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
Flagging “from the river to the sea” as hate speech will not protect the marginalized, the maligned, or the massacred. But it will muzzle their voices so fewer people are aware of the relentless brutality being visited on Palestine.
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is often interpreted in various ways depending on the context and the speaker. Here are a few perspectives on why some might argue that it is not inherently antisemitic:
1. Historical and Geographical Context: Some use the phrase to refer to the geographical area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, encompassing Israel and the Palestinian territories. From this perspective, the phrase could be seen as a statement about the aspiration for political or territorial unity in the region, rather than a call for the destruction of any particular group.
2. Political Advocacy: For some advocates, particularly those supporting Palestinian rights, the phrase is seen as a call for equal rights and the end of what they perceive as occupation and apartheid. They may argue that it signifies a vision of a single state where all inhabitants, regardless of ethnicity or religion, have equal rights and live in peace.
3. Ambiguity and Interpretation: The phrase itself is ambiguous and does not explicitly call for harm or violence against Jews or the state of Israel. The intent behind the phrase can vary significantly depending on who is using it and in what context. As such, some may argue that it should not be automatically labeled as antisemitic without considering the broader context and the speaker’s intentions.
Additionally, early Zionist leaders used the phrase in the context of establishing a Jewish homeland. The geographical area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea was often discussed as part of the envisioned territory for the Jewish state.
"From the river to the sea" describes the natural geographical borders of Palestine, and means to communicate the hopeful message that from the West Bank near the Jordan river to Gaza next to the Mediterranean will be free of settler-colonial domination.
There is no question that Palestinians are classified as second-class citizens under the laws of the Israeli state. The phrase means that they will someday enjoy the full range of human rights, from safety from settler violence and dispossession, to clean drinking water and sufficient food.
Anyone who claims the phrase is genocidal or antisemitic has been deceived by political actors who have close connections to the Israeli government and its intelligence and military bodies. All of those people and entities have a vested interest in the censorship of their political opponents.
To censor the phrase would be to unambiguously admit that Facebook works on behalf of a particular political philosophy. This is concerning considering numerous well-known white supremacist and Nazi slogans are not censored, such as 1488, which does call for the genocide of Jewish people.
If Facebook bans "from the river to the sea" then they are allying themselves with outspoken racists and genociders and Meta will be exposed as part of their ilk.
The phrase "from the river to the sea" is a broad, general call for the liberation, human rights, and self-determination of Palestinian people; it is not directed against any particular ethnic/religious group or state. As stated in this NPR article: "According to University of Arizona professor Maha Nassar, the phrase "from the river to the sea" gained momentum in the 1960s among a fractured Palestinian population hoping to break free from the rule not only of the Israeli government but also those of Jordan and Egypt." Therefore, it is not a call for violence directed specifically at Israel, the Jewish people, or any one group (and Israel and Judaism are not synonmyous, either, as there are many Jewish people who do not support the state of Israel.) https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211671117/how-interpretations-of-the-phrase-from-the-river-to-the-sea-made-it-so-divisive
1. Freedom of speech is the most important protection against fascism
2. Calling for freedom and equality for EVERYONE between any geographical locations should always be not only just allowed but fully supported
3. Meta should not be (re-)"interpeting" language, especially with prejudice to the stated explanations of native populations. This is extremely racist.
4. Use this energy, instead of for censorship and dictating talk, to save the lives of children please
שלום, בזמן האחרון עלה רבות לשיח הציבורי הביטוי ״מהנהר לים פלסטין תשוחרר״ ורציתי להביע את דעתי בנושא כיהודי שחי בארץ ישראל, המשפט הזה הוא כל כך אנטישמי ומנוגד לערכים שלכם כחברה, כי בבסיסו הוא שולל את הזכות של היהודים לקיום במדינה משלהם, והוא נוגד זכויות אדם בסיסיות.
אני בתור יהודי שחי בארץ ישראל ורואה איך כולם חיים פה לא מוכן לקבל את המשפט הזה ולא יכול לעבור עליו בסדר היום שלי.
בבקשה ממכם תמנעו מאנשים להשתמש בו כי הוא בדיוק מה שממשיך את שרשת השנאה כלפי היהודים שהיית מאז ומעולם, יש ביטויי אחרים שהתומכים בפלסטינים יכולים להשתמש בהם שהם לא אנטישמים בבסיסם.
מעבר לזה תהיו בטוחים שהרוב המוחלט של האנשים שאומרים את המשפט לא יודעים בכלל מה הוא אומר ומה הוא מייצג.
