It immediately sparked bipartisan criticism, as well as two new efforts to censure Tlaib in the House.
In a Monday statement to The Washington Post , Tlaib said her colleagues are “much more focused on silencing me — the only Palestinian American voice in Congress — than they are on ending the horrific attacks on civilians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank right now.”
“Instead of attacking me and distorting my words, they should listen to their constituents and call for a cease-fire to save innocent lives,” she said.
In a subsequent statement Monday evening, she added that many of her colleagues have shown her “that Palestinian lives simply do not matter to them, but I still do not police their rhetoric or actions.”
“My colleagues have resorted to distorting my positions in resolutions filled with obvious lies,” she said. “I have repeatedly denounced the horrific targeting and killing of civilians by Hamas and the Israeli government, and have mourned the Israeli and Palestinian lives lost.”
Tlaib also said she would continue to call for a “mutual ceasefire, for the release of hostages and those arbitrarily detained, for the immediate delivery of humanitarian aid, and for every American to be brought home.”
Tlaib had earlier defended her use of the phrase, saying in a post on X that it is “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.”
“My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity,” Tlaib wrote.
Despite Tlaib’s explanation, a wave of Democrats, particularly fellow Michiganders, criticized Tlaib for her use of the phrase over the weekend. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who noted she was the only Jewish member of Michigan’s congressional delegation, said the phrase was divisive and “counterproductive to promoting peace.”
“None of us, especially elected leaders, should amplify language that inflames a tense situation & makes it harder for our communities to find common ground,” Slotkin wrote on X. “If I knew that a phrase I’d used had hurt any of my constituents, I would apologize & retract it, no matter its origin. I’d ask the same from you.”
Jeremy Moss (D), Michigan’s state senate president pro tempore, decried Tlaib’s justification for using the phrase, saying it was one that “preys upon the psyche of Jews.” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) agreed with Moss, and called on Tlaib to retract her remarks.
“I have supported and defended you countless times, even when you have said the indefensible, because I believed you to be a good person whose heart was in the right place,” Nessel said. “But this is so hurtful to so many. Please retract this cruel and hateful remark.
The phrase has been adopted and used in many ways during the decades of conflict and there continue to be disputes over what it means.
Writing in Jewish Currents in 2021, Palestinian American writer Yousef Munayyer said the phrase has been misinterpreted. “The claim that the phrase ‘from the river to the sea’ carries a genocidal intent relies not on the historical record, but rather on racism and Islamophobia,” he wrote, saying it referred to Palestinians being able to live as free and equal citizens. “When we call for a free Palestine from the river to the sea, it is precisely the existing system of domination that we seek to end.”
But, according to the Anti-Defamation League, the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is an “antisemitic slogan commonly featured in anti-Israel campaigns and chanted at demonstrations” that has been used by supporters of Hamas.
“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,” the ADL said.
Asked by…
Read More: Tlaib draws criticism from fellow Democrats with comments about Israel,