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
I am an Indian (Hindu) living in Canada. I have also traveled (road trips) through the region (i.e., Turkey, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon in the mid-1990s, and Israel since the late 2000s) and know it at a more personal level.
A historical look at the legitimacy of Arab claims shows that few if any Arabs lived and developed the Levant region (Israel area) over their 1400-year control (leading up to the 1870s with subsequent development initiated by Jews who also catalyzed the movement of Arabs to the Israel area). Meanwhile, Israel's historical right to the area predates Islam and Christianity - with archeological sites tied to biblical stories and places - and the Jews want to develop and live peacefully in the area. From an ideological standpoint, both the Bible and the Quran acknowledge the area as belonging to the Jews.
An in-depth study of the region over the past 100 years shows that the Arabs who identify as Palestinian are bad-faith actors who want to eliminate Jews, with support from other ideological actors from the broader region.
- A two-state solution, on offer numerous times in the past, has consistently been rejected by Arabs.
- Most Jews from the entire region (27 Arab countries) have been expelled to Israel.
- Israel thrives with ~7 million Jews and ~2 million Arabs with broad civil rights for all (with the exception that Arabs are not mandated to serve in the army, but allowed to if they want).
- The stated goal of the Arab government of Palestine (Gaza), broadly supported by its people per polling data, is the elimination (death) of all Jews "from the river to the sea".
To chant this genocidal promise of extermination constitutes hate speech in my humble estimate.
P.S. I can provide corroborating evidence on all of my statements above - please ask if needed.
From the river to the sea is no longer a call for violence and yet you all will let zionists make death threats and call for genocide all over your websites/apps. Your company will be forever remembered as being complicit in multiple genocides. We will never forget the Rohingya or Palestinians that suffered because of your biases.
It would be very distressing to me as a citizen of the United States where free speech is a freedom we uphold, A meta-user, and a mother if Emma decided to ban these phrases, or remove these posts. I urge you to close these matters once and for all and allow freedom of expression.
The phrase "from the river to the sea," usually followed by 'Palestine will be free,' has no intrinsically anti-semitic content. I cannot speak to the history of the use of the phrase by Palestinians, but in contemporary Palestine Solidarity organizing in the United States it is used in contexts that affirm the human rights of the Palestinian people, and express the commitment that Palestinians should be able to live freely and safely in all of the lands that currently make up the state of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The assertion that Palestinians should be able to live freely and safely in that territory does not imply that others, including Israeli Jews, cannot also live freely and safely sharing the same lands. Contemporary Palestine Solidarity movements are careful to distinguish between Zionists and Jews, and consistently communicate a clear distinction between the two, directing their criticism and demands at the nation-state of Israel. Criticism of a nation state, its policies and practices are intrinsic elements of free speech, and do not constitute acts of bigotry or threats towards people based on their ethnic/cultural/religious identities.
My experience of the phrase "From the River to the Sea" has been nothing but peaceful. It is often followed by the phrase "Palestine shall be Free". A call for liberation is not a call for violence. I believe the Palestinian people are oppressed by Israel - they are restricted access to food, water, and movement along with other valuable resources more so lately since the height of the ongoing genocide. They are now experiencing a forced famine, restricted access to medical care, medicine, diapers, formula, and other lifesaving resources. Because Palestine exists between the Jordan River and the Sea, I believe that they should be free between that river and that sea, yes. Free to move about, free to access lifesaving care, free to not be bombarded and targeted, free to exist in peace in the land of their ancestors.
Israel's incessant killing of innocent civilians, mostly women and children, who are being maimed, starved, orphaned, and killed at alarming rates is not only an incitement of violence, but also an act of disproportionate violence I've never before witnessed in my lifetime. The quibbling over a statement such as "From the River to the Sea" in the face of pro-Palestinian media black outs and ongoing genocidal complicity by our country, its leaders, and many of its citizens is appalling and I would ask that resources be redirected to saving innocent lives like the hostages and the innocent civilians through a demand for a ceasefire and diplomatic means. Thank you
You cannot take those hashtags down that call for a ceasefire and an end to the occupation of Palestine. This is because is this censorship of Palestinian voices continue then the social media companies will bow down to the federal government which is already taking away the rights of so many Palestinians in order to voice their reality of the situation in Gaza. We need to uplift those who are voiceless who are facing a genocide and Palestinians are facing a genocide right now. We cannot restrict the Palestinian content coming out of Gaza because we need to hold accountable any media and government outlet that is letting the genocide continue against Palestinians.