תודה
From the river to the sea is a phrase that denies Israel’s right to exist and therefore is antisemitic. Israel is a country that was legally established in 1948. It has sought peace with its neighbors in the region and has peace treaties with two of its neighbors, recognizing borders and being mutually supportive. Israel has attempted on several occasions to forge agreements for the establishment of a Palestinian state and these attempts have been rejected. Posts that do not recognize Israel as a sovereign state would be uniquely targeted at the Jewish people, as Israel is their homeland. It is an attack on a peoplehood, a distortion of international law and a denial of legal rights. All of these are promoted by the use of the phrase “from the river to the sea.” In addition it has a subtext of a call to violence to achieve its goal. It is the opposite of peaceful coexistence.
Allow free speech.
Herewith duplicate text of that submitted yesterday via an attachment - in case you did not receive it:
Submission to the Meta oversight board, 20 May 2024: Regarding the Use of the Slogan ‘From the River to the Sea’
Submitted on behalf of StandWithUs*
by
David H Stone
Academic Advisor, StandWithUs UK*
Emeritus Professor of Paediatric Epidemiology, University of Glasgow, UK
*StandWithUs is an international, non-partisan education organization that supports Israel and fights antisemitism.
The Meaning of the Slogan ‘From the River to the Sea’
1. Denial of the Jewish People’s Right to Sovereignty in their Historical Homeland
The phrase 'From the River to the Sea' has a long and complex history. It has been used by elements within both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Since the 1960s, however, it has become largely identified with the call, mainly by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (established in 1964) but also by other violent antiZionist organisations, including Hamas, for the removal of Israel [1] and the establishment of a Palestinian state between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean sea [2]. At best, such a state is premised on the disappearance of the world’s only Jewish state of Israel, a sovereign member of the UN since 1949, as well as an uncertain status for the (currently 7 million) Jews living in Israel today. Almost 1 million Jews fled or were expelled from across the MENA region since 1948, and there are now almost no Jewish communities left in Arab states or Iran. Additionally, both Hamas and Fatah – the two factions that dominate Palestinian politics – systemically promote antisemitism through the many institutions they control. Israeli Jews harbour an understandable fear of the likely treatment they would receive at the hands of a Palestinian government in the territory in which they now live.
Most Israelis would therefore be likely to take up arms to resist the imposition of such a scenario that they would view as an existential threat to the right of the Jewish people to a peaceful life in the context of sovereign self-determination in their historical homeland.
2. The Genocidal Threat to Jews and Israelis
The slogan has, however, acquired an even more sinister connotation since the large-scale massacre of Israelis perpetrated by Hamas and their supporters on 7th October 2023. Hamas have long made clear on numerous occasions (including in their founding charter) their genocidal intent towards Jews, and have vowed to repeat the massacre of Israelis 'again and again' until Israel is annihilated. The use of the slogan in the specific context of that attack, particularly on the post-7th October 'pro-Palestine' demonstrations (at which multiple hateful anti-Israeli and antisemitic chants and posters have been in evidence) in public places, university campuses and on social media, removes any doubt that the those who articulate it are aligning themselves, explicitly or implicitly, with the Hamas murderers rather than their Israeli victims – over 1,000 men, women, the elderly, children and babies – who were tortured, raped, mutilated and killed in the most cruel fashion imaginable on the day of the massacre. Tolerance of such expressions of support for terrorist violence has real-world consequences. The UK’s Community Security Trust, that seeks to protect British Jewish communities from the physical manifestations of antisemitism, issued a statement on 14th May 2024 alerting Jews to the need to remain vigilant in the wake of an alleged terrorist plot to attack Jews in Manchester [3].
3. The Promotion of Anti-Jewish Racism
Presumably Meta would not countenance the use of their platforms for the promotion of any form of racism, including anti-Jewish racism i.e. antisemitism. Although some argue that calling for the dismantling of Israel is an antiZionist rather than an antisemitic act, the overwhelming majority of Jews are Zionist and thus reject that spurious distinction. In any case, the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism [4] emphasises that context is crucial to determining whether or not a statement or behaviour is likely to be antisemitic. As indicated above, the context in relation to the current use of the slogan is unarguably an expression of brutally violent antisemitism as well as violent anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism. The slogan thus constitutes a racist threat to Jews and Israelis worldwide. It should be noted that the IHRA definition commands widespread support across the global Jewish and non-Jewish world [5].
Conclusions
1. The Slogan Promotes a Violent Anti-Israeli and Antisemitic Ideology
Although the slogan 'From The River to the Sea' need not always amount to approval of and incitement to anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish violence, or the suppression of the human rights of the Israeli and/or Jewish people as enshrined in the UN charter, in the context of the period since the massacre of 7th October 2023, the motivation of those deploying it is clear. Like the swastika symbol (that also has a complex history but is now banned in many countries), the slogan has become inextricably associated with an ideology that promotes horrific anti-Israeli and antisemitic violence.
