For decades, the Palestinian liberation movement has raised the slogan 'From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free', with the simple meaning that in no part of Palestine should Palestinians continue to be unfree, occupied, dispossessed, massacred, locked in bantustans, daily humiliated, starved, killed with impunity etc.
Yet for some reason, just recently I seem to be seeing a more than usual number of people claiming this slogan means driving the Israeli Jews into the sea. I have no idea why anyone would think it means that, and I assume Zionist propaganda has just been unusually active in a period when everyone from Amnesty International to Israeli human rights organisations now loudly, and rightly, but very belatedly, charge Israel with the relatively meek 'apartheid' label.
I suppose I just assumed there was a certain amount of common knowledge out there. For example, it was not yesterday, or 10 years ago, or in the 1990s, but 55 years ago, in 1968, that the new Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and its dominant faction, Arafat's Fatah, raised the slogan as the solution to the Palestine/Israel issue, 'For a democratic, secular Palestine for Jews, Christians and Muslims' (ie, all of Palestine, from River to Sea), and this has been the formal position of the Palestinian liberation movement ever since - that explicitly does not sound like "driving the Jews into the sea."
Of course, Israel and the US rejected this idea, and as it seemed a tough sell to convince the majority of Israeli Jews, who already had an ethno-supremacist state to themselves in 80% of Palestine, to share it with the Palestinian people on a democratic basis as proposed by the PLO, we got the rise of the 'two-state solution' in the 1970s, symbolised by Arafat holding up a gun and an olive branch in the UN, while the PLO declared it was willing to set up a Palestinian state just in the illegally occupied (after 1967) 20% of Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza. This implicitly left the 80% to Israel. So the change was a massive, massive, massive concession - and sounds even less like "driving the Jews into the sea."
Of course, the PLO officially maintained its original one state 'democratic, secular Palestine' position as well, with the meaning that this would be in the future: military struggle was necessary to evict the illegal Israeli occupation from the 20% so a mini-state of Palestine could exist, whereas the ongoing struggle for the democratisation of the 80% 'Israel-proper', and for the right to return of Palestinian refugees ethnically cleansed in 1948 to all of Palestine, would take the road of civic resistance, negotiations etc, over a longer period. I mean, if the Palestinians set up a democratic secular state, and a civil struggle within 'Israel' to end the ethnocratic, racist state and replace it with a democratic secular state succeeded, there would be no point having two democratic, secular states, so they would eventually form one (possibly a bi-national state, as advocated by another major PLO faction, the Democratic Front). Naturally, Israel refused to withdraw and rejected any Palestinian state even in an inch of Palestine, and was fully backed by the US in this rejectionist position.
Soon, however, the PLO's mini-state view was seized on by the Arab states and by European countries and the USSR etc, and hardened into the two-state "solution", which implied a permanent situation (and much later, in the 1990s, this also became official US policy, but never actual policy, which remained 100% support for Israeli maximalism). In 1982, the 12th Arab League Summit took place in the Saudi city Fez and put forward the Fez peace plan, for a Palestinian state in the 20% (West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem), with Jerusalem as its capital, in exchange for implicit Arab recognition of Israel in its legal borders (the 80%, "guarantees of peace between all States of the region, including the independent Palestinian State"). Every Arab state except Libya signed up, and the PLO itself signed up. Even further from "driving Jews into the sea." Of course it was met with US and Israeli rejection, and Israel made this graphic by immediately organising and facilitating the Sabra-Shatilla massacre of 3000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, via the Lebanese Phalange. Since the late 1970s, the UN General Assembly with overwhelming majorities have voted for this Palestinian state to be established in the occupied territories following an Israeli withdrawal (as also demanded by UN resolutions forever since 1967, always ignored by the US and Israel)
In 1988, Arafat officially recognised the UN resolution of 1947 which had originally partitioned Palestine into a 55% Jewish state and 45% 'Arab' state - actually this could be interpreted as an advance on the mini-state - claiming 45% rather than just 20% - but in practice it simply meant further accommodation; 6 years later, the PLO/Fatah leadership accepted Oslo, a powerless Palestinian authority in just a fraction of the occupied territories. Of course, this assumed negotiations with Israel and the US over final borders, Jerusalem, refugees etc, ie, the official position was still for a Palestinian state in the full 20%; but anyway you look at it, it was a further massive concession.
Of course, Israel simply took full advantage, refusing to ever discuss any of these final status issues, and instead filling up the West Bank and Jerusalem with hundreds of thousands of illegal Israeli colonisers who have stolen half the territory and live like kings surrounding the separated, locked-in Palestinian bantustans where the Palestinian 'Authority' has zero authority, where the people have zero rights within apartheid Israel, are constantly dispossessed, expelled, humiliated at checkpoints, and killed. The Saudi-launched Arab Peace Plan of 2002, again endorsed by the entire Arab League including the PLO, essentially re-stated the Fez Plan, but this time made recognition of Israel explicit and declared the Arab-Israeli conflict would be "over" if Israel allowed a Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Of course it was rejected by Israel. At the next Arab League Summit at Riyadh in 2007, it was again re-endorsed by all states; notably, Hamas, which had been elected to head the Palestinian Authority, abstained but did not vote against, Fatah (which has been in control of the Authority most of the time since), accepted it. Israel rejected it as a non-starter.
