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
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is antisemetic. It is used to say there will no Israel, Israelis, or Jews in the Middle East and as a call for violent removal of Jews from their native land. It is now being used by terrorists and domestic terrorists on college campuses. Antisemitism on Meta platforms runs rampant. Every time I report a comment filled with hate speech, false information, or threat, it’s deemed the opposite. That this phrase is even up for debate is asinine.
My heart is here for humanity. For the right to exist, for dignity, for peace.
“From the river to the sea” is a phrase that has been used for many, many years by Palestinians. It came about in the 1960s and is supportive of equal rights.
As Rashida Tlaib, who has family in the West Bank and is Congress’ only Palestinian-American tweeted
“From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.” I am in full agreement with her explanation.
In addition, following Truthout.orgs article, “Don’t Buy the Right-Wing Disinformation Campaign on “From the River to the Sea”, I was made
aware of The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which is signed by hundreds of scholars of antisemitism and widely acknowledged as one of the definitive definitions of antisemitism, particularly in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it explicitly states that the phrase is not antisemitic.
In another article by Vox.com, “ The controversial phrase “from the river to sea,” explained”, it states
that the question of whether “from the river to the sea” is offensive or a call for liberation is a “Rorschach test,” as the writer Robert Wright put it in a recent Substack post. The answer is dependent less on the phrase itself than on the speaker, the listener, and the context.
So here we are.
The phrase used for 60+ years is now gaining attention as we started chanting it in the U.S.
Western media and politics are wrapping themselves up in this phrase as a way to try to divide and cause fear. We cannot allow this to continue. We cannot allow our first amendment right to freedom of speech to be threatened. We shouldn't censor this phrase or phrases like this, and especially when context surrounding it doesn’t display any violence or threats. Metas first round of investigation closed these reports because they lacked merit and there was no context inciting hatred, violence, etc. The claims against this phrase continue to lack merit and therefore should be closed again.
Stop the censorship!
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
"From the river to the Sea" originally began as an Israeli slogan mean that they would take for themselves all of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
It is now currently being conflated as an anti-Semitic phrase or saying, when in fact it began that way and was then retaken and repurposed by Palestinians, as a phrase of hope, with a goal to reclaim their occupied indigenous lands, to be able to live in peace and safety, without apartheid.
The apartheid state of Israel has been committing a slow genocide of the Palestinian people since 1948, and even before, intensifying it in October of 2023.
Israel armed forces have now killed at least 40,000 known Palestinians with an unknown amount buried under the rubble of destruction that Israel itself has caused.
That is genocide. It is genocide of Semitic people, the palestinians. And that is anti-Semitic. There is nothing on this Earth that is more hateful, the consequence of the incitement to violence, than genocide.
From the River to the Sea
May Palestine forever be free
You are enabling genocide by silencing Palestinian voices. For years you have let racists say whatever they want, harassing creators of color unceasingly. But speaking out against genocide isn’t allowed. Meta is complicit in multiple genocides. I don’t know how to convince the people who run Meta that a human life is worth more than stock value. But that’s what happens when you kill your own soul by worshipping the dollar over living, breathing humans.
I agree with the boards assessment that from the river to the sea is not a phrase that should be deemed as hate speech or against community guidelines. This phrase is a popular slogan for the free Palestine movement alluding to the historical lands of Palestine from which many Palestinians were displaced. This slogan is used to call for the right of return of Palestinian displaced in the 1948 Nakba and further displacement that occurred in 1967. Those opposed to the phrase are trying to ignore the historical context and re write the intentions behind the phrase to fit their own narrative.
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is a call for freedom for all Palestinians. This includes all of those who are of Palestine, including those who are Jewish. To say it is anti-semitic is to deny the existence of said Jewish Palestinians, which is actually anti-semitic in itself. Further more, the call for freedom is against Israel which is not a religion, but a an occupation.
The reports to prevent the use of the phrase, “from the river to the sea” are unsubstantiated and politically motivated in order to suppress free speech. It does not advocate the harm of anyone and is often used only in context of the desire for the liberation for Palestinian people from an illegal Israeli military occupation in violation of international law. If indeed it were considered for a ban, then all posts that reference the Israeli Likud political party charter should be banned for using a similar phrase: “between the sea and the Jordan (river) there will be only Israeli sovereignty.” Moreover, if a two state solution were implemented, as has been the course of discussion since the 1993 Oslo Accords, it would include Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank from the river Jordan to Gaza on the Mediterranean Sea. Thus, this is simply a factual geographical description of an envisioned Palestinian state per international agreements. There are far more legitimately concerning offensive comments and epithets made on Facebook and social media that truly warrant concern. This is not one of them.
