Talk:From the river to the sea

Ahmad Khalidi - wrong internal link

In the Response to criticism section, I think the wikilink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Khalidi should be removed. It seems clear that the person who is quoted in the NYT article is not the person with a wikipedia page because they don't have the same exact name, they don't hold their PhDs from the same institution and they didn't teach at the same places. The link is very confusing because Ahmed Mubarak Al-Khalidi is a member of the PNA, so suggesting this is him responding to criticism in the NYT makes the response look very biased. Bio for the Oxford researcher: https://www.gcsp.ch/our-experts/dr-ahmad-samih-khalidi . Thank you!

Ab930 (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Erledigt Onceinawhile (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Ab930 (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Problems of the leading:

Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Its use by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to argue that it implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region.

A link to the English translation of Hamas charter: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

I didn't see the relationship: I believe Hamas's reference to "from river to sea" is from the Article 20 of their charter, but in the same article Hamas stated its acceptance of the 1967 borders. Moreover, Hamas has stated in Articles 16 and 17 that they do not hate Jews and oppose Antisemitism. Why would Hamas's use of the slogan lead to it being explained as genocide of the Jews? This makes no sense.

It is a fact that Hamas quotes this slogan in their charter, and it may be another fact that some critics believe that this slogan means the expulsion of Jews, but is there a causal relationship between them?

Reference 8 makes no mention of the causal relationship, and the same goes for reference 10. Reference 10 simply quotes some "Jewish organization" saying there is a causal link, which is obviously an opinion, but the article describes it as a fact, this is a WP:SYNTH.

I think "Its use by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to argue that it implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region." should be changed to "Critics argue that its use by such Palestinian militant groups means it implicitly advocates the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region." ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And even according to these sources, the cause is not the 2017 Charter, but the Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong link

The link marked with (3) has nothing to do with the preumtion this slogan was created by zionists. Please be more careful. 91.80.83.35 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

+972 Magazine

This publication is not a reliable source on the topic. I'm deleting 2 sentences that cite this source. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Let's keep wikipedia encyclopedic. Badabara (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. There were two sources, nothing wrong with either. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make sense to cite other sources that are more credible? Have you looked at +972? Badabara (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I may have it wrong but wikipedia describes +972 Magazine as a "left-wing news and opinion". So perhaps keep the B'Tselem source, and look for an additional not left-wing source? Badabara (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with left wing (or right wing) news sources, bias does not equal unreliability, recent discussions at RSN indicate editors view the source as reliable. What is it they said that you object to, exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I assumed the nature of bias is at the core unreliable. I personally try to use unbiased sources. Can you please send me a link to the recent discussions at RSN?

My objection is the title of the article "Regime of Jewish Supremacy" is off topic. Odd to have a report by B'Tselem from 2021 in the "history of the phrase" section. The very long run on sentence appears to be posted out of context.

By the way it turns out to be 1 very long run on sentence, not 2 sentences... Badabara (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

No such thing as an unbiased source, all sources are biased, only the degree is a question. The article title is not cited? We have + 972 reporting on what Btselem said in an article with that title. Just go to RSN and put +972 in the search box if you want to see discussions about them. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

While the Likud Platform of 1977 made use of phrasing which is similar enough to "River to the Sea", no mention of river or sea, in Hebrew, are used in the Current Likud platform, which can be found here. More specifically, page 6 of the document, references terms and conditions for peace talks with the palestinians. The relevant passage reads as follows:

The current peace talks in Annapolis, which focus on achieving a final and quick agreement, miss the their purpose

We do not believe that the Palestinians are ready for a historic compromise that will end the conflict.

There is little evidence that the Palestinians are ready to accept even the minimum demands demanded by an Israeli leader. The Palestinians rejected far-reaching concessions that we, the Israelis, offered eight years ago and their position has not changed or moderated even today. As far as the core issues are concerned.

Instead of helping Abu Mazen and Fayed, Israel should focus its efforts on improving the daily lives of The Palestinians. Pointwise, we must help them develop their economic system. Although it will not lead to the resolution of the conflict, it will create a calmer environment and, therefore, a high chance of a settlement and successful delivery. A Likud-led government will immediately focus on changing the situation on the ground.

When the time comes for final negotiations for peace, the Likud will present clear red lines: the Likud and the one who heads it will insist that the responsibility for the peace of the citizens of the State of Israel will remain in the hands of Israel and that Israel's right to defend its borders will be preserved, a right enshrined in Resolutions 242 and 338 of the United Nations. Yaffalandis (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Colla's "Context"

Despite his usage of the word "context", its from an opinion piece that does not provide a general neutral context to the use of the phrase but a rather POV one-sided take with a bunch of charged language.

Also contesting the solitary citation from Mondoweiss in this regard, as per RS, it should be treated with caution and its neutrality and reliability in this regard is not strong enough to stand on its own. Would prefer other more reliable sources to be providing "context" in this regard. Mistamystery (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Using cautiously does not mean that it is not strong enough to stand on its own, nor does your view on the POV of a source make it so that the source is the issue and not your own POV. nableezy - 05:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery is correct. An opinion piece cannot be the base of what is presented as a neutral context. Even if it came form a more reliable source than Mondoweiss (whose current status is that there is no consensus on its reliability, as per the list here). Vegan416 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)