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."

[Igel]

16. There were and are such.

Some from a religious belief in Torah--I wonder what they have to say about the territory of, say, Manasseh.

Some out of a kind of Realpolitik, having concluded that since coexistence was ruled out by one side, it's suicide for the other side to not accept that coexistence as ruled out and embrace the alternative.

We brought in some semi-feral kittens and domesticated them, but one was a hell-beast. Younger, smaller, still at times two-tailed 8-legged balls of screaming fur careened around the den or kitchen, leaving fur tufts behind. Finally, since she ruled out coexistence with non-siblings, it was her or the two previously adopted cats.

I miss that cat. It was sad to see her go.

My then MIL adopted her. (And she promptly, spoiled, self-incapacitated. My son, visiting his grandmother a couple of years later, referred to her as "the small moon", "the Death Star," and "her rotundity".)