Talk:From the river to the sea

Feels more like the article is about the PLO's usage of the slogan rather than the slogan itself. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss:, this is being discussed above in the section called "First Aliyah". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The introduction says:Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Usage of the phrase by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to claim that it advocates for the dismantling of Israel ...
If one actually reads paragraph 20 of the 2017 chapter, where "from the river to the sea" appears, it does not talk about the dismantling of Israel.

I'd like a minor edit:
FROM:
Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter.
TO:
Hamas used the phrase in paragraph 20 of its 2017 charter, referring to a two-state solution. [FOOTNOTE/REFERENCE]

The footnote/reference can either directly cite paragraph 20 of the Hamas 2017 charter as here, or else directly quote the relevant text in a footnote:
Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, ...

The current Wikipedia article seems to entirely ignore the Hamas sentence: However, ... 4th of June 1967, ...
An objective reading of that sentence in the Hamas 2017 charter seems to imply a "two-state solution" based on the borders of "4th of June 1967", while still refusing to recognize the state of Israel. The Hamas 2017 charter certainly does not speak about the "dismantling of Israel". Gene (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that the current version is better. It simply states that the phrase is mentioned in the charter.

I'm not sure whether you wanted to say that the "phrase" or "paragraph" referred to the two-state solution. If it's the former (phrase) then it's inaccurate, since it's actually in a different sentence.

If it's the latter (paragraph) it wouldn't be neutral. While some scholars believe that Hamas accepted the two-state solution in this document, others disagree with this and say that the "complete liberation of Palestine" remains the goal. This article is not the right place to discuss it. Alaexis_¿question? 08:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Would the following edit be more appropriate?

FROM: Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter.

TO: Hamas used the phrase in paragraph 20 of its 2017 charter.

I would change the link to a citation, of course. As you say, it's not the job of Wikipedia to discuss what that paragraph means. But it is the job of Wikipedia to provide the information in a neutral format, and allow the reader to locate the relevant information. Gene (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting point Gene. But can you find some WP:SECONDARY sources for this discussion? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, VR and Alaexis. To be clear, I agree with Alaexis's point that: "This article is not the right place to discuss [the interpretation of paragraph 20 of the Hamas Charter]." My goal is simply to allow the reader to view the primary source, and then make an individual decision. This should be in keeping with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality.

My primary concern is that the current formulation in Wikipedia loses neutrality, because it is misleading. It currently says:

    Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Usage of the phrase ... has led critics to claim that it advocates for the dismantling of Israel

This is misleading because critics are referring to much earlier quotes from Hamas. They are not relying on the 2017 charter.

As Alaexis correctly points out, paragraph 20 of the 2017 Charter can be ambiguous. The paragraph includes both of these phrases:

1. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, ...

2. Hamas considers the establishment ... along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, ..."

The critics of Hamas are referring to earlier (pre-2017) unambiguous statements by Hamas. It is misleading to say that they are referring to the 2017 Charter.

VR, you asked about secondary sources. Because of the controversy, objective secondary sources are hard to find. I don't recommend this one for Wikipedia, but here's the best that I could find:

from a Vox site. Gene (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@VR and Alaexis: (Pinging now; see above) Gene (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If Hamas used the phrase, then its good for inclusion. If they used the phrase in a confusing or contradictory way, that's also valid for inclusion, we shouldn't just rely on a single interpretation of what is meant. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with adding a link to the 2017 policies document. Instead of "in paragraph 20" I would write "in the Position toward Occupation and Political Solutions section but that's a minor quibble. Alaexis_¿question? 12:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@VR and Alaexis:

Thank you Alaexis. This works well. I notice that the new link to the Wikipedia page for the 2017 Hamas charter currently includes:

It advocated for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, describing this as a "formula of national consensus", but at the same time strove for the "complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea"

So, the reference to that page achieves the clarification that I was looking for. Gene (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be ok with that formulation. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Does not match the reference, nor is the statement backed by historical evidence. Statement and citation should be removed. 2607:FEA8:1C41:7B00:4CD3:103E:6087:53D5 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The following statement

> Many Palestinian activists have called it "a call for peace and equality" after decades of Israeli military rule over Palestinians while for Jews it is seen as a call for the "destruction" of Israel

is in the lead. This seems to me transparently racist as it ascribes a belief to an entire ethnic group. However, interestingly enough, a similar statement is made in the cited AP article (which is odd since I'd expect this to violate their editorial guidelines). Despite this I think it should be removed and replaced with something non-racist. JDiala (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

We should try to find another reference because it is unclear what AP means, all Jews, everywhere, Israeli Jews, most Israeli Jews, or what. Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that it means "most Jews everywhere". It is quite common, even in highly reliable sources to say "X" when you mean "most of X". Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill. I thought I already resolved this by adding "most" before "Jews". How did that get removed? Vegan416 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"Obvious" won't do, that's OR. this is more balanced, it is interesting that Israel's Likud is inspired by the same call in the other direction and I don't hear anyone saying that Palestinians are hearing a call for their own destruction, read apartheid and genocide by a settler colonial state.^[1][2] better remove this oversimplification entirely. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL. You "don't hear anyone saying that Palestinians are hearing a call for their own destruction, read apartheid and genocide by a settler colonial state"??? This is said again and again all over the media... Vegan416 (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's put it in then. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome... Vegan416 (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)