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 Palestinian liberation from colonial oppression from the illegitimate settler colonial entity using the name "Israel."
Please do not limit these posts it is our freedom of speech and a way to connect and spread information about current events
This phrase is “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence.” Rashida Tlaib, Congress
This is not a racist phrase. This is a call for equality throughout israel-palestine regardless of ethnicity or religion
I have no concerns with this statement. In fact, I find it entirely inclusive of ALL people - freedom for Palestinians in their historic homeland speaks to a plurality that does not exist today.
I support the use of the phrase “from the River to the sea”. The phrase is a statement in support of Palestinian freedom. Calls for Palestinian freedom are not antisemetic. Equating Palestinian freedom with a call for violence against Jewish people is incorrect and relies on racist and anti-Muslim stereotypes of Palestinians as hateful, violent, deceptive, and hostile. “From the river to the sea” is not a call for violence. It is a call for state where Palestinians have equal rights, can move freely across the land, can live without fear of their home being taken from them, and where Palestinians living abroad can return to their homeland.
To me and the many people I have spoken to about this phrase, it simply means freedom for the Palestinian people. It means that they should no longer live under military rule and subject to the arbitrary rules of Israel. They have long been subject to a system of clear apartheid - this phrase is their ask to live in freedom with the same rights as Israelis.
The selective banning of this phrase, "from the river to the sea", is not only a direct silencing of free speech but truly laughable coming from a company that refuses to address rampant racism, sexism, actual antisemitism, homophobia, and islamaphobia, to name just a few. This phrase is a call for freedom, for equality, for human beings. It is a phrase centered in love and the belief that every single person has a right to be safe and free. To mischaracterize this as hate speech, especially when actual hate speech is so prevalent, is a dangerous precedent to set, and will actively hurt the community using META services and, in turn, drive us to other social media platforms entirely. The world is watching and the people of the world OVERWHELMINGLY support liberation for the Palestinian people and an end to this genocide. Now, in addition to this general concern, allow me to share some things that META has deemed ok after i reported them:
- comments calling me a "c*nt"
- comments calling me and friends of mine homophonic slurs
-comments and messages threatening rape and murder
-unsolicited nude photos from random men
-a publicly planned attempt to overthrow the US government
You have no moral high ground to determine what speech is acceptable, what treatment is acceptable. There is no need to tank your reputation further and eliminate the trust of your users more. For the good of humanity, and for the good of your company, don't enact a ban on a phrase calling for love and liberation. This is the best of humanity; do not attempt to silence it.
Chants of liberation are simply the desire for freedom. People who are under oppression should not be disallowed from simply vocalizing their desire TO BE FREE FROM OPPRESSION. Period. Are we reverting back to slave days in the states now, where even the talk of abolishing slavery was illegal? Why is this even something up for debate?
This would be an infringement on free speech and a denial of historical context.
1. Freedom of Speech:
Censoring this phrase would violate the First Amendment right to freedom of
speech. People have the right to express their views, even if they are
controversial or unpopular. Suppressing such speech stifles debate and
limits the exchange of ideas.
2. Historical Significance:
The phrase "From the River to the Sea" has a long history in both the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader Middle East. It refers to the
historical aspiration of Palestinians to be free to move around in a single
state encompassing all of historic Palestine, from the Jordan River to the
Mediterranean Sea. Censoring this phrase would be seen as the continuation
of the project of colonization by colonizers who originated in the West.
3. Context Matters:
The meaning of the phrase "From the River to the Sea" depends on the context
in which it is used. While pro Israeli factions claim it is to advocate for
violence, the Likud party has used it to express a desire for a exclusionary
state for Jews only. Peace loving Jews and Palestinians desire is for a just
and equitable solution to the conflict, and thats what this phrase represents.
Censorship would prevent people from using the phrase in its intended context.