Let's talk facts.
"From the river to the sea" is originally a Zionist slogan which communicated that European Jews were going to convert everything from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean into a Jewish state. This obviously required ethnic cleansing and subjugating the indigenous Palestinians.
"From the river to the sea" is embedded in the original charter of the most popular political party in Israel, Likud, which is also Netanyahu's party. They call for the active Jewish colonization and absorption of the lands that are Palestine (i.e., they are actively calling for and carrying out the destruction of Palestine).
"From the river to the sea," when used in reference to Palestine, is only part of the phrase. The rest is "Palestine will be free." It is a call for freedom.
It is not a call for destruction or genocide or ethnic cleansing like the Zionist usage does. It means what it says: Palestinians living in a state of freedom from the West Bank's eastern border (Jordan River) to Gaza's western border (Mediterranean Sea).
So, you might be a racist if:
1. You think it's only wrong for Palestinians to use the slogan when Zionists invented it and are still actively using it.
2. You think Palestinian freedom is somehow antisemitic or incompatible with Israel's existence.
“From the River to the Sea” is a colloquialism referencing the total plot of land annexed by the European allied coalition after WW2 and transferred from Palestinian ownership, to create Israel, forcibly so. The ICC recognizes Palestinian’s right to return. There is nothing inherently violent about referring to a truism regarding the totality of land which was colonized, unless of course you are referring to the inherent violence of colonialism itself. Leave the comments up. Free Palestine.
Given the history of the Arabs surrounding Israel specifically calling for Jews to be pushed into the sea, it is a known dog whistle for antisemites and Jew-haters. It’s a call for genecide against the Jewish people in Israel (and part of the call for genecide against Jews of the world.) The spokespeople of Iran and its proxies, including Hamas, specifically call for intifada against Jews around the world. The chant in Arab is “from water to water, Palestine is Arab” which means no other groups would remain.
The chant “from the river to the sea” is currently being used to support Hamas. Their charter was changed to make it more palatable to the west, but have in substance (as evidenced by Oct 7th attack) continued to honor the original wording of the charter. The chant is also a call in support of genocide, and in support of a genocidal terrorism organization. Because Canada and the USA acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorists organization, calls in support of this terror should be treated as agreement and complicity to this terror.
Although the phrase, "From the River to the Sea," is, in itself, a relatively innocuous phrase, and could be seen to have more than one meaning, it is clear to anyone who is paying attention to current events throughout the world, the phrase clearly advocates for clearing Palestine of Jews from "The River" to "The Sea." This means wiping out the State of Israel and all its inhabitants. This is not a statement that is appropriate for view on Facebook. It has too strong a connection to violence and has a clear anti-Semitic meaning for anyone aware of Middle East politics. The double meanings of the phrase should be enough to see it banned from use on the Facebook platform. I have seen, and had, other statements banned for far less intentions than this one. To do anything less would not be consistent with your policies and not living up to your usual standards as I understand them.
From the river to the sea is a call for Palestinian liberation and is in no way anti-Semitic. It literally says that Palestinians will gain the right to live and travel freely within their ancestral homeland that stretches from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea. There is no room to interpret it as anything other than a call for freedom and any attempt to do so is done with the intent to cause harm to Palestinians. The people of Palestine currently live under an apartheid regime controlled by the state of Israel. They are unable to travel within their homeland, they are attacked frequently by violent settlers, and they are unlawfully jailed without trial. They experience daily horrors of torture, murder, subjugation, and dehumanization at the hands of the oppressive Israeli apartheid system. It is not anti semitic to call for your freedom from an oppressor.
From the river to the sea is not hate speech in any way. Those who say otherwise feel threatened because they understand that the people wanting to be free (Palestinians) have reason to feel oppressed. Thus, these people (colonizers or colonizer sympathizers, ie Zionists) manufacture outrage and victimization in order for the legitimate victims of the violence and oppression to be overlooked and minimized.
