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, Palestine will be free is a call for the freedom of the Palestinian people in their own country. To suggest otherwise is to admit that the opposite is true. Calls for freedom are not calls for genocide, and those that equate Palestinian freedom with ethnic cleansing only say that because the reverse is true. Israel understands that they want to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from the river to the sea so calls for Palestinian independence and freedom is taken in the same tone they themselves imply. If one persons freedom threatens you, it’s because you benefit from their oppression.
If you claim that this is hate speech it’s because you understand this. My freedom as a Palestinian is not hate speech. And to equate the two is racist and hateful in and of itself.
"from the river to the sea" is an expression that means the necessity of all people, Palestinians or juifs, have the same rights. That means the Palestine will be free, because people have rights and justice. Now the situation is oppression of Palestinian by the Israelian.
So I think "from the river to the sea" is a statement completely correct to affirm the universality of human rights and democratic government.
The "from the river to the sea" slogan is a translation of the Arabic "from the water to the water Palestine will be Arab". It is an obvious dog whistle to Jew haters calling for the genocide of Jews. At this point, people at hate rallies are chanting the Arabic version in both languages. They are telling you who they are. Listen to them. This isn't a chant for "freedom" it's a chant for the murder of Israelis.
‘From the river to the sea’ is a phrase that should not be banned or regulated by Meta. This is because it is a statement calling for freedom within the region from the river to the sea. Comments that attempt to paint this as violent are inaccurate and engage in bad faith — posters who emphasize ‘from the river to the sea’ are calling for freedom from oppression, cessation of violence, and peace from the river to the sea. This does not infringe any of Meta’s guidelines — moreover, it sends a message of peace and equality for all peoples living from the river to the sea and nothing else. Many bad faith actors attempt to taint the phrase by stating that it implies something else when it does not. To be successful, Meta must operate without bias towards language and without stifling free speech that is not violent.
The call “from the river to sea” calls for the Palestinian occupation of all lands between the Jordan River, which constitutes the border between Jordan(the country) and the Mediterranean Sea. That territory includes the State of Israel. Calling for its occupation implies that it will be destroyed and its citizens will be killed or subjugated at best. The most likely scénariste another genocide of millions of Jews in the hands of the blood thirsty terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and the like. Equally probable is the killing spree that will follow by significant elements of the Palestinian population determined to avenge the creation of the State of Israel. It is inevitable that another Jewish holocaust will ensue while the rest of the world will watch from a distance. The call is antisemitic and genocidal, period. Calling for the establishment of a single Palestinian state in all that territory is calling the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of its people. It’s a call for extreme violence, the ultimate violence that can be perpetrated on a designated nation with roots in the land that goes back to Biblical times.
The phrase "from the river to the sea" says nothing about hurting anyone, it simply refers to a unitary democratic state in historic Palestine, with equal rights for all. This after all is the modern democratic standard, a secular state with equal rights for its citizens. Now, Israel is constituted as the "state of the Jewish people", a race-based construct that needs systematic discrimination to subjugate Israel's Palestinian citizens, and great violence to subjugate the Palestinians of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Zionist and Israeli history are full of pronouncements of territorial ambitions, from the Nile to the Euphrates. People who complain about "from the river to the sea" are defending their power and privilege.
This phrase is a clear call for end of a state with a Democratic government and and end of its people. It is not a call for peace but a call for murder and statelessness.
This comment is in reference to the subject that I will not write down. This phrase is obvious in it’s content that the people that use it are referring to the elimination of Israel as it stands as a state now, and to be replaced by a group of people that believe they should be the people to control the land from the river to the sea, and have used it as a rallying cry in numerous protests, both violent and non violent, to arise the people to create an environment of hate and violence towards the state of Israel. They have taken the phrase and it has become a hateful and antisemitic phrase against the people of Israel. It also implies that the state of Israel and it people be eliminated and taken over by Palestinians, thereby eliminating the Israeli people, which in essence would be genocide which is by definition, a violent attack with the intent to destroy a group committed in either war or peace. Equivalent to the international crime that was committed in Nurenberg against the Jews.
It’s interesting that these cases come up now. I’m a philosophy professor who teaches about free speech. One of your previous cases had to do with the word shaheed (martyr) which many believe is a word that celebrates terror. In fact, one of my Palestinian students wrote about it for his essay. You found in this case that the word gets its meaning based on the specific context of individual cases where it’s used.. I agree.
But what of the phrase from the river to the sea? Does it get its meaning by context in the same way? Are the pro Palestinians trying to change the meaning of the phrase to justify its usage? And in this case should the focus be on the intentions of the speaker, the context, or the trauma inflicted on the hearer by this phrase no matter the context.
I would argue that the focus needs to be on the trauma inflicted on the hearers and the context must be not the words within which it is spoken in individual cases, but rather context of the larger movement and the behavior of that movement in which it plays a central role.
The loudest voices using that phrase are the protesters we see on college campuses and around the world. Spearheaded by groups like SJP we need only to look at their Instagram accounts of various chapters to see phrases like israel has no right to exist, by any means necessary, one state solution is the only solution. At protests we hear phrases in sequence with this one like globalize the intifada (a phrase attached to violence), and signs that read “the final solution”. Many of these protests have called violence justified and have openly expressed support for Hamas, a terrorist organization whose charter calls for the genocide of Jews and the destruction and ethnic cleaning of Israel.
