Pro Palestine activists routinely chant ‘from the river to the sea’, drawing the ire of the UK Jewish community.
To some, it means total equality for everyone in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and to others, the call for a second Holocaust. But what does the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – heard increasingly often after Hamas’ attack on Israel and the military operation in Gaza that followed it – really mean?
Is it legal?
Is it antisemitic?
Or is it just a rallying cry to end this century-old conflict?
The truth is, it depends on who you ask, and ahead of the proposed million-man march on Remembrance Sunday, this issue is only going to become more acute.
First and foremost, what river, and what sea? It refers to the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, which is currently the modern state of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.
What does this land being ‘free’ mean?
This is the tricky bit.
Supporters of the Palestinians who chant this phrase, argue it simply means that everyone between those boundaries, including Israeli Jews, Palestinians, and Israeli Arabs, have full and equal rights – which they claim is currently not the case.
Ben Jamal, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign told Times Radio, it means “that Palestinians will be free when they are no longer living under a system of apartheid”.
“It is not a call, as grotesquely suggested, for a genocidal action against the Jewish citizens of Israel, it is a call for a system of apartheid to be dismantled, so that then the people who inhabit that territory, can actually build a system in which they live together with equal rights.”
However, the phrase causes anxiety for many vocal supporters of Israel, who are in the UK overwhelmingly Jewish and fear it is an existential threat to Israel.
It is a call to replace Israel with Palestine, along borders from before 1948.
Given the events of the last month, including the massacre of Israelis by Hamas on 7 October, one might understand why a call to ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea’ could be interpreted as a call to arms.
This tension is especially acute for Jews, who see Israel as a safe haven, a place to escape antisemitism – once again, depressingly, on the rise.
When Israel is at war, antisemitism historically goes up in the UK at least, with a more than 400 per cent increase in recent weeks according to the Community Security Trust.
This week, there were shocking scenes of an antisemitic lynch mob in Dagestan, Russia, and two weeks ago, a Tunisian synagogue was burned to the ground.
In the UK, mice were poured into a McDonald’s in Birmingham over its supposed support for Israel, and the Wiener Holocaust Library was daubed with graffiti.
So this is not fantasy, it is a real threat, inside and outside of Israel, for Jews.
Members of the Jewish community light candles during a vigil for Israel at Downing Street.
And many British Jews, who’ve seen their schools attacked, synagogue security ramped up, and verbal and physical attacks in the street, question whether those who do this chant really do just want freedom and equality for all the citizens living between the river and the sea.
Some see a much more sinister and hostile motive.
This chant polarises these two already widely separated sides, and in the middle, in the UK at least are the politicians and police.
They have to decide amongst themselves, if it is antisemitic or fair game to chant this.
Good luck.
As hundreds of thousands of pro-Palestine demonstrators have taken to the streets in recent weeks, on 20 October, the Met said the chant had “been frequently heard at pro-Palestinian demonstrations for many years. We are well aware of the strength of feeling in relation to it”.
“While we can envisage scenarios where chanting these words could be unlawful, such as outside a synagogue or Jewish school, or directly at a Jewish person or group intended to intimidate, it is likely that its use in a wider protest setting, such as we anticipate this weekend, would not be an offence and would not result in arrests. This is just one example of the difficult decisions facing officers.”
In other words, the police do not interpret it as illegal when walking through the streets at a demonstration.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has made her views on this chant very clear, and they are completely different.
“We’ve seen now tens of thousands of people take to the streets following the massacre of Jewish people — the single loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust, chanting for the erasure of Israel from the map.”
Clearly, she takes the view it’s a chant to replace Israel with Palestine and not the rights argument.
“To my mind, there is only one way to describe those marches — they are hate marches,” she said, a claim which has been widely criticised by Palestine activists as a smear against hundreds of thousands of people — including Jewish marchers.
She insisted the Police had to be operationally independent, but added they “must take a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism.”
On 10 October, she also wrote to police constables, arguing it is “an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence”.
Number 10 also opined on the term, saying it was “deeply offensive” to many, but not going so far as saying it’s illegal, or antisemitic.
There’s clearly a stand-off between the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police on the use of this phrase.
The crucial question, is when does it become antisemitic?
Some would argue calling for the erasure of the state of Israel is in and of itself, antisemitic.
Clearly, the law doesn’t agree, and even the bullish Braverman can’t force the Met to make it stop (even though she arguably should be able to, as Home Secretary).
The Prime Minister’s spokesperson calling it ‘offensive’ instead of ‘illegal’, shows the status quo, and an acknowledgement that the government or police, wouldn’t be able to prevent people from chanting it anytime soon.
The real precedents will likely be set on a smaller scale, not on marches with hundreds of thousands of people, as that is near-impossible to enforce. Labour for example has made an example of MP Andy McDonald, after he chanted it on Saturday at the rally, by suspending him.
Going forward, all eyes will be on major companies, like the Big Four of accountancy, major legal firms and football clubs, for how they manage their staff who engage in this type of language — especially on social media.
Only this week, Leicester City star Hamza Choudhury tweeted the phrase, before sharing a statement saying he didn’t mean to cause offence.
The following day, the Football Association said in no uncertain terms: “We will be writing to all clubs to make it clear that this phrase is considered offensive to many & should not be used by players in social media posts…if this phrase is used again by a football participant, we will seek police guidance on how we should treat it & respond.”
So while hundreds of thousands may be able to chant it in the street, individual cases will be picked off, and people will be made an example of — unless the law changes to make it formally illegal.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
visit website
