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
Members of the Oversight Board:
The New Tolerance Campaign (NTC) is a watchdog organization whose mission is to ensure institutions consistently apply their stated policies and values, particularly when it comes to fostering free speech and open dialogue. As such, we welcome the opportunity to submit comment in response to Facebook’s request seeking guidance from the Oversight Board regarding “Posts that Include ‘From the River to the Sea.’”
With emotions still high and war ongoing nearly eight months since the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israeli civilians, it may be helpful to consider hypotheticals outside of the Israel-Hamas dynamic.
If a Facebook user were to post “Russia must wipe Ukraine off the face of the earth!” would that qualify as a call to violence and the eradication of a people?
To take a real-world example: During the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, participants infamously marched in the streets chanting, “Jews will not replace us!” Deborah Lipstadt, the current United States Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, wrote in 2020 that the phrase has historical roots in a call upon white people to “band together, arm themselves and go on the offensive.” Would Meta consider a post making that declaration to be one encouraging violence and the targeting of an ethnic group? Has Meta censored such posts in the past?
Meta’s response to “River to the Sea” cases must be consistent with its stated values and past reactions to comparable posts.
To be clear, NTC considers “From the River to the Sea” pronouncements to be eliminationist, racist rhetoric. Having said that, we do not call for the censorship of such posts from Meta platforms. Warnings may be placed on the posts in a similar fashion to the way Meta labels “Sensitive Content,” but the messages should not be taken down.
Let the bigots out themselves.
Sincerely,
Gregory T. Angelo
President
"From the River to the Sea" is a slogan that is a symbol of hope and resistance against brutal oppression, colonialism, and mass murder. To claim it is in any way problematic is to be on the side of the oppressor. It is a marginalised group's way of fighting against those that take their freedom. To be against this phrase follows a similar logic as being against the phrases "Women don't deserve to be hit" or "women deserve justice". If you oppose such phrases, you endorse the opposite, which would be violence towards women. In the case of "From the river to the sea" if you disagree with it, you are endorsing violence and genocide towards Palestinians. Palestinians are simply saying they wish to survive and live and have justice, so claiming their chant is problematic isto the benefit of the aggressor
“From the river to the sea” is a call for justified resistance when faced with illegal occupation, colonization, apartheid, and genocide. For Meta to ban this phrase is for Meta to support illegal occupation, colonization, apartheid, and genocide.
Do not censor the phrase "from the river to the sea." Stand on the right side of history NOW, rather than like 50 years from now in an empty apology statement.
I believe that this slogan has different meanings to different people. Some people use the slogan as a general call for Palestinians to be free everywhere they live: in the West Bank, Israel and Gaza. They want the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to not live under occupation and blockade/war, respectively, anymore. Other people use this slogan to deny Jewish self-determination and the state of Israel’s right to exist in historic Israel and Palestine. You see this in the Arabic language version of the phrase, which translates to “from the water to the water Palestine is Arab.” In some cases, I do believe that people using variations of the “river to the sea” phrase are calling for violence against Jewish Israelis. I also think some people don’t really know what the phrase means at all, as seen in social media videos.
I believe it would be best to not outright ban this phrase, but perhaps have something like the community notes on X highlighting that there is disagreement on what the phrase means. You can cite Jewish organizations on one hand and Arab/Muslim organizations on the other, or something along those lines.
I hope this is helpful as you grapple with this complex issue.
Every Facebook user must, under all circumstances, be able to say "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free" because it is one of the most basic freedoms grnated under the First Amendment. Therefore, this practice must be allowed in META at all times.
I don’t believe this phrase is genocidal. Evidence is it is included in Israel’s own charter. In any case it states that they whole area will attain freedom from repression, occupation and any racism and apartheid regime which amnesty and human right watch have independently stated. This phase does not call for annihilation but for peace and freedom which is good. Not allowing this violates freedom of speech for those who believe in freedom and peace. Also you may be opening a Pandora’s box on what can be said and what can’t. Please also not that it is Jewish citizens who also use this phrase and obviously it is not derogatory or hate speech in any sense otherwise they would not use it.
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is used to describe the desire of Palestinians to have freedom and equal rights for all peoples within the borders. It is not violent, dangerous, or exclusionary. It simply means that they want equal rights and access for all people between the river and sea. Freedom. Equal rights. Safety. For all.
To censor the phrase “from the river to the sea” is to censor peoples rights to discuss their own freedom from apartheid, settler colonialism, war crimes and genocide. The origins of the phrase even point to the Likud party themselves, the irony!
If meta were to censor this phrase you would be removing peoples right to talk about their own liberation from apartheid, settler colonialism, war crimes and genocide. That is categorically wrong.
Will you also censor the common phrase “from sea to shining sea”? Or is is only ok when european settlers say things like that?