Yet apparently, according to various people being influenced by Zionist lies, it is the Palestinians guilty of rejectionism, of refusing an agreement with Israel, of wanting to drive the Jews into the sea. It is difficult to know here to start when you hear this kind of bullshit now, in 2023, other than offer a reading list; some are genuinely ignorant, but those who are deliberately and consciously ignorant should know they are being apologists for a murderous Ku Klux Klan-style colonial regime.
From the River, to the Sea, Palestine will be free!
Οι απαντήσεις μου:
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
Το γεγονός ότι (κυρίως) η Hamas δεν μπορεί λόγω συσχετισμού δυνάμεων να υλοποιήσει το σύνθημα αυτό όπως το εννοούν οι υποστηρικτές τής διάλυσης τού Ισραήλ, δεν το καθιστά λογικό ή δημοκρατικό, ακόμα κι αν εννοηθεί με την πιο καλοπροαίρετη, αρχική, μορφή του, όπως ορθά την καταγράφει ο Michael. Θα ήταν προτιμότερο να το ερμηνεύσουμε ως σύνθημα ως αποτέλεσμα μιας δίκαιης οργής για την αποστέρηση τής πατρίδας σου από μια αποικιστική δύναμη, που ως οργή σε οδηγεί στην συνέπεια της που είναι η πλήρης αντιστροφή των αδίκως επιβληθέντων ιστορικών συνθηκών. Σαν να λέμε, ότι μια αντίστροφη εκδίωξη εθνοκάθαρση θα έφερνε τα πράγματα στην αρχική κατάσταση τους. Ας μην ερμηνεύσουμε μάλιστα την εκδίωξη ή εθνοκάθαρση με τους ηθικολογικούς όρους τής μεταπολεμικής αριστεράς. Επίσης οι Σουδήτες Γερμανοί τής Τσεχίας ή οι Αλβανοί Τσάμηδες τής Θεσπρωτίας (στην Ελλάδα) που τάχθηκαν με το μέρος τής κατοχικής φασιστικής δύναμης (1940-1944) υπέστησαν ένα είδος εκδίωξης ή εθνοκάθαρσης, το οποίο βέβαια ήταν αδικαιολόγητο και ανήθικο, αλλά την ίδια στιγμή αντανακλούσε την δίκαιη και δικαιολογημένη οργή εκ μέρους των θυμάτων τής φασιστικής κατοχής, με την οποία συνεργάστηκαν εγκληματώντας από κοινού.Φέρνω αυτό το παράδειγμα για να κατανοήσω θετικά και όχι για να κατακρίνω τούς Παλαιστίνιους για το σύνθημα τους αυτό, την ίδια στιγμή όμως που το θεωρώ ως σύνθημα, ειδικά στην σημερινή εκδοχή του, ως ένα απειλητικό μήνυμα προσδοκίας μιας ιστορικής εκδίκησης που έχει σαφή χαρακτηριστικά αντίστροφης επιθυμίας εθνοκάθαρσης. Και οι Εβραίοι τού Ισραήλ δεν ήταν ούτε είναι ακόμα σαν τους Σουδήτες, για να μην αφήσουμε τα μεγάλα κενά τής ιστορικής αναλογίας που κάνουμε να κρύψουν αυτήν ειδικά τη διαφορά. Ειδικά σήμερα το σύνθημα αυτό έχει ξεφύγει εντελώς από την αρχική και σχετικά δικαιολογημένη αντανακλαστική νοηματοδότηση και χρήση του. Οι ισλαμιστές, εμψυχωμένοι όπως είναι από την ανάδυση ενός νέου διεθνούς χάους, προσδοκώντας ακόμα μεγαλύτερο χάος και πτώση τής Δύσης, η οποία είναι το κύριο στήριγμα τού Ισραήλ, εννοούν κυριολεκτικά αυτό το αρχικά πολεμικό σύνθημα, και είμαι σίγουρος ότι θέλουν να το υλοποιήσουν, όποτε μπορέσουν.---Answer (1).Palestine and "Israel" (1) or "Palestine" and Israel (2)? Among the left-wing political factor worldwide and Arab nationalism+fundamentalism, the 1 prevails, among the Zionist political factor and among the pro-Zionist right/far-right political factor worldwide, 2 prevails. Israel according to the supporters of 1 is an artificial entity, a colonial construction, not only as a political entity but also as a name, while on the contrary, according to the supporters of 2 Palestine is an artificial construction of Arab nationalism.Usually those who support 1 at some point deny both politico-ontological definitions, and when you ask them what the new secular democratic state will be called that will integrate the Israeli and Palestinian entities into one form, they tell you that the problem is not a semiological one, so the name doesn't matter. But if the problem is not also semiological, then why should it matter what the slogan (uttered by all Palestinians) means"Palestine from the river to the sea"? Will not this justified Palestine lose its name so that Israel also loses its? Really, who do the Arab nationalists and their supporters want to convince?--Answer (2).'From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free'.Does it make sense to consider what a slogan means in all possible versions of rendering a special meaning to it through its use?For me it makes sense, because human language did not reflect only an already given use of its forms but also a present use of them that can represent a new meaning of them."Palestine from the river to the sea" already means something that is non-Israel without ceasing to be Palestine.It is a logical reaction of a people expelled from their land to want the situation to return to its original form, before the persecution, with a single conversion in favor of the Jewish settlers (after the Second World War) the legalization of their stay in a land in which they will they have a political but not nominal symbolic share, which would belong again and only to the original founders, the Arabs.This justified but already, from the beginning, unrealistic and also unacceptable demand to restore a not only superficial symbolic political sovereignty, continues to exist. However, through which semantic versions does it exist today? What does Hamas mean, for example, when it uses this slogan as a top slogan? Does it mean the same things that the PLO meant? And how will we know what it really means and desires? Does it only want the return of the expelled? does it mean only symbolic sovereignty in a new multinational state? Because if we say that Hamas also wants this new state to be a democratic secular state, we will surely have made another big joke.--From
