A slogan calling for freedom from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea has attracted attention after pro-Palestinian protesters across the Western world faced attempts to restrict its use.
From Beirut to London, from Tunis to Rome, calls for a ceasefire to end Israel’s incessant bombing of Gaza were interspersed with the slogan: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
To crowds waving Palestinian flags, the chant that resonates across the world expresses the desire for freedom from oppression in the historic land of Palestine. But for Israel and its supporters, who characterize the expression as pro-Hamas, it is a veiled call for violence that carries an anti-Semitic charge.
The UK Labor Party suspended MP Andy McDonald on Monday for using the phrase “between the river and the sea” in a speech at a pro-Palestinian rally.
Earlier this month, Interior Minister Suella Braverman described pro-Palestinian protests as “hate marches” and warned that the slogan should be interpreted as indicating a violent desire for elimination. of Israel.
The British Football Association has banned players from using the slogan on their private social media accounts.
Austrian police took a similar stance, banning any pro-Palestinian demonstrations based on the chant and claiming that the slogan, originally formulated by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), had been adopted by the Hamas armed group. German authorities declared the slogan banned and punishable and called on schools in the capital, Berlin, to ban the use of the keffiyeh, the Palestinian headscarf.
Here’s what you need to know about the controversy:
What are the origins of the slogan?
When established by the Palestinian diaspora in 1964 under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, the PLO called for the creation of a single state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea to encompass its historic territories.
The partition debate predates the formation of the State of Israel in 1948. A plan presented a year earlier by the United Nations aimed to divide the territory into a Jewish state – occupying 62% of the former British Mandate – and a separate Palestinian state was established. rejected by the Arab leaders of the time.
More than 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in what became known as the Nakba, or “catastrophe.”
PLO leaders subsequently accepted the prospect of a two-state solution, but the failure of the Oslo peace process in 1993 and US attempts to negotiate a final agreement at Camp David in 2000 led to a second Intifada, the mass Palestinian uprising. , have since led to a hardening of attitudes.
What does it mean?
For Palestinian and Israeli observers, different interpretations of the slogan’s meaning depend on the term “free.”
Nimer Sultany, professor of law at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, said the adjective expresses “the need for equality for all inhabitants of historic Palestine.”
“Those who support apartheid and Jewish supremacy will find the egalitarian chant objectionable,” Sultany, a Palestinian citizen of Israel, told Al Jazeera.
Freedom here refers to the fact that Palestinians have been denied the realization of their right to self-determination since Britain granted Jews the right to establish a national homeland in Palestine through the Balfour Declaration from 1917.
“This remains the crux of the problem: the continued refusal of Palestinians to live in equality, freedom and dignity like everyone else,” Sultany said.
Tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters marched through rainy London on Saturday accompanied by several Jewish groups, which the SOAS speaker said was a sign that the slogan could not be interpreted as anti-Semitic.
“It is important to remember that this chant is in English and it does not rhyme in Arabic, it is used in protests in Western countries,” he said. “The controversy was manufactured to prevent Western solidarity with the Palestinians. »
Pro-Israeli observers, however, say that this slogan has a deterrent effect. “For Israeli Jews, this phrase means that between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there will be a single entity, it will be called Palestine – there will be no Jewish state – and the status of the Jews, whatever either the entity that presents itself will be very vague. “, Yehudah Mirsky, Jerusalem-based rabbi and professor of Near Eastern and Judaic studies at Brandeis University.
“It seems much more like a threat than a promise of liberation. This does not portend a future in which Jews can lead full lives and be themselves,” he said, adding that the slogan made it more difficult for left-wing Israelis to advocate for dialogue. .
Mirsky claimed that those chanting the slogan were “Hamas supporters”, while Sultany claimed that those waving the green flag of the armed movement were the exception during the demonstrations which brought together thousands of people.
The controversy reached the British Parliament on Monday, when the Labor Party removed McDonald from office for saying: “We will not rest until justice is done.” Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in freedom and peace.
The party claimed the British MP had made “deeply offensive” comments regarding the war between Israel and Gaza. McDonald rejected the accusations, saying his words were seen as “a sincere call to end the massacres” in the region, according to local media.
Sultany saw the dynamic at play as “an attempt by Zionists and pro-Israeli propagandists to blur the distinction between Israel’s existence as a state and the ideological apparatus of Jewish supremacy.” Through this distorted lens, “a call for egalitarianism and the dismantling of the apartheid system becomes an existential threat.”
Israel’s use of “from the river to the sea”
Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, which describes itself as conservative and nationalist, has been an ardent promoter of the concept of “Eretz Yisrael”, or the Jewish people’s right to the land of Israel enshrined in the Bible.
According to the Jewish Virtual Library, the party’s original manifesto from 1977 declared that “between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty.” He also argued that the creation of a Palestinian state “endangers the security of the Jewish population” and “endangers the existence of the State of Israel.”
Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Tzipi Hotovely, was among the promoters of international recognition of the historic Jewish claim to land from the river to the sea.
The expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem by successive Israeli governments is seen as an attempt by Israel to control territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, thereby negating Palestinians’ aspiration for an independent state.
Mirsky, of Brandeis University, said that although Israeli public figures used the biblical concept to claim political authority over all disputed territories, the issue was “hotly debated” within modern Israel.
Rather than focusing on what sows division, Mirsky said “efforts should instead be directed toward finding solutions.”
“Let’s sit down and come up with ideas that will practically make life better for Jews and Arabs? he said, including a new slogan that bridges the current divide.
“As strange as it may seem, I believe that at the end of this war there will be a new opportunity to talk about creating a better future. »