It's part of the 2017 Charter of Hamas, which rejected "any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea."
It's part of the platform of Islamic Jihad, which has declared that "from the river to the sea — (Palestine) is an Arab Islamic land" leaving no room for "any inch" of a Jewish state.
"It is widely understood as a call for the elimination of the state of Israel.
"In demonstrations, these words are chanted, followed by the rest of the phrase: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."
From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, those who chant these words are understood to be calling for the elimination of the State of Israel.
The American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League have called the slogan of Hamas to be hate speech and antisemitic.
So why are the young people marching in front of my hotel room in Washington, D.C., chanting the words of the Hamas charter?
Why is Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., adopting the platform of Islamic Jihad?
The First Amendment protects her right to speak freely, but it does not protect her from legitimate criticism when she adopts hate speech as her own.
Why do LGBTQ+ Americans adopt the slogans of those who would deny their right to live freely?
Do they not understand that they are taking sides against themselves?
Across the globe, these words are understood as a call for genocide.
Why plaster such language on banners if that is not what you really mean?
Why use such language, which triggers memories of Jewish genocide, if that is not what you intend?
The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee have taken the position that saying Palestine will be free from the River to the Sea amounts to calling for the elimination of the State of Israel.
In adopting those calls, knowing how they are understood, protestors are not simply criticizing the current government of Israel. They are adopting the platform of terrorists.
Is that really what the protestors mean?
Palestinians point out that the Likud Party in Israel, in its 1977 platform, stated that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
But those phrases have since been dropped by the Likud Party, even as they have been embraced by the terrorists and the protestors who, out of knowledge or out of ignorance, parrot words that are widely understood to call for the elimination of the State of Israel.
What was Rep. Tlaib thinking when she repeated them?
She certainly had to know that she would be understood to be taking the side of terrorists and murderers?
If that isn't what side she is really on, why use their words? As the American Jewish Committee explains, "There is of course nothing antisemitic about advocating for Palestinians to have their own state.
"However, calling for the elimination of the Jewish state, praising Hamas or other entities who call for Israel's destruction, or suggesting that the Jews alone do not have the right to self-determination, is antisemitic."
Is there any other way to understand Tlaib's choice of words? Language has power; using the words of the Hamas charter is bound to strike terror in the hearts of Jews everywhere.
The rallying cry, from the River to the Sea, is now being heard on college campuses by those who don't seem to understand that it has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, both of which have advocated for Israel's destruction through violent means.
It is, as the Anti-Defamation League rightly explains, understood by Jews as "an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland.
"Usage of this phrase has the effect of making members of the Jewish and pro-Israel community feel unsafe and ostracized.
It is important to note that demanding justice for Palestinians, or calling for a Palestinian state, should not mean, as this hateful phrase posits, denying the right of the State of Israel to exist."
Tlaib has a powerful megaphone.
She could use it to distance herself, and her supporters, from the terrorists who would destroy the state of Israel and murder innocent targets.
Or she could use that megaphone to associate with the killers. Her choice and she made it, and she cannot be heard to complain that she was somehow misunderstood.
Susan Estrich is a politician, professor, lawyer and writer. Whether on the pages of newspapers such as The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post or as a television commentator on countless news programs on CNN, Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS and NBC, she has tackled legal matters, women's concerns, national politics and social issues. Read Susan Estrich's Reports — More Here.