2. The Slogan Incites Violence and Undermines Peace
The perpetrators of the violence of 7th October 2023 – the worst single day’s massacre of Jews since the Holocaust – continue to threaten to unleash further violence towards Israelis and Jews, to the accompaniment of unambiguously supportive mass demonstrations around the world. This show of solidarity with the terrorists is not merely offensive and insensitive; it generates an atmosphere of hatred and incitement to violence against Israelis and Jews that imperils their perceived and actual individual physical safety as well as their collective human rights as a people. Furthermore, permitting such hateful and dangerous incitement to violence undermines social cohesion, promotes division, and empowers those who call for further bloodshed and oppose efforts to achieve peaceful co-existence.
3. The Slogan Violates Meta’s Declared Policy Standards
It is hard to understand on what basis the Oversight Board has determined that the slogan does not violate Meta’s community standards, one of which states: ‘We're committed to making Facebook a safe place. We remove content that could contribute to a risk of harm to the physical security of persons. Content that threatens people has the potential to intimidate, exclude or silence others and isn't allowed on Facebook’ [6]. Meta also states [7]: ‘we remove language that incites or facilitates serious violence. We remove content, disable accounts and work with law enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.’
4. Meta Should Prohibit the Dissemination of the Slogan on its Platforms
Accordingly, the dissemination and malign citing of the slogan ‘From the River To the Sea’ on social media should be unequivocally condemned and, where appropriate, prohibited as (with few exceptions) it amounts to hate speech and an incitement to potential abuses of Jewish and/or Israeli human rights. Those potential abuses range from the denial of self-determination of the Jewish and/or Israeli people to the perpetration of violence, murder and even genocide – for the second time within living memory – directed against the Jewish people. History demonstrates that what starts with Jews never ends with Jews. Tolerance for hate speech supportive of terrorism could be the start of the slippery slope that leads eventually to all of us losing our hard-won freedoms.
The Bottom Line
If Meta truly believes in its self-declared policy standards, it should take immediate steps to prohibit across its platforms the malign use of the slogan ‘From the River to the Sea.’
[1] MEMRI TV, 2nd November 2023. Hamas leader Khaled Mashal: ‘October 7 paved a wide highway towards the removal of Israel.’ https://x.com/MEMRIReports/status/1719953382687875119
[2] MEMRI TV, 21st January 2024. Hamas leader Khaled Mashal: ‘October 7 Has Shown that Liberating Palestine from the River to the Sea Is Realistic and Has Already Begun.’ https://x.com/MEMRIReports/status/1749049490009440569
[3] Community Security Trust Statement 14th May 2024. https://x.com/CST_UK/status/1790374837199737306
[4] International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Working definition of antisemitism. https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
[5] IHRA Adoptions and Endorsements. https://www.standwithus.com/ihra
[6] Facebook Community Standards. https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/community-standards/
[7] Meta. Violence and Incitement Policy Rationale. https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/community-standards/violence-incitement/
" from the river to the sea"
I consider it hate speech towards israel. Calls for the end of the nation of Israel and replacing it with Palestine. It can also be considered as calling for the murder and genocide of the population of Israel, a certain ethnic group namely the jewish people. It has been used in violent protests around the world calling for the end of Israel. Since the attack by hamas on 7th October the phrase " from the river to the sea" has also become the vocal call of support for hamas.
Saying from the river to the sea is just an expression to highlight an area or a large space. There is nothing wrong with claiming freedom to a space. If this offends anyone then it’s because of their inferiority complex.
The phrase has been used by Israeli fascists from the Likud party currently in power in their charter. Specifying that the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea should be Jewish land.
“Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty. —Likud Party Platform, 1977”
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront-israels-version-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
In this case, with the additional context, this would violate the community guidelines because this project would inherently mean Ethnic Cleansing of non-Jewish people from the land these fascists are claiming. This type of content in that context should be taken down.
In the case where others indicate “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” this does not violate community guidelines because it merely implies the desire for the Palestinian people to be free from their current state of apartheid and occupation. While there may be extremists who would like to ethnically cleanse Jewish people from the land of historic Palestine, this is not the context in which most people who use this phrase mean it.
If there was added context such as “Kill the Jews” or anything like that, this violates the guidelines and should be taken down.
“From the river to the sea” is not hate speech - it’s a the opposite. It’s a call for liberation from suffering. What are you, Meta, doing to end the worst of all human suffering, which is unfolding before our eyes every single day? You have so much power. I beg you to please focusing it on realizing how your resources could be spent working to disrupt and end it - even if it means losing “favor” with some. Write a history where you supported liberation from oppression and freedom from destruction and suffering - from every river, to every sea.
Freedom of speech and equality of rights is not and should not be reserved for a chosen few. Most of the world is waking up and has woken up in the last year, because the illusion of freedom is breaking in front of our eyes, not even limited to one place but globally.
