Case Description
Due to a technical glitch, our public comments portal for cases related to the "From the River to the Sea" phrase closed earlier than planned. To ensure everyone has a chance to share their input, we've reopened it for 24 hours. The portal will now close at 12pm BST on May 23rd.
These three cases concern content decisions made by Meta, all on Facebook, which the Oversight Board intends to address together.
The three posts were shared by different users in November 2023, following the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7 and the start of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Each post contains the phrase “From the river to the sea.” All three were reported by users for violating Meta’s Community Standards. The company decided to leave all three posts on Facebook. For each case, the Board will decide whether the content should be removed under Meta’s policies and according to its human rights responsibilities. Numbers of views and reports are correct as of the end of February 2024.
The first case concerns a comment from a Facebook user on another user’s video. The video has a caption encouraging others to “speak up” with numerous hashtags including “#ceasefire” and “#freepalestine.” The comment on the post contains the phrase “FromTheRiverToTheSea” in hashtag form, as well as several additional hashtags including “#DefundIsrael.” The comment had about 3,000 views and was reported seven times by four users. The reports were closed after Meta’s automated systems did not send them for human review within 48 hours.
In the second case, a Facebook user posted what appears to be a generated image of fruit floating on the sea that form the words from the phrase, along with “Palestine will be free.” The post had about 8 million views and was reported 951 times by 937 users. The first report on the post was closed, again because Meta’s automated systems did not send it for human review within 48 hours. Subsequent reports by users were reviewed and assessed as non-violating by human moderators.
In the third case, a Facebook page reshared a post from the page of a community organization in Canada in which a statement from the “founding members” of the organization declared support for “the Palestinian people,” condemning their “senseless slaughter” by the “Zionist State of Israel” and “Zionist Israeli occupiers.” The post ends with the phrase “From The River To The Sea.” This post had less than 1,000 views and was reported by one user. The report was automatically closed.
The Facebook users who reported the content, and subsequently appealed Meta’s decisions to leave up the content to the Board, claimed the phrase was breaking Meta’s rules on Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement or Dangerous Organizations and Individuals. The user who reported the content in the first case stated that the phrase violates Meta’s policies prohibiting content that promotes violence or supports terrorism. The users who reported the content in the second and third cases stated that the phrase constitutes hate speech, is antisemitic and is a call to abolish the state of Israel.
After the Board selected these cases for review, Meta confirmed its original decisions were correct. Meta informed the Board that it analyzed the content under three policies – Violence and Incitement, Hate Speech and Dangerous Organizations and Individuals – and found the posts did not violate any of these policies. Meta explained the company is aware that “From the river to the sea” has a long history and that it had reviewed use of the phrase on its platform after October 7, 2023. After that review, Meta determined that, without additional context, it cannot conclude that “From the river to the sea” constitutes a call to violence or a call for exclusion of any particular group, nor that it is linked exclusively to support for Hamas.
The Board selected these cases to consider how Meta should moderate the use of the phrase given the resurgence in its use after October 7, 2023, and controversies around the phrase’s meaning. On the one hand, the phrase has been used to advocate for the dignity and human rights of Palestinians. On the other hand, it could have antisemitic implications, as claimed by the users who submitted the cases to the Board. This case falls within the Board’s strategic priority of Crisis and Conflict Situations.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- The origin and current uses of the phrase: “From the river to the sea.”
- Research into online trends in content using the phrase.
- Research into any associated online and offline harms from the use of the phrase.
- Meta’s human rights responsibilities in relation to content using the phrase including freedom of expression, freedom of association, and equality and non-discrimination.
- State and institutional (e.g., university) responses to the use of the phrase (e.g., during protests) and the human rights impacts of those responses.
As part of its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding, Meta must respond to them within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to these cases.
Comments
Do you intend to also ban the phrase “from sea to shining sea”? It’s says everything that you are perfectly comfortable with the colonial government of America plastering this phrase everywhere it can (while still occupying and degrading native land), and somehow think it’s violent for a people who are being actively massacred and have been the original inhabitants for millennia to cry for the total liberation of the land that is being obliterated. “From the River to the Sea” is not just a cry to liberate the people but all that lives on the land is being destroyed in the name of luxury real estate and commercial development. Olive groves tended for generations, destroyed. Vineyards, nature preserves… you don’t care about homes… perhaps you could care about the preservation of ancient lands. It is noted that the only language options are Hebrew, Arabic and English, allowing for comment in no other languages and thereby silencing millions of people from commenting. This shouldn’t even be a discussion. This will kill Meta if you choose the path of open fascism. I have seen the writing on the wall. Your platform will be a desolation of AI bots and scammers commenting back and forth to one another. The internets first great ruins… that will be Metas fate.
