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
"From the river to the sea" is a call for peace and equality after 75 years of Israeli statehood and decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians. Limiting the free speech of Palestinians and allies of Palestinian independence is a grave mistake and rooted in Islamophobia and racism.
It is a genocidal statement that claims Israelis and espesially Jews should be ethnically cleansed from their homeland. Even putting aside the fact that Judeah is historically the Jewish homeland, 70%+ of Israelis WERE BORN IN ISRAEL.
This is literally our home and calling for us to either be mass murdered or to be driven out of our country with nowhere else to go is completely antisemitic and quite frankly absurd.
Regarding the phrase, “From the river to the sea,” as it pertains to the Palestinian struggle for freedom and independence:
In the United States, we sing “From sea to shining sea,” regarding a land that was not originally ours.
In Canada, their national motto is “From sea to sea.” Canadian land, like American land, is stolen Indigenous land.
In the UK, “from shore to shore,” in France, “from one ocean to the other,” and in Russia, “from ocean to ocean.”
None of these slogans or mottos from colonizing powers is considered problematic, offensive, or genocidal. Only the slogan used in the anti-colonialist positioning of the Palestinian people in their fight for freedom is criticized.
If “From the River to the Sea” is deemed unacceptable for Facebook, so to must all other similar national slogans or sayings.
If these other slogans are not banned by Facebook, then “From the River to the Sea” must not be.
When I first became aware of the phrase " from the river to the sea" I was struck by it's simple beauty and deep meaning. While I understand that some people consider it representative of harm to another group, that is most definitely not true. It is a phrase of quiet strength, invoking a harmonious existence for all people's. There is nothing inherently violent or discriminatory in the phrase. Many people willfully choose to misrepresent the phrase to further their own aims, which intellectually and morally bankrupt. The phrase is a symbol of strength, love , beauty and harmony. It is the hope that any and all people's living in that area have the ability to live unmolested and free, to live in harmony with one another. There is no historical context in which this phrase has been used to incite violence. So meta, in conclusion, I urge you to rule correctly and protect free speech. Do not disallow the phrase " from the river to the sea" it is peaceful and beautiful and you would be committing a collosal wrong doing should you ban it's use.
"From the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is a demand for democratic coexistence between Jews and Arabs.
I agree with the information, opinion and analysis in the following piece, written by Dr. Stephen Zunes: https://truthout.org/articles/dont-buy-the-right-wing-disinformation-campaign-on-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
The phrase "from the river to the sea" is being deliberately used as a censorship weapon. The billionaire funded and well equiped lobbyists know that this phrase has been a chant for freedom for ALL, Jews and Palestinians, in the region for decades. This phrase was first coined by Israelis themselves. The Likud charter in the 70s used it. Later, multiple Israeli politicians used it - including Netanyahu recently. This phrase is being suggested as "hate speech" to stifle legitimate crticism of Israeli policies and war crimes. Not being able to use this phrase freely on Meta and other platforms would be a huge blow to free speech around the world. What kind of example do we want to set? Do we really want billionaire funded lobbyists (across the political spectrum) dictating what is hateful and what is not?
The Center for Democracy & Technology welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on cases 2024-004-FB-UA, 2024-005-FB-UA, 2024-006-FB-UA regarding posts that included the phrase “from the river to the sea.”
Meta maintained posts made in November 2023 that included the phrase “from the river to the sea.” The posts were made after the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas and reported by users. Users appealed Meta’s action on the grounds that the posts violated Meta’s policies on Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement, or Dangerous Organizations and Individuals.
Context is Necessary to Determine Whether the Phrase “From the River to the Sea” Violates Meta’s Policies Regarding Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement, or Dangerous Organizations and Individuals
The phrase “from the river to the sea,” referring to land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, abbreviates the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” The phrase has a long history but has gained prominence in public discourse since the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attack and Israel’s subsequent military response. The meaning of most turns of phrase is context-specific and should be judged on that basis, especially in circumstances where a diversity of speakers are using the same phrase differently. Accordingly, whether the use of the phrase “from the river to the sea” violates Meta’s policies on Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement, or Dangerous Organizations will depend on the context in which it is used.
Meta’s Hate Speech policy prohibits attacks, including dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, expressions of contempt or disgust, cursing, and calls for exclusion or segregation against people on the basis of certain characteristics, including religious affiliation and national origin. The policy addresses attacks on people, and expressly excludes such attacks on concepts and institutions. Meta’s policy further clarifies that “content attacking concepts, institutions, ideas, practices, or beliefs associated with protected characteristics, which are likely to contribute to imminent physical harm, intimidation or discrimination against the people associated with that protected characteristic” may violate the policy on hate speech, but additional context is necessary to make such a determination. Meta’s Violence and Incitement policy prohibits content that “incites or facilitates violence and credible threats to public or personal safety.” Meta’s policies prohibit threats of violence that could lead to death or serious injury, and additionally prohibits threats of low-severity violence directed at persons or groups of people on the basis of protected characteristics. Meta’s policy on Dangerous Organizations and Individuals prohibits “organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence.” Meta’s policy addresses content and platform participation by “Tier I Organizations” and “Tier II Organizations.” Tier I organizations are entities that engage in serious offline harms, including United States Government-designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, such as Hamas, and Tier II organizations are those that “engage in violence against state or military actors in an armed conflict but do not intentionally target civilians.” Meta’s policy expressly permits discussion of the actions of Tier I and Tier II organizations and discussion of the human rights of the members of these entities that does not cross into glorification, material support, or representation of the entities or otherwise violate Meta’s policies. Meta also prohibits content that glorifies, supports, or represents events designated as terrorist attacks, hate events, multiple-victim violence, hate crimes, and other similar events. Meta designated the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas a terrorist attack under this policy, thereby prohibiting content that praised, substantively supported, or represented the October 7 attack or its perpetrators.
