The Why Project
← Antisemitism

“From the river to the sea” & campus protests

Pro-Palestinian protest chant / movement

Genuinely contested

A protest chant read by some as liberation, by others as a call to eliminate Israel.

What happened

After October 7, 2023, the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” spread across campuses. Is it a call for Palestinian freedom, or for the elimination of Israel (and thus antisemitic)?

Under each definition

The frameworks split hard: IHRA flags it, the JDA expressly protects it, and Nexus and the 3D test say it depends on context.
IHRAIHRA Working Definition
Antisemitic

Example 7: read as eliminationist, it denies the Jewish people the right to self-determination.

JDAJerusalem Declaration
Not antisemitic

Guideline 12 expressly protects opposing Zionism and advocating a single binational/democratic state.

NexusNexus Document
Contested

Not antisemitic as a liberation slogan; antisemitic if it’s a coded call to remove Jews — Nexus weighs context and speaker.

3D testSharansky’s 3D Test
Contested

Delegitimization if it denies Israel’s existence; not if it demands equal rights within one state.

Who called it antisemitic

Many Jewish groups and the ADL read it as denying Israel’s right to exist — an IHRA-listed example; the US House passed a resolution calling it antisemitic.

The defense

Protesters say it calls for equality and Palestinian liberation, not the harm of Jews; the JDA holds that opposing Zionism or advocating one state is not, by itself, antisemitic.

Outcome

A central flashpoint of the 2023–24 campus protests and the congressional hearings that followed.

In their words

Called it antisemitic
It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state.
Anti-Defamation League — Antisemitism watchdog (backgrounder on the slogan)ADL →
Defended it
From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.
Rashida Tlaib — U.S. Representative (D-MI)Michigan Advance →
Analysis
Most Palestinians using this chant do not see it as advocating for a specific political platform … the majority of people using the phrase see it as a principled vision of freedom and coexistence.
Maha Nassar — Associate professor of Middle Eastern history, University of ArizonaThe Conversation →

The verdicts above are how each framework would most likely treat this case — illustrative guidance, not official rulings. The 3D test applies only to Israel-related cases, so it reads “N/A” elsewhere. See the Definition tab for each framework’s full text. Inclusion is documentation, not a finding.