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
META must stop its complicity in the genocide. It must stop supporting Israeli propoganda and stop censoring pro Palestinian voices. It must stop censoring accounts that speak for justice that mention from the river to the sea. Meta must be aware of International law and implications of being complicit in genocide and war crimes
I am writing as a Jewish American who has been to both Palestine and Israel. I am a psychotherapist currently getting my doctorate, which is to say I am pretty intelligent and good at taking in and analyzing data — it’s literally my job. From the river to the sea is a call for freedom and end to oppression, regardless of whether you agree that Palestinians are oppressed and need and deserve to be free to live like the rest of us. It is NOT a call for the death of all Jews, it is not antisemitic. I don’t doubt it has been used in antisemitic ways, but that doesn’t negate the right to all of us to lose this free speech. By banning phrases that one group of people finds offensive, we set a dangerous precedent, again, regardless of how you view this conflict. I have discussed “from the river to the sea” at length with Palestinians, in Palestine and this “grnocidal” interpretation is incorrect and extremely dangerous. Thank you for your time.
This is not hate speech nor against any group of people. It is just like when Boston had an attack during their marathon many years ago - they coined the phrase ‘Boston Strong’ to rally their residents to be resilient.
This is the same thing!
Per our 5th amendment right, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Taking away our right to say “from the river to the sea” is censorship. Are you stating that Facebook has more freedom to revoke our rights than Congress?! Moving forward with this action will prove the Zionistic agenda that fb is harboring.
From river to the Sea Palestine will be free is a freedom expression and right to live Palestinians live in their lands , those who since 1948 forced , tortured, illegally and brutally evicted from their lands, millions of Palestinian refugees are living in several countries where areas different nationals are being given consent to live in their lands with enforcement.
It’s a basic right of humans and expression
As you will see in the article I attach below, Historian Maha Nassar and author Yousef Munayyer explain the context and meaning of the specific phrase in the third chant above,
“From the river to the sea” is a rejoinder to the fragmentation of Palestinian land and people by Israeli occupation and discrimination. Palestinians have been divided in a myriad of ways by Israeli policy. There are Palestinian refugees denied repatriation because of discriminatory Israeli laws. There are Palestinians denied equal rights living within Israel’s internationally recognized territory as second-class citizens. There are Palestinians living with no citizenship rights under Israeli military occupation in the West Bank. There are Palestinians in legal limbo in occupied Jerusalem and facing expulsion. There are Palestinians in Gaza living under an Israeli siege. All of them suffer from a range of policies in a singular system of discrimination and apartheid—a system that can only be challenged by their unified opposition. All of them have a right to live freely in the land from the river to the sea.
But it is precisely because Zionist settler colonialism has benefitted from and pursued Palestinian fragmentation that it seeks to mischaracterize and destroy inclusive and unifying rhetorical frameworks. ‘’[4]
The attack on such a phrase in entrenched in Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian hate. “’The claim that the phrase “from the river to the sea” carries a genocidal intent relies not on the historical record, but rather on racism and Islamophobia. These Palestinians, the logic goes, cannot be trusted—even if they are calling for equality, their real intention is extermination.In order to justify unending violence against Palestinians, this logic seeks to caricature us as irrational savages hell-bent on killing Jews. Nor does the attempt to link Palestinians to eliminationism stop at the deliberate mischaracterization of this slogan; rather, it is deployed in many other contexts.’’[4]
Moreover, I shall inform you that Israel’s borders remain internationally defined as contested. From the river to the sea refers to the borders of historic Palestine and not to the contested and unconfirmed borders of Israel.[5]
Lastly quoting Dr Nassar, ‘’Dismissing or ignoring what this phrase means to the Palestinians is, yet another means by which to silence Palestinian perspectives. Citing only Hamas leaders’ use of the phrase, while disregarding the liberationist context in which other Palestinians understand it, shows a disturbing level of ignorance about Palestinians’ views at best, and a deliberate attempt to smear their legitimate aspirations at worst. Most troubling for me, the belief that a “free Palestine” would necessarily lead to the mass annihilation of Jewish Israelis is rooted in deeply racist and Islamophobic assumptions about who the Palestinians are and what they want. [6]
[1] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html
[2] https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html
[3]https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2c.html
4 https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean
5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_Israel#:~:text=Israel's%20two%20formally%20recognized%20and,Farms%20dispute)%20and%20the%20Palestinian
6 https://forward.com/opinion/415250/from-the-river-to-the-sea-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/
The phrase 'From the River to the See' is not hate speech. The phrase as understood by those who use it refers to the liberation of the Palestinian people under occupation and apartheid from the Jordanian river to the Mediterranean Sea. The phrase calling for freedom is in no way hateful, it is not calling for violence, it does not refer to any religions, ethnicities, nationalities. It does not call on any action. The statement refers to freedom. Any assumption of hateful intent is merely an ignorant assumption.