4. Selective Enforcement:
Censoring "From the River to the Sea" while allowing other potentially
inflammatory phrases like "Israel is a Jewish state" to circulate would
raise concerns about selective enforcement. It would send a message that
certain viewpoints are more acceptable than others, fostering a climate
of censorship and suppression.
5. Counterproductive:
Censorship can often be counterproductive. By attempting to suppress a
phrase, it may actually draw more attention to it and make it seem more
important than it is. It can also create a sense of resentment among those
who feel their voices are being silenced.
6. Alternative Solutions:
Instead of censorship, there should be a focus on promoting dialogue,
understanding, and peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This includes allowing for the expression of different viewpoints, even if
they are controversial.
In conclusion, censoring the phrase "From the River to the Sea" is a dangerous
and ineffective approach that would violate free speech, erase historical
context, stifle debate, and ultimately hinder the search for a just and
equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a proud 73 year old Jewish woman and urge you NOT to censor "from the river to the sea". I have always understood the term to mean just what it says - that "Palestine will be free".
Nothing more and nothing less.
The chant, slogan, expression, words “from the river to the sea” calls for liberation of Palestinian people who have been oppressed by Zionist occupation for over seven decades. The words are on par with “Sí se puede!” Yes, we can which is another call for freedom.
Banning from the river to the sea is nothing short of limiting free speech and the weaponizaton of language against the oppressed. We must not allow our language to be limited. Ironically, the very people who supposedly oppose the phrasing have used it themselves to annihilate another people and culture. Meta must stand up for free speech and not give in to monied powers that seek to subvert and dominate our “democracy.”
If you take nothing else away from my comment, please take time to seriously consider this. This announcement is provided in English and Hebrew, but no forms of Arabic. I appreciate that you are accepting comments in all three languages, that does show some thoughtfulness for your audience. But not including a translation of the announcement in Arabic, to me, demonstrates a severe bias in this case.
Starting from a place that I do not think anyone would disagree on: there are plenty of Jewish citizens of the state of Israel who speak Arabic. Does their opinion not matter to the Oversight Board? In a case that claims to be about Jewish and Israeli safety?
Personally, I think this case is a ludicrous call by oppressors to suppress those who they find inconvenient. I say this as an American Jew with family who live in the state of Israel who have told me about how they feel about attacks on the state of Israel.
“From the river to the sea” has nothing to do with me as a Jew. It is not antisemitic, it speaks to the desire of those who live in Palestine, and who have lived there for hundreds of years, to live free of oppression in their native lands. It is extremely literally about the land which has been stolen by colonial forces.
There is another scenario when the phrase is used, which is not mentioned in the case. I believe it is much more reasonable to call “from the river to the sea” as a call for violence. You can read about one instance here https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/ This is the case where the state of Israel, in this case Netanyahu himself, has called explicitly for the state of Israel in the future to control all the land from the Jordan River to the sea.
You must consider the context. When someone says “the state of Israel must control river to the sea to ensure our safety”, that is a statement made by someone who believes that power and oppression are tools of peace and safety. When has that ever been the case? When someone says “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” it is a direct response to the state of Israel’s call for oppression.
I believe the Oversight Board will come to this conclusion with careful study of the facts. Please, have the chutzpah to rule that as a call for freedom like in the context of #freepalestine, it is a call for social justice and human rights. For a call for oppression like when the state of Israel and its supporters turn it against Palestinians and supporters of the state of Palestine, or when the state of Israel uses it to describe their military plans, it is a different phrase entirely, and may be considered a call for violence against people who just want to live free on their native lands.
And please, remember to be explicit that the Jewish people are not the same as the state of Israel. I’m Jewish; my family fled Poland in the early 1900s, and we’ve only been in the USA for just over one hundred years. By all rights and by the claims the state of Israel makes, it should be a place where I would feel warm, welcomed, and safe. I, a Jew, am afraid of the state of Israel. Not afraid of living there, I am afraid of the state itself. “First they came” describes actions like the state of Israel makes. “Never again” is “never again for anyone;” not “never again for us,” like supporters of Israel appear to believe.