In light of these policies, Meta’s decision to maintain each of the three contested posts must be judged based on the context in which the phrase “from the river to the sea” was used and whether, in light of that context, the post attacked individuals on the basis of their national origin or religious affiliation, incited violence or credible threats to public safety, or glorified, provided material support, or represented actions of a Tier I or Tier II organization.
As these cases illustrate, Meta should work to improve oversight of automated processes, moderator guidance, transparency, and commit to periodic evaluations of relevant policies to strike the right balance between user safety and free expression.
Meta’s commitment to upholding human rights, and its outsized role in serving as the platform for the free expression and political organizing, make it especially critical that Meta has policies and procedures in place to adequately assess the context in which phrases like “from the river to the sea” are used, particularly in situations where there is ongoing political and armed conflict.
In view of the potential for offline violence and physical injury, takedowns of posts and other strikes against a user account can be appropriate enforcement action in certain cases. Yet, overbroad enforcement can suppress critical dissent, political advocacy, protests, allyship, and news coverage in which the phrase may feature. Further clarification of Meta’s hate speech policies and what constitutes incitement of violence under the company’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy will offer both users and moderators guidance on what is and is not permissible on the platform. For example, rather than specify that Meta prohibits glorification of “hate crimes,” which vary by jurisdiction, Meta should clarify that its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy prohibits glorification of both hate crimes and violence against an individual or group on the basis of their immigration status or protected characteristics as defined in Meta’s hate speech policy.
Each of the three posts at issue in this case were initially reviewed by Meta’s automated system, after being flagged by users, and were not initially flagged for human review, though the second post eventually was examined by human moderators. The fact that Meta relies so heavily on automated review processes for posts that may require nuanced assessments highlights strongly that automated and human review systems should undergo periodic evaluations and human rights impact assessments to ensure equitable and consistent enforcement of policies. Even a narrow and well-tailored content policy can be insufficient at scale and subject to erroneous interpretations, particularly by machine enforcement in situations where context is critical to determining whether a particular post violates the policy. Human rights groups have previously reported that erroneous and inconsistent application of Meta’s content policies has led to systematically burdening the free expression rights of marginalized speakers, specifically Palestinian users.
Audits and assessments of automated tools is particularly important as Meta increases its use of large language models trained on scraped language from the internet to moderate content. These models may have hoovered up speech from different corners of the internet and may be vulnerable to the implicit or explicit biases present online. As a result, evaluating and stress-testing these models is critical to ensure models don’t scale implicit biases present in training data and burden the rights of speakers, including in languages other than English. Meta should also make the results of these tests public to the degree possible and should detail if and how it adjusts its processes and policies to respond to the test results.
Meta should also evaluate the processes it uses to determine when and whether a post reviewed by an automated system should be reviewed by human moderators. In this case, automated review tools were relied upon when users flagged posts for violating the terms of service. Automated review tools too may have shortcomings and not understand rapidly changing environments. As a result, Meta should, at a minimum, assess when human reviewers should be in the loop to consider context and exercise discretion around borderline posts and whether there are circumstances where human involvement in review of certain content should increase at least temporarily.
These human reviewers also should be provided guidance especially in instances of conflict. Meta should provide guidance to moderators including examples of contexts in which the use of the phrase rises to the level of violating Meta’s policies and and when they do not. Meta should accompany these examples with a set of Known Questions or Implementation Standards that allow moderators to assess the context of the speech they are reviewing, particularly to equip moderators to review speech in quickly changing environments. Meta should also engage the experts at the Oversight Board and civil society organizations who have relevant expertise when developing this framework and other moderator guidance.
Additionally, changes to these policies and enforcement of them should be done transparently. Users should be provided notice when a post of theirs has been removed or suppressed due to a user report. User notices should include whether the post has been reviewed by an automated tool, a human moderator, or both to equip users to seek adequate remedy. As CDT has documented in the past, automated content analysis tools may be more error prone in languages other than English due to the dearth of high quality training resources in these languages.
From the River to the Sea should be an allowed phrase as it is Facebook’s duty to protect free speech.
The phrase "from the river to the sea" has often been misinterpreted and vilified in contemporary discourse. Originally, it was a slogan used by the Likud Party in 1976, reflecting territorial ambitions of extremist within Israel. Over time, Palestinians coopted the phrase to signify their aspirations for freedom and self-determination across historic Palestine. However, the reinterpretation of this slogan by some media and political figures as a call for the extermination of Israelis is deeply rooted in racist assumptions.