the River to the Sea, Palestinians and Jews will be free from Hamas,
Plo, Zionists, antizionists, ultra leftists, rightist, theocrats,
westernists, easternist..--Something similar in Cyprus: neither Turks nor Greeks, Greek Cypriots Turkish Cypriots only Cypriots.---Realistic and at the same time moral goal: To abolish all settlements in the West Bank and to return all Israeli settlers to Israel.No "anti-Zionism" can achieve this just and realistic goal.--Answer (3).The combination of a very obvious truth, that Israel does not keep its agreements with its victim, with the non truth, that the victim of Israel is not imagined that will be the perpetator against the present perpetator that makes it victim, this reasoning combination can also be read as sophism.-- Ιωάννης Τζανάκος Postscript.The fact that I consider and certify Michael as an honest, honest Marxist does not mean that I indirectly declare that I too am an honest "something". We said it, I am all your devils advocate.
Answer (1).
Palestine and "Israel" (1) or "Palestine" and Israel (2)?
Among the left-wing political factor worldwide and Arab nationalism+fundamentalism, the 1 prevails, among the Zionist political factor and among the pro-Zionist right/far-right political factor worldwide, 2 prevails.
Israel according to the supporters of 1 is an artificial entity, a colonial construction, not only as a political entity but also as a name, while on the contrary, according to the supporters of 2 Palestine is an artificial construction of Arab nationalism.
Usually those who support 1 at some point deny both politico-ontological definitions, and when you ask them what the new secular democratic state will be called that will integrate the Israeli and Palestinian entities into one form, they tell you that the problem is not a semiological one, so the name doesn't matter.
But if the problem is not also semiological, then why should it matter what the slogan (uttered by all Palestinians) means
"Palestine from the river to the sea"?
Will not this justified Palestine lose its name so that Israel also loses its?
Really, who do the Arab nationalists and their supporters want to convince?
--
Answer (2).
'From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free'.
Does it make sense to consider what a slogan means in all possible versions of rendering a special meaning to it through its use?
For me it makes sense, because human language did not reflect only an already given use of its forms but also a present use of them that can represent a new meaning of them.
"Palestine from the river to the sea" already means something that is non-Israel without ceasing to be Palestine.
It is a logical reaction of a people expelled from their land to want the situation to return to its original form, before the persecution, with a single conversion in favor of the Jewish settlers (after the Second World War) the legalization of their stay in a land in which they will they have a political but not nominal symbolic share, which would belong again and only to the original founders, the Arabs.
This justified but already, from the beginning, unrealistic and also unacceptable demand to restore a not only superficial symbolic political sovereignty, continues to exist.
However, through which semantic versions does it exist today? What does Hamas mean, for example, when it uses this slogan as a top slogan?
Does it mean the same things that the PLO meant? And how will we know what it really means and desires?
Does it only want the return of the expelled? does it mean only symbolic sovereignty in a new multinational state?
Because if we say that Hamas also wants this new state to be a democratic secular state, we will surely have made another big joke.
--
From
the River to the Sea, Palestinians and Jews will be free from Hamas,
Plo, Zionists, antizionists, ultra leftists, rightist, theocrats,
westernists, easternist..
--
Something similar in Cyprus: neither Turks nor Greeks, Greek Cypriots Turkish Cypriots only Cypriots.
---
Realistic and at the same time moral goal:
To abolish all settlements in the West Bank and to return all Israeli settlers to Israel.
No "anti-Zionism" can achieve this just and realistic goal.
--
Answer (3).
The combination of a very obvious truth, that Israel does not keep its agreements with its victim, with the non truth, that the victim of Israel is not imagined that will be the perpetator against the present perpetator that makes it victim, this reasoning combination can also be read as sophism.
--
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
Postscript.
The fact that I consider and certify Michael as an honest, honest Marxist does not mean that I indirectly declare that I too am an honest "something".
We said it, I am all your devils advocate.