There is nothing offensive to want palestinian to have the right to live in the historical territory of Palestine. From the river to the sea does not mean refusing Israelian to be on this land, but is against their appropriation and the apartheid system currently in place.
I’m an American, and what I have heard from every occurrence of this phrase “From the River to the Sea” both in person and online has been a call for equal rights for all people. Never uttered with any insinuation of retribution or injustice. A call to end apartheid. Stand in solidarity with the oppressed at all times.
I believe meta should not ban the phrase “from the river to the sea” because what it really means is that Palestinians deserve their own country, free from the apartheid system that Israel has imposed on it for 75 years. Israel continues to defy international pressure to stop killing Palestinian civilians (lowest death toll estimates at over 35,000), by bombing Jamalia Camp and Rafah (the places Israel has pushed them by bombing and invading every other part of Gaza since October 7). So for meta to deny users the ability to use this phrase calling for Palestinian liberation seems inconceivably cruel! I have no faith that you will because my experience as a user points to meta always doing what is most profitable and often least ethical but I hope you do.
As a Jewish American I cannot overstate my opposition to this ban. The phrase in question is a call for justice and equity rooted in love and cultural belonging. It is not hate speech and it is not antisemitic. The banning of this phrase would be violent and oppressive and an attack on free speech. I implore the board to prevent such a ban.
[NOTE: Citations/endnotes can be found in attached word document.]
The phrase “from the river to the sea,” in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict, is an annihilationist call for the destruction of the Jewish state. It grew to prominence with the establishment of Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, which used the phrase to advocate its goal of the violent eradication of the Jewish state. For the reasons elaborated below, we urge a policy which restricts use of the phrase when used in the context of the conflict, as well as in situations of unclear references, with appropriate exceptions such as for journalism.
Context of the Phrase
In its decision regarding the term “shaheed,” the Oversight Board emphasized the “cultural and religious significance” of the term. While the phrase had been previously used by dictators[1] and terrorists,[2] the phrase “from the river to the sea” rose to prominence with the establishment of the internationally designated terrorist organization, Hamas, in 1988. Hamas began using the phrase in its propaganda and public statements regularly,[3] to the point the phrase quickly became associated with the terrorist organization and its annihilationist agenda.[4] To this day, Hamas continues to use the phrase in policy statements as a call for the destruction of Israel.[5]
As with all hateful slurs, the phrase must be understood in the relevant context.[6] The phrase references the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which lies on its eastern and western borders, respectively. It’s use in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict has been to call for the violent annihilation of the State of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, and its replacement with an Arab and/or Islamic state.[7]
That annihilationist meaning remains, as can be seen by its use at demonstrations[8] and in online publications.[9] For example, the most prominent American “pro-Palestinian” organization, National Students for Justice in Palestine, sent out a “Day of Resistance Toolkit” on October 8 – the day after the brutal massacre carried out by Palestinian terrorists – which unambiguously glorified the terror attack and the terrorist organizations behind it. In its “Messaging & Framing” section, it included: “Palestine will be liberated from the river to the sea, and our resistance, through their bravery and love for land…”[10] Indeed, the presence of the phrase alongside other violent, exclusionary chants (e.g., “we don’t want no Zionists here” and “long live the Intifada”) is a common feature of organized anti-Israel activism.[11]
Some activists have attempted to decontextualize the phrase and misleadingly characterize the phrase as an “aspirational call for freedom.” Attempting to divorce a controversial term from its well-understood meaning in order to make it more socially acceptable is nothing new. It is a common feature of hate movements and groups, who regularly couch their causes in aspirational language, often tied to perceived injustices over land and ownership (e.g., “blut und boden,” “lebensraum,” “you will not replace us,” and variations of the “great replacement theory”).
Meta Policy
The exclusionary, annihilationist phrase falls under three categories of Meta’s moderation policies: hate speech; violence and incitement; and dangerous organizations and individuals.
Hate Speech – Included in Meta’s hate speech policy are “calls for exclusion or segregation,” as well as “aspirational or conditional statements about…harm” including “[c]alls for death without a perpetrator or method” and “[c]alls for…other physical harms caused either by no perpetrator or by a deity.” The policy also includes “[s]tatements denying existence,” including “‘[protected characteristic(s) or quasi-protected characteristic] shouldn’t exist’.” Also included are “[e]xclusion…in the form of…aspirational or conditional statements…advocating… [e]xplicit exclusion, which means things like expelling certain groups or saying they are not allowed…”
Violence and Incitement – Meta’s moderation policy calls for the removal of “violent speech targeting a person or group of people on the basis of their protected characteristic(s),” as well as “statements or visuals representing an intention, aspiration, or call for violence against a target,” which “can be expressed in various types of statements such as statements of intent, calls for action, advocacy, aspirational statements and conditional statements.”
