The Palestinians Are Free from the River to the Sea: A Call for Freedom, Human Rights, and Peace, not Violence or Disreproperty

Peter Beinart said the phrase “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea” does not answer the question of what role Jews would play in the future. He added that the meaning of the phrase, however, “depends on the context.”

The slogan reflects the geography of that original claim: Israel spans the narrow stretch of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. But the phrase’s popularity persisted even as territorial claims shifted, after the P.L.O. entered peace negotiations in the 1990s, formally recognizing Israel’s right to exist and coming to governance through the creation of the Palestinian Authority.

In a post on X this week, the A.D.L., a Jewish advocacy group that fights antisemitism and discrimination, wrote: “‘From the River to the Sea’ is a Hamas call to annihilate Israel,” adding that “claiming it is a rally of coexistence gives cover to terror.”

There was outrage over the phrase when the House voted to censure Tlaib after she used it in a post on social media.

Supporters of Palestine are often misinterpreted as threatening violence when they use the phrase, says Yousef Munayyer.

He said that the Palestinians don’t have freedom because they live along with Israelis. “They don’t have justice. They don’t have the same rights as everyone else. They don’t have the means to protect themselves. They don’t have security.

Yet many people insist that “from the river to the sea” is a plea for peace — not violence. Tlaib herself said the phrase is “aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.”

Some Jews say that what may have been a simple plea for independence can’t be separated from the catchphrase employed by fighters bent on the destruction of Israel.

The Anti-Defamation League says the “hateful phrase” is a denial of Israel’s right to exist and can leave Israelis and their supporters feeling “unsafe and ostracized.”

Munayyer says it’s critical to listen to what people who use the phrase say they mean and not let the slogan’s meaning be dictated by the most “extreme elements” of society.

“It’s wrong to say something in other people’s mouths and then not say anything in response when they say it isn’t true,” he said. “If somebody uses this phrase, that doesn’t mean they get to define what it means for everybody else.”

Identifying Palestinians with their ancestral homeland in Palestine: Comment on a recent Israeli attack on Gaza and the views of equality and mutual liberation

Some people point out that Israelis have used a version of the phrase to refer to Israel. The original platform of the Israeli Prime Minister’s party said that there would only be Israeli sovereignty between the Sea and the Jordan.

Munayyer and others think that Congress should pay less attention to what the only Palestine American member says and focus more on how to deal with the ongoing military assault and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

“When they’re using that phrase, it’s a very personal one for them,” said Maha Nassar, an associate professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Arizona. “They’re saying, ‘I identify with my ancestral home in Palestine, even if it’s not on a map today.’”

In the wake of Hamas’s attack on southern Israel in which more than 1,400 people were killed, that has only intensified. Gaza’s health ministry, which is run by Hamas, says that more than 10,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes since.

Professor Beinart, who is Jewish, would feel threatened if it was coming from a Hamas member. If it is coming from someone who has a view of equality and mutual liberation, I would not feel threatened.