I find it so disingenuous of Meta to condemn phrases rather than actual violence and violations of international law. I understand that is not the topic at hand but the phrase from the river to the sea is certainly not calling for the genocide of Jews. Any serious academic or historian will let you know the origins of the phrase. It is calling for the liberation of the Palestinian people. Full and equal rights to Jewish citizens. There is no vulgarity or obscenity in the phrase. There is much harsher language used on Meta. Meta has lost my faith in its adherence to values and principles. I am actively looking to move away from all Meta products and services because of it's extremism to one side.
This phrase is not hate speech. It is a slogan to describe a geographical ancestral land. It is not meant to intimidate or threaten. People have the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech in Canada and the United States. Meta is an American company that should be living those values. Any biased and discriminatory action taken aganist a people based on their origin, race or ethnicity is illegal. Suppressing voices on a public platform would be in full violation of their rights.
"From the river to the sea" is primarily used by pro Palestinian activists to advocate for freedom, democracy, and equal rights in historic Palestine, not for the removal of Jews there. Inasmuch as anyone uses it to advocate the supremacy of one group or the removal of another in that region, it is usually right wing Zionists calling for the continuation of Jewish supremacy and the suppression of Palestinian rights. Whether Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism in the early 20th century, or Benjamin Netanyahu using the phrase in the Likud charter, it has been used longer and more often to push for sole Jewish rights than for Palestinian rights, whether exclusive or equally shared. Again, those using the phrase in the context of current pro Palestinian advocacy are using it to call for freedom and equality for all.
The phrase is widely used by terrorist organizations such as Hamas which call for Israel’s destruction. Geographically it calls 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 antisemitic phrase makes members of the Jewish and pro-Israel community feel unsafe. Demanding justice for Palestinians, should not mean, as this hateful phrase posits, denying the right of the State of Israel to exist.
This phrase calls for the erasure of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state. It is a veiled call for the genocide of the Jewish people and all others who live in Israel. It’s cruel and offensive for meta to deem it anything other than a call for violence against Jews.
The sentence fragment "From the river to the sea" cannot be understood without that which is meant to follow it: "Palestine will be free."
"From the river to the sea" refers to the 1920-1948 borders of Mandatory Palestine. Since then, the Zionist project launched by Theodor Herzl, who himself referred to it as a colonial project, has been occupying this land. This occupation has been termed by the UN as illegal. Its establishment has required the massacre and ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian non-Jewish people. For decades, the small fraction of land remaining known as Palestine has been under siege, with Palestinians having highly limited movement, and limited access to food, water, and employment. Palestinians who have been ethnically cleansed are not allowed to return to their land. These are some of the ways in which Palestine is currently considered to not be free. In this way, the saying "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" refers to the elimination of apartheid conditions. It can further be interpreted as urging control over the land to be transferred to Palestinians, or that they at least be involved in the government of these lands.
The most common interpretation of "from the river to the sea" that causes concern is that which considers it as being a phrase calling for genocide against the Jewish people. This is not the intention of the saying, and frankly, I have never seen an instance of it being used that way, though I have heard the phrase many times both on- and offline. Many Jewish people and Jewish organizations also advocate for the freedom of Palestine, such as Independent Jewish Voices and Jewish Voice for Peace.
It would be reasonable to interpret the saying as calling for the dissolution of the state of Israel, which some consider to be an antisemitic idea. I see this concern as being rooted in the conflation between the separate ideas of a nation and a state. It is only in recent history (19th and 20th centuries) that the nation-state has become the norm, and it has come with considerable harm, given the speed with which it was followed by the Holocaust and violent white nationalism. Many Jewish people prefer to celebrate the diaspora, over the engagement in the amount of violence necessary to take over a land that already has an existing population, particularly in light of the Jewish principles of peace, justice, and avoidance of creating harm. Similarly, many consider that the conflation of the Jewish people with the state of Israel contributes to antisemitism, in that it asserts that all Jewish people would support the crimes of ethnic cleansing and apartheid committed by the Israeli state.
To summarize, neither the origin nor the current use of the phrase "from the river to the sea" call for violence against the Jewish people. They are a criticism of the state of Israel: its occupation of Palestine, and its crimes against international law.
I will also address "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."
There has been considerable harm inflicted upon peaceful* pro-Palestinian protestors, primarily by the police, as well as by the very groups that would reject the phrase "from the river to the sea." The documentation of such violent practices in response to the peaceful practicing of the rights to free speech, free assembly, and protest constitute constitutional and human rights violations. In this way, the removal of any videos containing the phrase "from the river to the sea" would be highly detrimental in that it would erase context crucial to the understanding of such violations. It would even show support for such actions, in that both the violent dissolution of protestors and the removal of content containing the phrase are actions that silence dissent for a state (which, again, is not to be conflated with its people).
