Universities call for ruling on ‘From the River to the Sea’ chant meaning

University leaders are blaming the government for failing to make a definitive ruling on the meaning of a pro-Palestine protest chant for their inaction.

Members of the Australian-Palestinian community at the protest encampment at the University of Sydney. Picture: AFP

University leaders are blaming the government for failing to ­definitively rule on the meaning of a pro-Palestine chant for their inaction on protest encampments, following warnings that the anti-Israel slogan could ignite violence. 

As protest encampments ­supporting the Palestinian cause become more deeply entrenched in campuses across the country, the nation’s oldest university has blamed their inaction on the ­absence of any definitive ruling on the meaning of the politically charged phrase “from the river to the sea”.

Dennis Richardson, a former ASIO head, said the protest slogan – which has been criticised for being anti-Semitic and calling for the destruction of the state of Israel – was a “very violent statement” that could “very easily flow over into actions of ­violence against communities”.

Group of Eight chief executive Vicki Thomson said that, while protest phrases were ­offensive to many they were “not unlawful” and it fell to the “highest levels of government to ­address”.

“We recognise that these phrases are deeply offensive, hurtful and distressing and we would prefer that they were not used,” she said. “But the fact remains that they are not unlawful, and police are not and have not taken any action when they are used in a multitude of forums across the nation.

“That doesn’t make them less hurtful and what we would do is call upon those using this language to reconsider using phrases that are demonstrably hurtful and distressing.”

Education Minister Jason Clare said he “agreed” with Mr Richardson that “any words that stoke fear are intolerable”. Earlier in the week, he said slogans could mean different things to different groups.

Anthony Albanese said on Wednesday that the phrase “undermines a two state solution”, declaring that he supported Israel’s right to live peacefully within its borders and for Palestinians to live “with peace, security and prosperity”.

The call for action comes as NSW Labor MP Anthony D’Adam defended the protests in parliament as a legitimate form of free speech as long as they were not violent, in response to a motion to condemn the encampments.

“The fact of the matter is, the motion seems to assert that to not support a two-state solution is somehow to be anti-Semitic,” he said.

“I reject that as well, that’s a ridiculous proposition. It can’t be said to be anti-Semitic to argue that the Jews, and Christians, and Muslims who have lived historically in Palestine for generations cannot one day live in one state, from the river to the sea. That is not an anti-Semitic proposition.”

A University of Sydney spokeswoman said the protest encampment had created “difficult territory to navigate” as the sandstone institution sought to balance its free speech obligations with community safety.

“We’re not aware of any Australian court or government authority making a determination about the interpretation of this phrase, but we welcome the important discussions taking place and would of course abide by any legislative changes if they were to be made,” she said.