Words do have power. The intention behind them cannot be based on interpretation especially when explanations and clarification has been stated over and over. From the river to the sea Palestine will be free a land with no apartheid or walls or third/fourth grade citizens and ‘human animals’ - a land all are free. If that is a call for violence then why is ‘from sea to shining sea’ a call for freedom? Is freedom of speech then appointed violence depending on who hears what ?
Posts containing the words “from the river to the sea” should not be censored. It is a call for freedom and equal rights of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and throughout Israel. It is not a call to hurt, expel, or oppress any other groups.
This phrase is a call for “a state in which Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating them". It is not rooted in violence but has become a resistance call due to the occupation and mass murder of a people (35,000!!!!!!). How could we possibly take a phrase away from them when resistance and aspiration is all they have left? This their hope, and it should be all of ours.
To begin today, I would like to make it very clear that first and foremost the phrase “From the River to the Sea” should not even be up for debate and I find it ridiculous that the board is wasting time and money allowing this to be heard. There are so many other issues of actual hate speech and harm directed toward others that are not addressed on this platform including phrases like “go kill yourself” which people can openly post as comments on others posts, videos, and/or in messages.
“From the River to the Sea” is a phrase asking for the liberation of a people. If this should be banned, so too should “From Sea to Shining Sea” as the U.S. was built on the annihilation of Native Americans and on the backs of slaves stolen from their homelands. If From the River to the Sea is hate speech then every country’s national anthems are as well and this also opens up the question of the U.S.’s pledge of allegiance being allowed. Facebook’s uncouth alliance to Israel and its demands is being exposed as this point. From the River to the Sea doesn’t call for the annihilation of a people, unlike the active calls by Zionists for such. This phrase is not hate speech, it is not anti-Semitic, nor is it a call for harm a few moments of examining the history tells us so. Palestinian liberation was called for because Palestinians were forced from their homes by a decision made outside of their country to forcibly remove people from their homes to give them to people who had not resided in the country before. These are historical facts. Palestine is made up of people of all religions, faiths, and races, this is another fact.
By the logic of banning this phrase does that also mean that history and historical facts will also have to be banned?! Just because Zionists and other individuals unwilling to do their own research on the phrase or State of Palestine doesn’t mean a liberation phrase is equivalent to the hate speech others practice daily and are held accountable for. From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free is calling for peace, calling for liberation from oppression, and calling for all to live in harmony; if anything is hate speech it is those who call for the erasure of this phrase and the Palestinian people.
"From the River to the Sea" is a call to freedom and implies no violence towards Jews. Banning it as violent speech would be ridiculous and would further harm Palestinians while not actually protecting Jews
The phrase "From the river to the sea" is one which is being wilfully misinterpreted by supporters of the State of Israel. Their contention that it is antisemitic or a call to violence has no basis in fact and is defamatory to those who use the phrase in the context of advocating for Palestinian rights as this implies that people who use the phrase are supporters of terrorism, antisemites or both.
