In an interview with Piers Morgan, Husam Zomlot, Palestinian ambassador to the UK (whatever that means), has admitted the phrase “From the River to the Sea” is genocidal.
But there’s a catch.
So let’s get this right: Zomlot claims this phrase is genocidal, but only when mentioned by Likud. But when the palestinian Arabs mention it, it really just means a two-state solution.
What makes this even more comical is how Zomlot claims to have read the Likud Charter (none actually exists, rather various party platforms), but pleads ignorance on the Hamas charter.
Right.
As patently ridiculous as these claims are, I will debunk them.
Likud’s position
As I wrote above, Likud don’t have a charter, but their original party platform (the one I assume Homlot is referring to) provided:
The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)
a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a “Palestinian State,” jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.
There is no mention of extermination but rather:
The Likud government will place its aspirations for peace at the top of its priorities and will spare no effort to promote peace.
Funny how Zomlot doesn’t mention that part.
Or the fact there have been differing Likud platforms over the years, none calling for the extermination of palestinian Arabs. Rather, they acknowledge palestinian Arabs’ right to live here. For instance, the 1999 platform stated:
The overall objectives for the final status with the Palestinians are: to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of a stable, sustainable agreement and replace confrontation with cooperation and good neighborliness, while safeguarding Israel’s vital interests as a secure and prosperous Zionist and Jewish state.
The Likud government will honor all the international agreements signed by its predecessors and strive to achieve a final status arrangement with the Palestinians. The only way to reach a final status arrangement is via dialogue and political negotiations.
The permanent status arrangement will minimize the security dangers implicit in the Oslo accords. The primary such danger is the presence and the possible expansion of the Palestinian security forces within close range of Israel’s population centers, government offices, emergency warehouses and staging areas of the Israel Defense Forces.
The permanent status arrangement shall be based on the following principles:
Self-Rule
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs.
Opposing a state does not equate to extermination, especially when you recognize the right of palestinian Arabs to “run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule.” And it is not even clear whether Likud actually opposes a palestinian Arab state now. For instance, the Likud Constitution of May 2014 – although containing commitments to the strengthening of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria – does not explicitly rule out the establishment of a palestinian Arab state. And in 2015, PM Netanyahu said: “I don’t want a one-state solution. I want a peaceful, sustainable two-state solution.”
Even more compellingly, it has been Likud governments who have been party to peace agreements with palestinian Arabs and neighboring Arab states. For instance, Likud agreed to concessions in the Camp David Accords in 1979, began negotiations with the palestinian Arabs during the Madrid Conference in 1991, continued the implementation of the Oslo accords, and unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005, when it evacuated the Jewish settlements in that area.
In other words, there is nothing in Likud’s platforms nor real world actions that show “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” of their original platform equates to exterminating the palestinian Arabs. Rather it is clear Likud supports palestinian Arabs ruling over themselves, and arguably even having their own state.
Hamas’ position
Despite Zomlot’s claims, Hamas’ position is very relevant, more relevant than that of Zomlot’s Fatah. They are the ones in power in Gaza, after all, and enjoy way more support in Judea and Samaria than Fatah.
The Hamas charter is absolutely genocidal, not to mention antisemitic. For instance, it provides:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” (Preamble)
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.” (Article 7)
“The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.” (Article 15)
“The HAMAS regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the circle of struggle against World Zionism… Islamic groups all over the Arab world should also do the same, since they are best equipped for their future role in the fight against the warmongering Jews.” (Article 32)
“Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: ‘Hail to Jihad!’. This cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah’s victory comes about.” (Article 33)
Israel-haters love to point out that Hamas changed their tune in their 2017 policy document, which softens its Islamist rhetoric, tones down the antisemitism, and while maintaining the right to ‘Palestine’ “from the river to the sea,” accepts the idea of a palestinian Arab state in territories ‘occupied’ by Israel since the 1967 War. But it still declares terrorism as a legitimate strategy:
Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah. (Article 23)
Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people. (Article 25).
Hamas rejects any attempt to undermine the resistance and its arms. It also affirms the right of our people to develop the means and mechanisms of resistance. Managing resistance, in terms of escalation or de-escalation, or in terms of diversifying the means and methods, is an integral part of the process of managing the conflict and should not be at the expense of the principle of resistance. (Article 26).
And let’s be honest. Their actions – none clearer than October 7 – make very clear their genocidal intentions.
Fatah’s position
Let’s look at Fatah’s position even though it is less relevant than that of Hamas.
Despite the Oslo accords, Fatah funds terrorism, and incites through their education system. Over the years, Fatha-affiliated terrorists have perpetrated some of the worst terror attacks against Israelis, and PA officials have so far refused to condemn Hamas’s October 7 massacre.
In other words, the only real difference between Hamas and Fatah are the suits.
By the way, the PLO were the first to essentially popularize the slogan “From the River to the Sea.” While some would like us to think it is merely “an expression of what mandatory Palestine was before the creation of Israel”, a look at the PNC Charter reveals the truth:
Article 6: Jews who were living permanently in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians. (For the Zionist invasion is considered to have begun in 19171.)
Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine and is therefore a strategy and not a tactic. The Palestinian Arab people affirms its absolute resolution and abiding determination to pursue the armed struggle and to march forward towards the armed popular revolution, to liberate its homeland and restore its right to a natural life, and to exercise its right of self-determination and national sovereignty.
Article 10: Fedaeyeen’s (freedom fighters) action forms the nucleus of the popular Palestinian war of liberation. This requires its promotion, extension and protection, and the mobilization of all the Arab and Palestinian masses and scientific capacities of the Palestinians, their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution to ensure the continuation of the revolution, its advancement and victory.
Article 15: The liberation of Palestine from the Arab view point is a national duty to repulse the Zionist, imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge it from the Zionist presence . This full responsibility falls upon the Arab nation, peoples and governments, with the Arab Palestinian people at their lead. For this purpose the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, material and spiritual capacities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. They must grant and offer the people of Palestine all possible help and every material and human support and afford it means and opportunities enabling it to continue assuming its vanguard role in pursuing its armed revolution until the liberation of its homeland, especially in the present stage of armed Palestinian revolution.
Israel-haters’ position
“From the River to the Sea” has become a catch cry of the Israel-haters in their protests around the world. And many love to claim it is not meant in a genocidal way – instead claiming something along the lines of it “encompasses the rights of all individuals to live in peace and dignity.”
Yet the phrase is always associated with opposition to the existence of Israel, and is absolutely a call for the dismantling or destruction of the Jewish state. What’s more, those chanting it are invariably the very same people who support terrorism as “resistance”, or otherwise chant it alongside people who do. For instance, we see this chant being shouted by the very same people who chant in support of an “Intifada”, and have held up banners with paragliders in clear support of what transpired on October 7. Heck, even Israel-hater Norman Finkelstein has implored his fellow haters to desist from the slogan because it is “ambiguous,” and he was met with mockery from his so-called allies.
In other words, Zomlot – like all palestinian Arab officials before him – is engaging in dishonesty, gaslighting and projection.
It is just a shame that Piers Morgan did not call him out on it.