The notion that Palestinian freedom necessitates the death of Israelis is grounded in the dehumanizing stereotype of Palestinians as barbarians whose liberation would inherently lead to violence against innocents. This perspective is steeped in anti-Arab and anti-Islamic biases, reflecting a long-standing prejudice that equates Palestinian identity with violence. Importantly, the phrase "from the river to the sea" does not evoke any anti-Semitic tropes but reinforces the Islamophobic and anti-Arab trope that all Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians are violent and terrorists.
In reality, this interpretation requires significant mental leaps. The desire for freedom and equality for one group does not logically imply the annihilation of another. Yet, this flawed logic is frequently used to perpetuate white supremacist ideologies, which historically have viewed the liberation of oppressed groups as a direct threat to the oppressors' existence. For instance, during slavery in the United States, the idea that the freedom of Black people would lead to the violent overthrow of white slave masters was a common fear used to justify continued oppression.
Similarly, the portrayal of Palestinian aspirations as inherently violent serves to justify ongoing suppression and ignores the legitimate desire for self-determination and human rights. Banning this phrase not only misrepresents reality but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes that dehumanize both Palestinians and Arabs.
Rampant Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment on platforms like Facebook and in the United States in general have led to tragic consequences, including the death of a 6-year-old child, numerous physical assaults, the shooting of three college students, and the stabbing of two other individuals. By conflating any aspirations for Palestinian freedom with antisemitism, the argument implies that Palestinians are not entitled to sovereignty because of their alleged violent nature. This narrative not only denies Palestinians their rights but also fuels further hatred and violence against Arab and Muslim communities.
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is not inherently hateful nor antisemitic. The phrase reflects a hope of freedom and liberty, the way “land of the free” does in the US. It is about a people being able to live freely on the entirety of a land with natural borders like “from sea to shining sea.”
When Israel was established in 1948, more than 750,000 Palestinians were displaced from cities and villages from the land between the (Jordan) river and the (Mediterannean) sea into the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. Their homes and furniture have either been confiscated by Israelis or totally destroyed [1]. Until today, Israel denies the right of return to those displaced refugees and their descendants despite UN Resolution 194 [2]. Hence, it is a legitimate call to demand to free the land between the river and sea to allow Palestinians to return to their homeland.
[1] "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", Pappe, Ilan, 2006.
[2] The United Nations General Assembly adopts resolution 194 (III), resolving that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” https://www.unrwa.org/content/resolution-194
The first proven utterance of the phrase “from the River to the sea, Palestine will be free” occurred over a decade after the Likud party of Israel, who is currently its ruling party, used “from the river to the sea” to swear to take all land from the Palestinians as well as land from neighboring countries in their party’s founding charter which is available via the Israeli archives for the public to view. Claims by that party of the phrase having genocidal intent is mere projection by a group of people that have now been credibly accused by several international organizations of committing genocide. Policing of language used by victims of genocide in the defense of their own lives is morally reprehensible behavior that clearly takes the side of the group of people intent on their massacre. As a reminder, past genocidal regimes who are known to history as criminals, did the same to their victims.
Just as the call for qual rights and freedom for black people did not mean the annihilation of white people and the call for women's equal rights and freedom did not mean the annihilation of men, the call for equal rights and freedoms of Palestinians does not mean the annihilation of Jewish people. Everyone used to live in peace in the region and it's a call to return to that equaly. The phrase only seeks equal rights and freedom for Palestinians. The phrase began as an Israeli call for the annihilation of Palestinians and Palestinians rephrased it only as a call for equality.
"From the river to the sea" is a call for the freedom of all people in the land from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea. It's a call for the end of the occupation of all the people who live in that area. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
Time travel 70 years ago and you will notice that from the river to the sea it was the Palestinians who were the owner of the land and they have right over it. It doesn’t make sense that any country can illegally occupy a nation and demand it’s theirs. Would any other country in the west allow this to happen? When asked or resisted they commit genocide on the people who are rightful owners of the nation. How is this even fare to kill 15000 children and 25000 others just to get rid of people from their land. This is absurd. Hence
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
There is nothing wrong or offensive with River to the Sea, hence shouldn’t be blocked or prohibited on any social platform.
This phrase means an end to violence against all parties and a call for palestinians to be able to return to their own homes.
To me, it is a call for peace and justice - for equal rights for Palestinians from the river to the sea, who have existed under the *longest military occupation in modern history.*
I'm fully with Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, in saying that it's an "aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.”
Im with representatives of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in saying it is "a demand for democratic coexistence between Jews and Arabs."
I'm aligned with London Labor PM, Andy McDonald, in saying that it is a call for "justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty."
I agree with Palestinian-American writer, Yousef Munster, that 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”
And I stand with Rama Al Malah, organizer with Palestinian Youth Movement, that it is a call for "the return of [5.9 million] refugees who have been kicked out of their homes from 1948 till now."