*Please note: in this context, vandalism and civil disobedience are being considered as fitting the definition of peaceful protest, because they are not harming living beings. Indeed, the breaking of a window should be considered in that it followed 6 months of bombing, the death of >40 000 people and the destruction of entire cities and communities, including the demolition of half of the hospitals and all of the universities in the Gaza strip, and the complicity of the home nations of these university occupations, ignoring entirely non-destructive marches, calls, and pleas for action.
The phrase, "from the river to the sea," must be understood according to its origins. This phrase originated and is still primarily used to call for the elimination and destruction of Israel, replacing it with a new country called Palestine, which has never existed. The phrase is used and perpetuated by terrorist groups, and it has been co-opted by movements in the US and elsewhere with little understanding of where the term originated by the vast majority of users. Ignorance, however, does not change its actual meaning. It is unacceptable to allow a phrase which calls for the decimation of an entire country and a people on any social media channel.
The use of the grade is no different to using the phrase “13 words” to reference white nationalism tendencies
While there may be justifications claimed you would not allow other phrases which have justifications for their use to cover a sinister and harmful meaning inciting the removal of a whole country and its peoples
Meta does not allow hate speech which encourages or advocates violence. The phrase ‘from the river to the sea’ means nothing more than the elimination of the state of Israel and it’s replacement with a ‘state of Palestine’ from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.
It does not have a benign meaning
Palestine is a land where people of all faith lived as equal citizens before Jewish supremacy ideology of Zionism entered the scene. Zionism has created a Jewish supremacist entity called Israel which gives natural right to become citizen from anywhere in the world just on condition that they follow Judaism regardless of the person’s previous faith. Israel has over 60 laws that gives exclusive privilege based on whether one follows Judaism or not. This is injustice!
To understand the slogan, 'From the river to the sea', one MUST examine Hamas charter, from which the slogan derives. Failure to understand the charter, and Hamas goals, precludes any fair and rational evaluation of the slogan.
The charter can be found here, in it's entirety. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp The first time you look at the charter, you may (or may not) be stuck by the date of 18 August 1988. Some (minor) efforts have been made since 1988 to make the charter more palatable to progressive/liberal/western viewers. Make no mistake - changes since 1988 are cosmetic. The goals of Hamas are unchanged.
I shall not attempt to copy/paste substantial portions of that charter here, please, click the link, and read the charter for yourself. Since attachments are limited to five pages, I don't believe that I can give the charter to you as an attachment. I will c/p a small portion that is pertinent to Meta's and all other social media moderation.
Within Article Seven, "Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."
From Article Thirteen:
"Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know.""
The charter clearly spells out Hamas strategy and tactics, which we have seen play out over the years. Hamas attacks Israel, Israel responds, Hamas cries for ceasefire, truce, or peace, and the world steps in, to attempt to force Israel to stop attacking. Immediately after the ceasefire, Hamas steals aid from the Palestinian people to stockpile for the next attack, whether that attack be delayed for months, or years. Hamas never stops arming up, never stops stockpiling war material, never stops depriving Palestinians of much needed aid.
From the river to the sea clearly spells out Hamas intention to destroy Israel, and to kill all Jews within the land of Israel.
Any other interpretation is dishonest. Read Hamas charter. All manner of fools and tools have taken up Hamas' chant, most of them failing to understand the ideology behind it.
"From the river to the sea" is anti-Semitic, and genocidal. The rocks and the trees will shout out for Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of reading Hamas charter. Failing to do so ensures that you do not understand the issue under examination. Read the charter. Please.
I am Jewish, an active member of my congregation, and very visible in my (mostly Christian) town as a member of the Jewish community. I have experienced antisemitism, as has my school-aged child.
I have NO problem with “from the river to the sea.”
It’s not antisemitic, and it’s not even necessarily anti-zionist—many of the people using it are hoping for a one-state solution with equal rights and protections for all.
Some of the people who use it may be antisemitic, and may use it with anti-Semitic intent, but this particular phrase is not going to be the litmus test that would tell you who the real antisemites are.
My understanding is that the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is assumed hate speech/antisemitic because it denies Israel the right to exist and/or assumes it is calling for a genocide of Jewish people.
Countries do not have rights. Humans in the country have rights. Conflating human rights with a country is a dangerous path to fascism.
My understanding is that many people who are calling for Palestine to be free, myself included, are just calling for freedom of a people. The assumption that the freedom of these people will lead to a genocide is racism/discrimination because it is attributing a violent characteristic, systemically, to a group of people.
Add to this the complexity that Israel is under investigation for genocide against Palestinians and it becomes a whole mess if “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is deemed hate speech/antisemitism.
This statement does not advocate for any violence against the state of Israel, instead advocating for the freedom of the Palestinian people from the violence and oppression visited on them by the Israeli government for decades. The Palestinian people deserve the same freedom, respect, dignity, and recognition as the Israeli settlers do and that is all this statement calls for.