In fact, the phrase is a call for respect, dignity and equality for all people who live in the area of former British Mandate Palestine irrespective of their religion, nationality or ethnicity. Currently, Jewish Israeli citizens living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea are free; Arab Israelis who do not enjoy the same rights as their Jewish counterparts are not, and Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in East Jerusalem, the West bank and Gaza certainly are not. When people chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" they mean that everyone in that space is entitled to full freedoms including national and citizenship rights and not just Jewish Israeli citizens as is currently the case. This is not a call for violence and it is not anti-semitic.
It is important that Meta does not consider this phrase to be a contravention of its community standards as to do so would be to censor those who are advocating for freedom and equality for all at the behest of a group who support the opposite.
The phrase “From the River to the Sea” is one that has always expressed the history and indigeneity of the Palestinian people by centering their ties to the land. Currently, it represents an important reminder to the history of the nation, placing current events within a larger context. Emotionally, it has been an important phrase in the expression and processing of grief by helping all of us who are witnessing loss and trauma to center our vision on hope - a hope for freedom, upholding the human rights and dignity of the oppressed. As the digital space plays an important role in transmitting and archiving historical knowledge of the indigenous Palestinian people and calling for a ceasefire and justice amid a brutal genocide and erasure of Palestinians, the phrase is one of hope and resistance. It must be assessed within the larger historical and cultural context in order not to be complicit in the erasure of Palestinians by banning the phrase.
"From the river to the sea" is a slogan that simply expresses the desire for Palestinian liberation from Israeli occupation and references the bodies of water that surround pre-1948 Palestine, before the partition of the land by European colonial powers and the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinian Arabs from their homes. The phrase is used to express the Palestinian desire for a national democratic state and their right to self-determination. The controversy around this phrase is an expression of disregard for Palestinians' right to self determination and right of return, not to mention pure Islamophobia. Please do not contribute to the further distortion and stigmatization of this phrase.
The claim that the phrase "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is hate speech or antisemitic is utterly ridiculous. We know that the israeli government spent millions on a "mass online influence system" (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2024-01-16/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-bought-mass-online-influence-system-to-counter-antisemitism-hamas-atrocity-denial/0000018d-0d31-db13-affd-7d3532830000) and Meta would be obtuse to not consider the timing of the mass reporting of innocuous posts containing the phrase. We also know that it is an established tactic of the right-wing extremist israeli government to brand any criticism of their illegal policies as antisemitic and this is clearly another attempt at that. My family fought against apartheid in South Africa at great personal risk and, as a supporter of global human rights and equality for all, I have personally used the phrase for decades and I am unequivocally opposed to any form of discrimination, including antisemitism. I have jewish family and I organise and work locally with many jewish people who also oppose the decades long oppression of the Palestinian people and they have no objection to the phrase. Meanwhile, posts containing actual hate speech, blatant racism and celebration of violence against innocent children stay up on the platform with no consequences. If meta bends to the will of what is considered a genocidal rogue state by the vast majority of the international community and bans this phrase it will lose what little credibility it has left.
“From the river to the sea” is a statement that calls for Palestinian freedom. It defines the borders of historic Palestine between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River, a majority of which has since been illegally occupied by the state of Israel since 1948. Calls to dismantle the state of Israel are calls to end an apartheid state that is now committing a genocide on Gazans. “From the river to the sea” would be said regardless of the people who were occupying Palestine, but they happen to be Jewish. Antisemitism is being used as a distraction to obscure the Palestinian cause. It paints the movement to free Palestine as antisemitic, when they are anti occupation and genocide. It dampens the antisemitism of right-wing Christian nationalists, who are fervently in support of Israel but harbor deeply antisemitic beliefs. Do not ban “From the River to the sea.”
