‘From the river to the sea’: a slogan that should not exist.
The six odious words that damage both Palestinians and Israelis.
In the streets surrounding Whitehall, 300,000 protestors turn up waving flags of deep red, white, black and field green. Across the pond, throughout American college campuses from Cooper Union to the infamous scenes in Harvard, young students rally chanting ‘Free, Free Palestine’… yet something else carries their chants. Something much more disturbing. Far from the pro-Palestinian chants for a free and co-existing state with Israel where brutal occupation by the Israelis ceases, of Gaza and Area A and B of the Westbank, they scream a slightly more cryptic ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’. It has now permeated the discourse on the Israel-Palestine conflict in ways which were not previously seen before; in fact, on Google Trends in the US, in the past month, the term is now twice as searched as its antithesis, ‘the Two-state solution’. Now what do these trends show us and why is this such a shocking phrase?
Well, it firstly tells us that the discourse in the United States on the matter is now shifting and fast; whereas 50% of 18–24 voters support Hamas over Israel now and 51% do not believe in the right of Israel to exist, according to the CAPS, overall 81% of Americans believe Israel has a right to defend itself thus suggesting how there is a generational gap in how Americans view Israel. It also tells us how the days of the Oslo Accords and more cultural interaction between Palestinians and Israelis is long gone; compromise seems less and less possible and thus, a two-state solution seems very far away.
In fact, I’d recommend seeing on Youtube the Ask Project; a channel where someone interviews both Israelis and Palestinians on all matters linked to the conflict and best of all, it is unedited; questions include should Israel exist?, Do you want to expel the Jews? How much do you hate Palestinians? (I’ve linked one of their videos below). Questions that really reach the visceral core of the matter. Now I’ve argued in the title that this slogan is unacceptable and should not be present in the discourse on Israel and Palestine, many, especially on Medium will be asking why?
If we look at the discourse on the Palestinian side, it often takes the argument of Palestinians being oppressed, that their land has been stolen and that they lack basic human rights under Israeli occupation. Granted, these are all realities and my focus here is not on discussing these realities but rather how that phrase ‘From the River to the Sea’ is in fact self-defeating for many pro-Palestinian people.
The phrase is suggesting a Palestinian state that stretches from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea where Israel no longer exists and the only Jewish state in the world ceases to exist.
This is deeply shocking, especially if I were someone of deep pro-Palestinian convictions; maybe what is happening in Gaza is a genocide but that phrase inverses the current realities and in fact promotes equally an ethnic cleansing of larger proportions of Jews in the region. 7.1 million Jews live in this area and many of them are either born in Israel or originally come from regions where they faced their own forms of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Iraq had 150,000 Jews in 1946 yet following pogroms such as Farhud and in Yemen, the Aden riots, they were forced to leave. In fact, there used to be 800,000 Jews in Muslim countries yet repeated confiscations, atrocious persecution, pogroms and economic exclusion by the new Algerian, Libyan, Yemenite, Tunisian, Afghani, Egyptian and Syrian government, meant they had to leave to the only place that would accept them; Israel. Ultimately, combatting one force of ethnic cleansing by another never works; the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Muslim countries in the past is resulting in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians today. This phrase promotes the perpetuation of these same errors.
From a more pragmatic standpoint, the notion that there will be a state from the river to the sea and a Palestinian right of return as promoted by Hamas and the PLO alike is not only unrealistic but would only cause more war and bloodshed. The Israeli state is turning increasingly towards the right with the growth of Likud and ultra-orthodox parties and they are unwilling to compromise on these matters; for them peace can only occur on 1967 borders with certain security measures that ensure that they are not repeatedly thrown rockets by Palestinians. From the river to the sea thus could only occur through mass violence and full on war with a force that is more technologically advanced than Hamas currently is; this would thus result in war scenes in densely-populated areas not only in Gaza but also Tel Aviv, Haifa, Hebron, Jerusalem and Ashkelon. Do we really want further war and destruction when in fact that is what we are fighting against?
Semantics with these conversations matter more than ever; for example, should we say ‘militant’ or ‘terrorist’ with regards to Hamas, should we call what Israel is doing ‘genocidal’, ‘ethnic cleansing’ or a ‘military operation’. These words create a lens by which we see this conflict and of course, imply the individual stance we take on it. Hopefully, none of us would want to see violence, basic human rights infringed upon, war or mutual hatred and this conflict generally brings out the worst of these vices; this article is not about what Israel nor Palestine is doing, it is about trying to stop in the smallest of ways these vices.
This article is ultimately about stopping a phrase which brings out strongly these vices; ‘from the river to the sea’ is genocidal in its intent. It is not about the liberation of Palestinians nor about the improvement of their rights or even a ceasefire; it is about the removal of a demographically Jewish state and that can only occur through mass violence and ethnic cleansing. Not only would this be at the detriment of Jews but it is destructive equally to Palestinians who would suffer from war and the ensuing economic and cultural destruction. Thus, rather than being destructive in our dialogues on this conflict, encapsulated by this odious phrase, we should try and reconciliate both sides because it helps both Palestinians and Israelis. Let’s not be in the prisoners dilemma where both sides denounce each other, instead can we not be constructive and be cooperative since it is mutual beneficial. Should we really be slippery in our wording if it comes at the detriment of hundreds of thousands of lives?