Dangerous Organizations and Individuals – Under this policy, Meta removes glorification of “Tier 1 entities,” as well as “content that [g]lorifies, [s]upports, or [r]epresents ideologies that promote hate,” including “unclear references to these designated…ideologies.”
Analysis
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is violative of all three of these Meta policies. As the phrase’s origins and continued use show, it is popularized by a “Tier 1 entity,” Hamas, and represents its ideology of the destruction of the Jewish state. It is a call for the violent destruction of Israel and the exclusion or subjugation of its people from “Palestine.” While a full analysis isn’t feasible within the length limits imposed by the Board, a few points in particular are worth bearing on in the context of whether any restrictions of the phrase would satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality.
In regard to necessity, the harm resulting from the surge in antisemitic rhetoric and attacks has reached critical levels. The Board itself has recognized that there is always an elevated risk in the context of armed conflict in terms of the harm that can be wrought by hate speech and incitement.[12] The Board has also signaled it considers “the broader context of online and offline harms” a protected community is facing.[13] In the Post in Polish Targeting Trans People decision, the Board also noted the “traumatic psychological impact of being relentlessly exposed to slurs and hateful conduct online” as support for its conclusion, along with the “broader context of online and offline harms” the protected community was facing.
In this regard, the evidence of an inundation of violent antisemitism is overwhelming. Studies show, for example, a shocking surge in antisemitism on campuses, with three-quarters of Jewish students reporting having experienced or witnessed antisemitism on campus just within the first few months of the 2023-24 academic year.[14] Indeed, in the United States, a February 2024 survey found that close to two-thirds of Jews said they felt less safe than a year ago and that nearly half have had to alter their behavior over the past year to avoid antisemitism.[15]
These feelings are supported by the data. In the United States, the ADL recorded an unprecedented rise in antisemitic incidents, with 8,873 incidents of assault, harassment, and vandalism in 2023, a 140% increase from 2022, and a spike of 5,204 antisemitic acts just after October 7.[16] In the United Kingdom, an all-time record of 4,103 antisemitic incidents were recorded in 2023, more than twice the figure in 2022.[17] In France, antisemitic acts quadrupled in 2023 compared to 2022, the worst spike on record, with nearly 60% of the acts “involving physical violence, threatening words or menacing gestures.”[18] Data is also showing belief in anti-Jewish tropes is growing, and that younger generations, who grew up on social media, are significantly more likely to believe the tropes than older generations.[19]
Much of this is connected to the annihilationist ideology of which “from the river to the sea” represents, demonstrating a genuine risk of physical harm and direct threats to public safety. Indeed, Jews have been attacked,[20] driven out of public gatherings,[21] and blocked from accessing universities by those chanting the “from the river to the sea” slogan.[22] Top law enforcement officials have stated that the terror threat since the October 7 massacre is at unprecedented levels they had never seen.[23] Indeed, one need only consider the October 7, 2023 massacre carried out by Hamas, which was an attempt at manifesting its “from the river to the sea” ideology, to see how this hateful ideology leads to unspeakable crime and violence targeting civilians.
Given the growing attacks and marginalization of the Jewish and Israeli communities, there is a clear “pressing social need” for intervention.[24] The danger is perhaps best illustrated by a 2023 study which examined an “ecosystem of antisemitism, complete with online and real-world spikes in antisemitism, robust social cyber signals, coded language, and moral outrage” in the context of the Israel-Hamas war in 2021. As articulated by the study’s authors:
Warfare during the May 2021 Gaza-Israel conflict sparked the largest increase of online mentions of social justice terms like “apartheid”, “colonialism” and “settler” in the history of social media. A key finding in this respect is that the language of human rights becomes extremely eroded (i.e., completely misappropriated) on social media with respect to Israel, thereby losing its meaning and intent in the human rights realm. The authors further demonstrate that these “social justice terms” become co-opted as “weaponized conflict language,” which create an overwhelming volume of racialized, demonizing, and unprecedented double standards against Israel. The scale and intensity of this phenomena suggest that this activity is antisemitic, due to clear matching of the criteria set out in IHRA definition of antisemitism. Warfare during the Gaza-Israel conflict also sparked the largest increases in anti-Israel protests and antisemitic incidences in recent history in the United States. Notably, NCRI data suggests that expressions of that outrage on social media corresponded in both time and location with anti-Israeli protests and antisemitic acts and incidents.[25]
Given this surrounding context, there is a legitimate necessity falling under the exceptions provided in international law, including: the rights or reputations of others (ICCPR art. 19(3)(a); the protection of national security and public order (ICCPR art. 19(3)(b); and propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred (ICCPR art. 20).