From the River to The see is a phrase calling for liberation. It means that from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, everyone should have full and equal rights. This means the right to self-determination, the right to healthcare, the right to fair trial, the right to own property, the right to education, and the right to safety. This phrase is one of freedom, it does not call for the killing of anyone. Marking this phrase as hate-speech would be censorship and only censorship of one side.
As someone born and raised Jewish, I am extremely frustrated with the assertion that „From the river to the sea“ is antisemetic or genocidal in any way. I leaned the origin of this phrase by doing one simple google search and then understood that the phrase is a reference to independence and safety for Palestinians, not harm to Jewish populations or anyone else. If Meta blocks this phrase, it will be a clear statement of ignorant, racist bias, and I will stop using Meta‘s services permanently if this decision goes through.
It’s a slippery slope to criminalize phrases. It will definitely lead to oppression
Please allow freedom of speech without fear of repercussions especially when using using a term to describe a statement in a non violent context.
To myself and many others around the world, "from the river to the sea" 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.
Right now, the system in place for the Palestinians from the river to the sea is one of second-class citizenship (Palestinian citizens of Israel), what B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International affirm is apartheid (the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem) and what Baruch Kimmerling describes as the world's largest concentration camp, and other analysts describe as the world's largest open-air prison (Gaza).
On "from the river to the sea:"
It is an "aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate” - Rashida Talib, Congresswoman
It is "a demand for democratic coexistence between Jews and Arabs” - American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
It is a call for "justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty” - Andy McDonald, London labor PM
It is a desire for a state in which "Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating them” - Yousef Munayyer, Palestinian-American writer
It is a call for "the return of [5.9 million] refugees who have been kicked out of their homes from 1948 till now." - Rama Al Malah, organizer with Palestinian Youth Movement
From the river to the sea is a peaceful chant highlighting land rights injustice and calling for positive actions to restore peace in historic Palestine. Initiatives for thus peace are not only backed by human rights law and International Criminal Court rulings, they are also protected under freedom of speech acts.
To restrict content containing this chat would be both biased and in opposition to Metas aim of showing engaging content to various portions of its users. As such, I do not think it will be the right course of action to take.
Dear Meta Oversight Board,
I am writing to provide my perspective on the phrase "FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA" in response to your request for public comment on whether it constitutes hate speech.
As the President of the aforementioned institution that specialises in the careful promotion of peace and works hard to reduce hatred and polarization, as a writer on the subject of peace, as a guest who speaks to media about the topic of peace and conflict, and as a professional university educator on conflict and responses to it, I hereby share my views:
I believe this phrase is a legitimate, needed, and timely demand for freedom and equality for Palestinians across the entire geographical area it references. Specifically, it calls for:
1- Freedom from occupation: Ensuring that Palestinians can live without the constraints imposed by military control.
2- Freedom to congregate and live: Allowing Palestinians to move freely, gather, and reside in any part of the region.
3- Freedom to vote and exercise all rights equally: Advocating for equal political rights and civil liberties for Palestinians alongside others in the region.
I recognise that the phrase is misunderstood by some. People may choose not to use it for that reason. Writers and speakers should be mindful of how good intentions can be misunderstood. But that responsibility lies with them, not with Facebook. Facebook, in my opinion, should not prohibit things just because they may be misunderstood.
In the context of Palestinian freedoms being severely curtailed, the importance of allowing such expressions becomes even more significant. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently investigating plausible allegations of genocide, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) is contemplating arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister. Furthermore, in light of the recent brutal bombing campaigns that have resulted in the deaths of over 35,000 people, including more than 15,000 children, it is appropriate and necessary to let people advocate for freedom.
I argue that the phrase is a legitimate expression of a desire for equal rights and freedom. Suppressing this phrase will silence voices advocating for human rights and justice.
In conclusion, I urge the oversight board to continue to permit legitimate calls for equality and freedom.
Thank you for considering my perspective.
This make me fill like Facebook support in the murder of Jewish and Israelis. I can’t believe it’s like that.
If the phrase "from the river to the sea" were a call for a violence, it wouldn't be as popular as it is. People who support Palestinians want less violence, not more. To suppress this phrase is to suppress voices calling for Palestinians and Israelis to coexist.
People who do use this phrase violently provide that context when they do. Those voices are doing harm and should be treated accordingly. However, when this phrase is used without context it is inaccurate to assume a tone of violence.
“From the River to the Sea” is not a hateful slogan. It says that Palestine will be FREE from the jordan river, to the mediterranean sea. Not that anyone will be forced out, but that the apartheid will end- which blocked access to palestinians in the gaza from hospitals, schools, and other necessary facilities when they still existed. this still happens in the west bank, with palestinians brutalized and killed daily by the government of Israel. Palestinians are not free, like israeli citizens are, and From the River to the Sea is a slogan calling for equal freedom for all in the region, and an end to a genocidal, war criminal, illegally occupying government.