The events that have led up to people massively raising their voices against the genocide conducted by Israel, funded by the US in Palestine is the epitome of WHY people need to do this in the first place! Taking that very basic right away from humans only creates and ignites further trouble, further violence, further lack of trust, in a species that is essentially the same at the core. We need to wake up and do better, especially platforms like Meta with all the great influence and resources they have. We need to encourage this more than ever now, let alone place bans and restrictions on people using their (very sane and logical) voice for the betterment of the human race. It just makes no sense for Meta or any other platform to do this unless they want to very openly support and encourage violence and injustice caused by a few. Doesn’t it defeat the purpose of these platforms in the first place? Wasn’t Facebook built to help people connect globally, to reduce our unnecessary division, to help support the human narrative be carried forward in a more collective manner? Was Instagram not built to promote and help people who otherwise don’t have a platform to do so? What do we do with all the influence we have if not work for the good of the human race? What is the use of all this technology and tools? By cutting off liberty, by differentiating between people of different types, by taking away the basic right of free expression, platforms like Meta are only showing loyalty to the perpetrators of the violence in today’s world.
I’m writing from a small country that I’ll leave unnamed but we have a ban on X here! Imagine! In 2024, we cannot even be allowed to use a global platform, that some depend on for their livelihood and sometimes it becomes a matter of life even! That also at a time when the economy is already suffering, people are struggling.. does it make sense to a sound mind?
The bans and restrictions on the usage of pro Palestinian content, words, phrases is the same case of reserving all types of humanitarian rights for only a few, and those too the violent ones! Let me be clear, this is so far away from being about antisemitism. The entire argument and fight is about Palestinian people and their right to life and safety, very basic and deserved human needs, it is really not about the Jews. In the same time, it cannot be ignored that there is a lot of hate anti-Palestinian jews are spreading, there is an unjustifiable amount of violence being carried out by the Israeli government and military. They are killing civilians, babies and women for gods sake!! For Meta, do the Palestinians not even deserve so little as raising their voice against the horrific acts of violence being carried against their entire race? Do they not even deserve support from people around the world when they’re breathing and very literally fighting for survival every single day while they are displaced from their own homes, their own land?? What is it about humanitarian rights and equality that marginalises people based on race and/or religion when it makes sense for a certain few? What about freedom of speech in the US and students being expelled, beaten up or displaced for supporting a human cause, let alone from the most leading institutions in the world? All of this just teaches us that there is no real concept of equality, liberty or individuality. All of this teaches us that none of these global institutions pretending to be working for the “betterment and advancement of the human race” actually aim to do so. None of these institutions even have the basic morals, values or principles. It’s all just pretence and hiding behind fictitious tales.
If Meta continues to place restrictions on said content, if it continues to marginalise people while they’re suffering under genocide, we the people shall only remember and treat Meta as one of the proud contributors of the genocide against Palestine. If I may take the liberty of saying, history will remember Meta on the wrong side of the human race, as a destructor not an enabler. Even if the global destructive powers win and they tell history the way choose to, humanity would not have won, not for a single day and everyone at Meta would be a huge party to that. Your brands and platforms tell an entirely different story, the least you can do is own up to it. Own up to the responsibility you have, that comes from running these platforms and being in a place of influence and/or power; not everyone has that liberty.
Liberation of a colonized country should be a valid expression. If the colonizer plays victim all the time it doesn't mean we need to listen to them.
We should be able to say what we want to! From the river to the see is a call for Palestinian liberation. Assuming that this phrase is violent is extremely hypocritical as the apartheid regime this phrase imagines dissolved is extremely violent. Those calling these words a violent threat are projecting their own violent behaviors onto a colonized and displaced population fighting against ethnic cleansing. As a Jew, I reject the ethnostate that displaces and murders Palestinians. From the river to the sea we will all be free!!
The phrase “From the River to the Sea” or when stated in its entirety, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free,” is a call for freedom. It is not a call for violence or even an expulsion of any people.
The people of Palestine have faced subjugation, land theft, and violent apartheid-like conditions for over 7 decades. This phrase has a long and storied history and has been part of the calls to freedom for the Palestinian people for a long time, both in Arabic and in English.
A call for freedom is not an incitement of violence. And attacking this, what is essentially a slogan, for the Palestinian cause will not make anyone safer.
A call to censor this language is merely a call to silence free speech. And conflating this statement with a call to violence, while real, targeted, and plainly stated calls for violence against Palestinians run rampant is an absurdist call to simply slow down a movement. There is no doubt that people who do not want to see a free Palestine are bothered by this phrase, but language that causes discomfort being conflated with hate speech or incitements to violence is just nonsensical. Speaking out peacefully and advocating for your beliefs is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. And an attack on this phrase is an attack on the right to free speech.