From the River to the Sea vs Judea and Samaria
On rethinking a response to the cease-fire demonstrations
By Gregg Robinson
A few months ago, I was at a local Democratic party convention up in North County. There was an anti-Gaza war demonstration outside the venue which was chanting for us to join them, which I went outside to do. I am a long-time peace activist—in the late 1960’s I helped occupy buildings on the UCSD campus in protests against the war in Vietnam, for which I was threatened with expulsion. Ever since then, hardly a week goes by that I am not walking a picket line or participating in a demonstration. With thousands of children in Gaza dead, UN food trucks sidelined, every major human rights group deploring Israel’s actions, U.S. money financing this disaster, and my own personal history, how could I not join in?
However, I was stopped by the signs that read “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free.” That was a line that I couldn’t cross. I support a two state solution, the rollback of the illegal settlements in the West Bank, but ALSO the right of Israel to be secure behind internationally recognized borders. That sign said to me that Israel as a Jewish state had to be eliminated. No, thanks.
Since then I have done some rethinking that makes me feel like I should have joined that demonstration. Some of this came from those that point out that the “From the River to the Sea” slogan can be read as merely a call for justice for Palestinians in all occupied areas. Some of this rethinking also came from watching the Republican right winger Elise Stefanik ambush university presidents in a way that would have made Joe McCarthy cringe.
But what most got me rethinking that demonstration has been what some friends have pointed out about the relationship between Hamas and the current Israelis government. Let me be clear: I have NO sympathy for Hamas. It is a Muslim fundamentalist right wing ant-Semitic organization. However, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud have consciously cultivated that organization.
As reported in Ha’aretz, “Netanyahu is the one who turned Hamas from a terror organization with few resources into a semi-state body….. allowing cash transfers, …… agreeing to the import of a broad array of goods, ……designated for terrorism.” For the Israeli right-wing, the greatest threat was not from Hamas, but from the Palestinian Authority that had agreed to recognize Israel, but wanted a separate state. The key was to keep a state of Palestine from coming into being and to guarantee Israeli control over “Judea and Samaria.”
What is Judea and Samaria? It is the mirror statement of “From the River to the Sea.” Here is a quote from the founding 1977 statement of the Likud Party: “"[B]etween the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." The 1999 Likud Party platform emphasized the right of settlement: “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values.” Netanyahu and Likud turned a blind eye to Qatar financing Hamas, and focused most of its attention on undermining the Palestinian Authority.
So if the Republican Party is correct that “From the River to the Sea,” when used by Palestinians is anti-Semitism, then when the current government of Israel uses the same statement it must be racism, right?
I know two wrongs don’t make a right, but it should temper people like me who were repulsed by the “From the River to the Sea” slogan. So the next time there is a Gaza demonstration outside of a Democratic Party gathering, I’m in.
Gregg Robinson is a long-time activist, retired Grossmont College Sociology professor, and a member of the AFT Guild, Local 1931 Retiree Chapter.