From the river to the sea has historical origins that have only ever been built on a fervent wish for Palestinian freedom and equality. Israel cannot be all of the following: moral and just; an entirely Jewish state; and a full occupier of all land. Being the first negates their ability to do the rest. Palestinians want freedom, rights, and an end to apartheid. This can only be seen as a threat because they are asking for it from a government that refuses to acknowledge their human rights, continues to uphold apartheid, continues to manufacture reasons to kill innocent civilians, steals lands and evicts citizens from their homes, and continues to control access to water, food, and movement/travel. They refuse to relinquish any power over a people that have been controlled for over 75 years. When Palestinians say from the river to the sea, Zionists see it as a threat because they recognize that freedom from them is not possible under their current political/idealogical/genocidal aims. Zionists know that they refuse to live in unity with Palestinians, and so they attribute the Palestinian wish for freedom as something that can only exist with the nonexistence of Zionists. Sounds like they’re telling on themselves, doesn’t it?
“From The River To The Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” is NOT an inherently Jew hating phrase. The chant refers to Palestinian liberation and end to the occupation in the entirety of historic Palestine. Palestinian liberation and an end to the zionist occupation in NO way calls for the death of all Jews. The Israeli occupation government does NOT represent all Jews and to suggest otherwise is a grave generalization. To suggest that the safety of all Jews is inextricably linked with the existence of an ethno-nationalistic state is dangerous and removes the responsibility we all have in ensuring each other’s safety, including that of our Jewish siblings.
Palestinians and anti-zionists should not have their content taken down, shown to fewer viewers, or banned from sharing for speaking out agains genocide. The word genocide should not be flagged. Genocide is NOT a bad word, it IS a bad thing. Palestine is NOT a bad word and should not be flagged. We should not have to jump through hoops to discuss, criticize, and organize in OPPOSITION to genocide. We should all have the right to discourse on liberation and democracy.
For Meta to include the phrase "From the river to the sea" or any rhetoric/symbols used to call for a permanent ceasefire - which is to call for an end to the incessant brutalization and murdering of the Palestinian people - and an end to the apartheid state that is Israel - a state that has and continues to violate international and humanitarian laws by continuing this genocide - as "Hate Speech", "Violence and Incitement", and/or "Dangerous Organizations and Individuals" would be Meta continuing its history of remaining complicit and actively participating in absolutely atrocious genocides.
Additionally, for anyone to even think about considering this phrase to be in the same category as actual "Hate Speech", "Violence and Incitement", and/or "Dangerous Organizations and Individuals" is a slap in the face to the people belonging to the marginalized communities whom these guidelines are alleged to protect.
The phrase “from the river to the sea” does NOT violate Meta’s guidelines, thus should not be restricted on any Meta platforms. Removing posts containing this phrase is a direct infringement on 1st amendment right and suppresses content from a targeted group of people, which constitutes discrimination.
There has been so much censorship towards people just trying to Stop the killing of innocent ppl. No one is asking for the annihilation of jews or judaism... in fact there are a plethora of Jewish people who are against the genocide in Gaza. Zionism just like white supremacy is the issue. Killing an entire people to settle on their land is the issue. Occupation, Apartheid, and Genocide are literally what we are trying to Stop...but meta and a lot of media outlets are trying to convey a different story and then they censor what's actually going on to keep the genocide going... all for money and greed and land, like what?
"From the river to the sea" is not a quote about attacking anyone... it's a quote about resistance towards these capitalist systems that are trying to keep everyone in control so they can continue to drain the world and its people of every resource for their own greed.
“From the River to the Sea” is a call for basic rights and equality for the people in the land of historic Palestine. Not all Jews are Zionists. In fact, many Jews are on the forefront of the pro Palestine movement. There is also a SIZABLE portion of Christians who identify themselves as Zionists. Simple use of the term is not itself antisemitism.
I have witnessed both written and verbal statements that include “from the river to the sea” by protesters that clearly state they support hamas despite it being a terrorist group, and moreover, fully acknowledge they understand it means the destruction of Israel, Zionists, and Jews. Let’s all be honest, this is absolutely a form of hate speech and should not be allowed. I am in favor of free speech BUT not hate speech. It’s not productive. It’s beyond ironic that the people who claim they want to prevent genocide of Palestinians are the ones who seem to most want genocide via the elimination of Jews. Insane and shameful.
Freedom of speech. You don’t get to police this and not other languages that are actually violent and inciting of it. It will be lawsuit after lawsuit. To ban this is to be siding on racism and complicit in genocide. Evolve already. Be on the right side of history. Censoring is never it. You will definitely plummet as a true space of communication and engagement.
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Don't forget there is a second part to this phrase which reinforces liberation of Palestine. I refer you to the UN resolution 3236 that reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property.