I have recently moved to NYC, where my family first fled to after escaping Poland in 1923. Within my first month here, I have evaded being visibly Jewish because I am embarrassed by the association with the state of Israel, and I do not want allies of the state of Israel to consider me a potential ally. The state of Israel and its actions make me less safe as a Jew. Politicians who claim otherwise, particularly those who claim to be doing it on our behalf, are endangering me by claiming oppression like what the state of Israel deploys is essential to my safety. Remember this when you write your public statements. Use your platform to lay out how the state of Israel is a state; not a people. Please do not take my religion and my identity from me by calling the state of Israel anything but that; a state, which has taken the name of Israel.
From the river to the see itself is just a sentence. When that sentence is used against oppression, it is resistance and hope. When that sentence is used to talk about control, it is a call for violence and oppression. If you chose to ban either context, be very, very careful about what filtering and automation is used. My professional opinion as a software developer is that I would not trust an algorithm to detect the distinction. There’s too much nuance, and too much risk. If you accidentally censor a few oppressed people, that can be devastating, and they will have more trouble appealing a mistake. If you accidentally censor a few oppressors, not much changes as they are not in much danger and have more time and resources available.
“From the river to the sea”, signifies the traditional Palestinian homeland. The phrase expresses a desire for Palestinian independence and freedom, not the eradication of Jews. From the river to the sea today, there is one state, an Israeli state, that rules over millions of people: Palestinians who don’t have equal rights, who are not free. That’s what has to change. It doesn’t mean that there should be violence against Israel or Jews. This was a phrase that existed long before Hamas came into power. Censoring this phrase would mean a slippery slope to fascism. In the same way saying “Black Lives Matter” doesn’t mean we need to be violent against white peoples or that their lives don’t matter, from the river to the sea is not about violence or singling out another group. It’s about freedom from oppression.
As a supporter of Palestine and the rights of Palestinians to live freely and without fear, I use this phrase both online and in day to day life. This is a call to demand equal rights and justice for Palestinians. To allow the thousands and thousands of Palestinians who were forcibly removed from their homes during the Nakba, to return home and lead a normal life, free from persecution. This call is in no way antisemitic and the freedom of Palestinians must not and will not come at the expense of Jewish people. It is simply stating that Palestinians also deserve to exist on this land and not be bombed or removed from their land
I am writing to ask that you do not censor the phrase “from the river to the sea”. This phrase 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.
This phrase calls for peace and justice for Palestinians from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip. If the idea of a free, safe, liberated Palestine is upsetting to someone, then that person is the problem-not the phrase “from the river to the sea”.
Well free speech and the words aren't threatening in no way atoll . It's same saying from land to the air Scotland will be free .Its a disgrace that ye can't even pass wind without being accused of being anti-semetic
For many people organizing for Palestinian rights, "From the river to the sea" is an idealistic call for all people to live with freedom and equality in what is currently Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. It is in no way an incitement to violence. Furthermore, when Benjamin Netanyahu says it (widely reported, here is one example: https://newrepublic.com/post/178243/benjamin-netanyahu-literally-says-from-the-river-to-the-sea) it is supposedly about self-defense even as his government relentlessly bombs civilians? This is wrong. The original decision of the board was and remains correct, "from the river to the sea" is not hate speech and treating it as hate speech would be intentional repression of organizing for Palestinian rights.
From the river to the sea is a broad term used for a plethora of reasons, if it qualifies as hate speech nearly every social movement of the last century would similarly qualify for being suppressed. The anti-apartheid movement, all anti-colonial struggles and intra-state minority rights struggles classified as any resistance could all be construed as calling for harm to the oppressing group, regardless of their intentions. Such a crackdown on speech would have a chilling effect on all struggles for rights and freedoms worldwide.