It is expressed in the college protestor’s demands which serve to ethnically cleanse campuses of Jews and zionists. Indeed we see signs: no Zionist’s on campus.
It is also coupled with behavior: Jews have been kept out of the encampments, they have been denied entry to buildings and campuses, they have been intimidated, spit on and assaulted. In this context, its meaning is clear. It’s calling for wiping israel off the map and the ethnic cleansing of the land.
No matter their stated intentions nor the specific individual cases where it’s used, the words and deeds (the context) shows the true meaning and the trauma it inflicts on most Jews- delegitimizing their identity is palpable and the intimidation and hatred is real.
I urge you to ban this phrase as hate speech. In context and effect we see this is so. After all, the question comes down to who gets to define this phrase and under what conditions can they do it. In this case it matters not that it may have some other meaning. They have ruined the chances of that so called other meaning to take root. It’s too late. The hate surrounds it. The meaning is clear. It’s entrenched. And it’s traumatizing and dangerous and intimidating.
I am a free speech advocate. I don’t take interference with that right lightly. But in this case it surely expresses a desire to kill off an ethnicity and destroy a country.
When I see and hear this phrase, it sends a shiver down my spine and become very scared. There’s over 100 Muslim countries who can’t tolerate a single tiny Jewish democracy
It is genocidal hate speech and contrary to Meta Community Standards. The acceptance of that phrase places a very vulnerable minority group (Jews) at risk. The normalization of such a phrase is abhorrent and Nazi-like.
There are millions of people all over the world that are supporting Palestine, and I don't think 'From the River to the Sea' can be classed as anti semitic. First of all, the Palestinians are the true Semites, not the Israelis.
Palestine has suffered 75 years of their land being stolen, illegal occupation and oppression. They have been kept in the worlds biggest concentration camp and have no rights.
There's so many people on Facebook that support Palestine and their accounts are being limited and put on bans, just for writing ##FreePalestine. Then the Israeli supporters are free to write how they are going to kill the Palestinians and they are allowed to carry on.
The people supporting Palestine are on the right side of history and shouldn't be punished for speaking out.
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” refers to the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. If the territory lying between them is “Palestine”, there is no Israel. No matter how others might try to sanitise it, the chant is clearly a call for Israel to be “obliterated”, as specified in the opening paragraphs of the Hamas Charter. (Hamas is widely proscribed as a terrorist organisation. It led the atrocities against civilians in Israel on October 7, 2023). The unambiguously racist and genocidal intent behind the chant is laid bare in its original Arabic version, "min el-mayyeh lil mayyeh, Filisteen Arabiyyeh" which translates literally as: “From water to water, Palestine is Arab”.
I argue that the phrase "From the River to the Sea" from the Palestinian perspective is a call for liberation from occupation and an inherent right, you can structure your points as follows:
Definition and Context:
The phrase typically refers geographically from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, covering both present-day Israel and the Palestinian territories. It should be clarified that this interpretation of the slogan is focused on advocating for the human rights and self-determination of Palestinians without suggesting displacement or harm to Israeli citizens.
Legal and Historical Basis for Rights:
The right to self-determination is recognized as being universal, enshrined in the United Nations Charter among other international documents. It is argued that this right should allow Palestinians to determine their sovereignty and international political status without external compulsion or interference.
Regarding international law and the conditions of occupation, it is noted by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 that a withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict is necessary, alongside a just resolution of the refugee problem.
Humanitarian Perspective:
The impacts of occupation on Palestinians can be seen in daily life, where restrictions on movement, military presences, and settlement activities limit access to essential services like healthcare and education. These conditions have been documented by various human rights organizations.
A call for Palestinian freedom is also understood as a call for equality, justice, and the improvement of human rights, aligning with global values that oppose any form of discrimination and oppression.
Safety and Security for All:
Freedom for Palestinians does not constitute a threat to safety or security but rather contributes to the overall peace and security in the region. Ensuring a solution that respects the rights and security of both Palestinians and Israelis is deemed crucial for long-term stability. Endorsements from international and Israeli peace advocates are frequently cited, supporting a just solution that respects the rights of all parties involved.
Concluding Appeal:
In conclusion, the slogan 'From River to the Sea' is based on moral, legal, and humanitarian grounds that support for Palestinian freedom and self-determination is advocated. The slogan is aligned with calls for a peaceful resolution ensuring dignity and freedom for Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Pretty simple decision. Pertaining to the US, absolutely everything and anything should be allowed. Users can simply block anyone with whom they disagree with. Illegal activities are a different thing. Involvement with minors or solicitation of drugs, buying or selling should be prohibited. But free speech has to be allowed. As long as it is just words and only offends feelings and not leading to actual physical altercations.
The phrase "From River to Sea" is a Semitic word. It aims to occupy the area of the State of Israel from the Euphrates River to the Red Sea. That's why it contains aggression and violence. Criticizing the phrase "From River to Sea" is not anti-Semitism. On the contrary, it aims to prevent aggression and violence.