In regard to proportionality, it is important to note that restricting the use of the phrase “from the river to the sea” is minimally intrusive. Even if one accepts the revisionist claim that it for some the phrase is just an “aspirational call for freedom,” any restriction on the “river to the sea” phrase would not impose any barrier on activists advocating against whatever real or imagined injustices they perceive. The use of the plethora of other chants and phrases utilized by the anti-Israel movement would remain unimpeded. It should not be a difficult ask for those who seek to advocate for Palestinian rights to do so without adopting the annihilationist language of a designated terrorist organization which openly advocates for the murder of Jews everywhere.[26]
It is also worth noting the Depiction of Zwarte Piet decision of the Board, in which the Board stated: “the Hate Speech Community Standard, including the rule on blackface, does not require a user to intend to attack people based on a protected category.”[27] That is, under the Board’s interpretations, even if some use the phrase as a call for freedom, the intent does not matter in light of the widely recognized and longstanding annihilationist meaning of the phrase.
Palestine deserves to be free. This is a basic human right.
It is not hate speech to say so.
Please uphold our right to deee speech
In my opinion, the phrase, "From the river to the sea" is neither hateful nor violent. I am aware of it's origins. It is a call for peace and equality. While both sides of this conflict use the phrase to their own aims, restricting one side is hardly fair or equitable. With free speech in mind, it shouldn't be censored or muted.
Comments that involved from river to the see should be allow on social media
The slogan "from the River to the Sea" implies support for a one state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a single Palestinian state covering all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean coast.
This implies Israel ceasing to exist, and is a core demand of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups.
This negates the right to national self-determination of the Jewish people. The IHRA definition of antisemitism, adopted by many governments, gives as an example of antisemitism "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination".
Given that Israel is not going to dissolve itself, such a call implies use of sufficient violence to militarily defeat the IDF, and presumably ethnically cleanse or commit genocide against Israeli Jews who resist being part of this new political entity. Hence the slogan is usually seen as a call to terrorist violence, and is deeply offensive and disquieting to Israelis and other Jews.
Hello,
I am making this comment as a white American citizen of European decent. I live in a community with a high density of both Arab and Jewish communities. My friends and acquaintances in the Arab community are suffering immensely mentally and emotionally because their innocent family members and friends are being slaughtered daily. The phrase “from the river to the sea” is a call for the FREEDOM of Palestinians. It is a call for an end to the Apartheid that Israel has imposed on them for 75 years. It is a phrase akin to “Justice and Liberty for All”. There is nothing about the phrase that supports the oppression of Jews. My Jewish friends and acquaintances, many of them with family members living in Israel, proudly say the phrase as well. They know that the world is better place when there is freedom for all.
Banning or censoring this phrase will cause an uproar unlike any you have seen. You will be silencing a movement for peace and freedom.
It's NOT a hate speech, instead it is a call for freedom and hope for many displaced Palestinians everywhere. The world agrees with this.
from the river to the sea
As a user of Meta platforms, I urge you to reverse your platforms' stance on the phrase 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' a phrase which is coming under increasing unfounded censorship despite the fact that it is at its essence a call for peace and liberation for all. Meta needs to stop censoring and flagging pro-Palestinian sentiments as hate speech and create tighter policies around actual hate speech such as slurs, transphobia, racism, and anti-semitism.
Free Palestine
This is not hate speech. It is a desire for a state in which "Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating them” - Yousef Munayyer, Palestinian-American writer
The phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is not only peaceful, it calls for freedom for all people living in historic Palestine between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea. Nowhere has this phrase been used as a threat to Jewish people in the region, or anywhere. It calls for an end to the apartheid state of Israel, which regularly breaks international law and considers those who are not Jewish to be second class citizens. It calls for freedom for all those in the region, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian or otherwise. The phrase demands an end to the racist, undemocratic, and violent system which oppresses those whose ancestors lived in that land. Calling for freedom in the land of historic Palestine is not a violent statement, freedom for Palestine does not harm anyone. Banning or removing posts that contain this phrase will prevent a positive message of solidarity with those living under the apartheid regime and with those who live in fear of Israel's bombs killing their children, friends and families.