Critics have labeled it as anti-Semitic, but analysts argue that the slogan calling for freedom from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea holds more complex meanings. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations worldwide have drawn attention to the chant: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” While Palestinian supporters view it as an expression of their desire for freedom from oppression, Israel and its supporters see it as a call to violence. The slogan has sparked controversy across various countries, leading to suspensions, bans, and heated debates.
The controversy surrounding the slogan has gained traction in the United Kingdom. Member of Parliament Andy McDonald was suspended by the Labour Party for using the phrase “between the river and the sea” in a pro-Palestinian rally speech. Home Secretary Suella Braverman referred to pro-Palestinian demonstrations as “hate marches” and warned against interpreting the slogan as a call for the elimination of Israel. The Football Association in the UK has also banned players from using the slogan on their private social media accounts. Similar actions have been taken in Austria and Germany, with the slogan being declared forbidden and indictable.
The origins of the slogan can be traced back to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which called for the establishment of a single state encompassing historic Palestine. The debate over partition predates the formation of Israel in 1948, with Arab leaders rejecting a United Nations plan for a Jewish state and a separate Palestinian state. The displacement of Palestinians during this time, known as the Nakba, further fueled tensions. While the PLO later accepted the idea of a two-state solution, failed peace processes and uprisings have hardened attitudes.
The interpretation of the slogan differs among Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinians argue that it represents the need for equality for all inhabitants of historic Palestine, emphasizing the denial of their right to self-determination. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London, joined by Jewish groups, have shown that the slogan cannot be viewed as inherently anti-Semitic. However, pro-Israel observers argue that the slogan undermines the existence of a Jewish state and creates uncertainty for Jews living in the region.
The controversy surrounding the slogan has spilled over into politics, with the Labour Party removing McDonald from office for his remarks about justice and peaceful coexistence. Pro-Israeli propagandists have been accused of conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism to undermine calls for equality and dismantling apartheid.
Israel’s Likud party has long advocated for the concept of “Eretz Israel,” asserting the Jewish people’s biblical right to the land. The expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has further complicated the aspirations for an independent Palestinian state.
While the slogan continues to generate division, some argue that efforts should be focused on finding practical solutions and fostering dialogue between Jews and Arabs. The end of the current conflict may present an opportunity to create a better future, with the possibility of a new slogan that bridges the divide.
Overall, the controversy surrounding the slogan highlights the deep-rooted tensions and complexities of the Israel-Gaza conflict. It underscores the need for open dialogue and a search for common ground to achieve lasting peace in the region.
