The subtitle of my memoire is “From the River to the Sea, All should be Free.” I deliberately chose this potentially provocative statement to warn readers to expect to encounter my political views and to refuse to allow the English language to be twisted by the political views of others. In the same spirit, I always stated that “All Lives Matter” rather than the more restrictive “Black Lives Matter.” I have always defended the rights of All people to peace, justice and equal rights.
I asked my AI search engine the following:
What different groups chant “From the River to the Sea “ and what does each group mean by that?
The reply was:
The phrase “From the River to the Sea” is used by various groups with differing interpretations:
- Pro-Palestinian Activists: For many, it symbolizes the aspiration for Palestinian liberation and equality across the region from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, often seen as a call for peace and justice.
- Jewish and Pro-Israel Groups: Many perceive it as a threat to Israel’s existence, viewing it as a call for the elimination of the Jewish state, especially when used by groups like Hamas.
“When someone says from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, I question, ‘Where do you see the Jews going?'” said Yair Szlak, president and CEO of Montreal-based Federation CJA. ‘That is hate speech, right, because it is into the sea that they seek to send the Jews.’”
Take a close look at this amazing statement. Mr. Sziak implies that the only way Palestinians can be free is by getting rid of the Jews!! Aside from being a absurd statement, it is sadly revealing of the thinking of some Israelis.
“Yousef Munayyer, head of the Palestine-Israel program at the Arab Center Washington D.C., has written extensively about the meaning of the slogan before and since Hamas’s attacks on Oct. 7, which led to Israel’s current bombardment of the Gaza Strip.
“Munayyer says today, the phrase is used to reference the lack of freedoms Palestinians have in the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which includes the state of Israel as well as the Gaza Strip and the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“’That’s what has to change. That doesn’t mean that there should be any violence against Israelis,’ Munayyer said.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881
Warren's space 
In what way are the Palestinians who live within Israel’s recognized boarders, who are full citizens of the State of Israel, not “free”? And in what way is their supposed lack of freedom comparable to the Palestinians who live in Hamas-run Gaza and the Occupied West Bank? The only answer I can come up with is that they are not “free” to remain in their current location but be governed by an Islamic (or at least majority Arab) government. In other wards, the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is the way in which they are not free — and its elimination is the only way to gain this freedom. But if you have a different explanation as to why the Israeli Arabs are not free, I hope you will share it.
I know that you know that WBGS are included from the River to the Sea. Those in the Israeli occupied territories are not free. They are raped, robbed and badly abused.
That’s completely non-responsive, Warren. According to the quote you posted, the chant ALSO covers the two million Palestinians who are Israeli citizens living within Israel’s internationally recognized borders. My question is, in what way are THOSE Palestinians not free? And in what way do you think their situation comparable to the indisputable deprivation of freedom of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories?
read it again Jack. You are way off.
The exact words are “the phrase is used to reference the lack of freedoms Palestinians have in the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which includes the state of Israel . . .” So he’s clearly saying that the two million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel are not free — but should be. If that is not a call for the elimination of Israel what exactly does it mean? What freedoms are the Arab citizens of Israel being denied that the people who chant “from the river to the sea” want them to be given?
You disappoint me Jack. You really know better. The fact that not everyone in the world (or from the River to the Sea) is free, doesn’t mean that the only way to make them free is to eliminate everyone else. Wow. Surely you also agree with the subtitle of my book that “All should be free”
Hello Prof. Coats.
I feel like you are off the mark in your analysis of the what the statement “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and how Israelis view it. Szlak may have jumped ahead a few steps, but I think that his logic is sound. Let’s start by laying out the facts we can both agree on
1. Israel proper (1948 borders) is currently situated between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. Meaning the proposed Palestinian polity will geographically replace Israel. The chant is not advocating for a two state solution, as it calls for “Palestine” to be free and not for “Palestinians” to be free. But the cessation of Israel isn’t necessarily bad as you pointed out yourself, maybe the jews will live free and fulfilling lives as a recognized minority in Palestine? Kind of like French speakers in Canada? Szlak is from Montreal, I am sure he can get behind that idea.
2. The number of Jews and Palestinians between the river and the sea are pretty simmilar, with the number of Jews growing faster than the number of Palestinians. Well, than not as a recognised minority… at least not for long. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that a free Palestine can’t provide full voting rights for Jews and maybe even have Jews elected head of state? If Palestine will end up as a parliamentary system I could honestly see a governing Palestinain-Haredi coalition forming.
3. The 48 Palestinians are not free. wait wait wait… But what I described is what’s going on with the 48 Palestinian. They have a voice in politics and have essentially the same rights as Israelis on paper (implementation is a different story). So when you say “Palestine would be free” you mean “Palestinians in sole control and as the majority stakeholder”, but of the three (Palestinian full self determination, Democracy, Demographic majority) you can only choose two.
You can’t combine all 3. We know that complete Palestinian self determination is the end goal, so you can either have a Palestinian undemocratic regime which given current state of democracy in Palestine is very likely, Palestinians have a history of democracy with the golden days of the PLO but they aren’t right now and it’s much more difficult to transition from authoritarianism to democracy than the other way around. This sort of arrangement is not unheard of in history, as it is the definition of empire. In such a regime most Jews would probably end up leaving and becoming refugees.
you could also have Ethnic Cleansing of Jews No need to elaborate on that one. In the end one tragedy will replace another. You could argue which tragedy is more just, maybe the Palestinians will end up being benevolent rulers. But I think it is understandable while Jews are not keen on either outcome.
A final note, I find the debate on Israel-Palestine often boiling down to justice vs outcome. Pro Palestinians have a very strong rights and grievance based argument. Israelis, in your words “raped, robbed and badly abused” Palestinians so of course they should be punished. Our basic human instinct is for justice, punish the evil and help the weak. Even animals understand justice. The issue which pro-Israelis raise, is that reversing the fortunes would just lead to a new injustice. Even though it is difficult to stomach, and part of Mandela’s genius, is that in order for the vicious cycle of violence to end justice should not be executed. A midway path should be created, it is called the two state solution. Each has their own autonomy. Such a solution is not just, Jews will still hold on to some of the land of Palestinians, some of the olive groves, some of the tombs and a piece of the homeland. But that is an equilibrium which does not lead to further bloodshed.
But as Yousef Munayyer wrote in Foreign Affairs “The two state solution is dead. Good riddance”
Some want Palestine and Israel to resolve like South Africa or Rwanda and some want it to end up like Zimbabowa or Haiti.
Warren I am the one who has the right to be disappointed. I have asked you the same question three times — in what way do you believe the two million Palestinian citizens of Israel are not free — and each time you have refused to answer. The only conclusion I can reach is that you don’t want to say expressly what you apparently believe: that the two million Palestinians citizens of Israel are not free because, despite the full democratic rights that they rightly enjoy, they must live in a Jewish State. But, again, if you have a different answer to my question I would sincerely welcome you telling me what it is.
Jack, I have not answered that question because I never made your implied statement. Palestinian citizens of Israel (about 20%) have the same legal rights as do Jewish citizens, though they often suffer discrimination. It is the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaze do not and have been badly mistreated by the illegal Jewish settlers. They rightly demand to be free. You and I have long supported a two state solution as the best way to achieve that.