“From the river to the sea” is NOT a call to violence against Israelis. Suggesting that Palestinians who demand liberation from the current genocide are the ones who want to mount a genocide is simply incorrect, and is buying into the Israeli government's dangerous propaganda.
The phrase "From the river to the sea" is typically found in the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." The phrase itself does not specify the river or the sea. Yet, it is meant to refer to the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The phrase "Palestine will be free" implies that Palestine is not now free.
According to the Oslo Accords, the West Bank is split into three areas, A, B and C. Area A falls under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Area C falls under the control of Israel. Area B is jointly controlled.
Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005. From 2005 to October 2023, Gaza was controlled by Hamas. That control is now dissipating. The slogan "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." preceded the Israeli response to the Hamas attack, murders and kidnapping of October 7th 2023.
If one thinks of freedom in terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the slogan might appear to be meant to apply to the West Bank and Gaza but not Israel. In terms of fundamental freedoms, Israel is free but the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority is not. Gaza under Hamas before the current Gaza war was even less free than the West Bank has been.
Yet, that is not the intent of the slogan. Freedom in the slogan is not intended to refer to freedom of expression, freedom of association and so on. It is meant to refer to freedom from Israel, freedom from Jewish rule. It is a form of antisemitism.
If Israel were an Islamic Arab state, instead of being a Jewish state, the phrase would not exist. "Freedom" in the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." does not mean freedom for Palestinians. It means freedom from Jews. The phrase is a form of Jew hatred.
Hate speech takes a variety of forms. Sometimes it is explicit. Sometimes it is implicit, coded and euphemistic.
Antisemitism is the world's oldest history, having existed since pre-historic times. Because of its long history, the vocabulary of antisemitism is constantly shifting. There is a tendency to recognize older antisemitic statements but not newer ones.
Today, the phrase "The final solution to the Jewish problem" is easily recognized as antisemitic. Yet, it was not so easily recognized when first used. All the same, that phrase shares characteristics with the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."
The phrase "The final solution to the Jewish problem" to those not familiar with its connotation might seem benign, a proposal to solve a problem. In theory, the phrase could even apply to the creation of the State of Israel. But that, of course, was not its intent.
Similarly, the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.", to those not familiar with its connotation, might seem benign, the advocacy of freedom. In theory the phrase could mean freedom of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet, here too that is not its intent.
There are, of course, many people who utter indirect, euphemistic, coded hate speech without realizing what they are saying. Yet, that ignorance, while it may excuse the speaker, does not excuse the phrase.
When it comes to coded antisemitic discourse, we do not need linguistic analysis to see the problem. We can see the problem from the result.
Antisemitic hate speech leads to attacks on Jews and Jewish property. There has been globally a sharp spike in antisemitic incidents - physical attacks on Jews, on Jewish institutions and Jewish property, both sparked and justified by people who use the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."
The phrase or its variations have been used by Hamas and its supporters. Khaled Meshal, in 2012, when he was leader of the political wing said in a speech "Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north". The Hamas murders, rapes and kidnapping of October 7th, 2023 were the largest mass atrocity inflicted on Jews since the Holocaust.
The phrase was spray painted in Spanish in April 2023 on Maimonides Synagogue, the largest synagogue in Barcelona. Whatever one thinks of the Israeli response to the Hamas October 7th attack, the worshippers of the Maimonides Synagogue had nothing to do with it.
What one does with a phrase tells us more about its meaning than just the words. When the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." and its variations are used worldwide to incite and justify attacks on Jews and Jewish property, the claim that the phrase is not antisemitic rings hollow.
.................................................................
When using the phrase "from the river to the sea", I use it in reference to the occupation of Palestine. As a citizen of Ireland, a country that has previously (and still is to a smaller scale) been occupied by the UK, I feel it is important to have the freedom of speech to put words to occupation - as Meta has allowed in the case of Ukraine.
There is nothing anti-Semitic about the phrase - it simply represents future freedom for those living in an occupied territory, a freedom I am grateful to have as an Irish person.