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 LeagueAntisemitism 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 TlaibU.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 NassarAssociate 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.