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
It is a testament to the funding and power of pro-Zionist propaganda that the phrase “From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free” is even under discussion. Despite what many hardcore zealots on the right may say, this slogan has never and will never be anything other than a call for freedom from an oppressive ethno-state. Israeli fundamentalists will continue to claim it is antisemitic, but repeating a lie over and over doesn’t make it true. How can we do anything other than criticize Israel, a state that has assigned a different set of laws for each ethnic group? To call for freedom for all citizens across all of historical Palestine is a beautiful and hopeful thought, one that cannot be tarnished by false accusations of antisemitism. Meta claims to be in favor of free speech, so why would wishing for freedom in ancestral lands be the exception? The only reason it would be so is Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism. It is critical that we do not censor free speech in such a clearly biased and racist way. If Israeli propaganda influences this phrase to be banned, it sets a very dangerous precedent around dogmatic and well-funded groups banning other phrases just because it offends their particular viewpoint and sensibilities.
From The River To The Sea, is a call for freedom, dignity, and respect for all people of all identities and religions in the land between the river and the sea.
Regardless how can the phrase be antisemitic when it was popularized after being adopted by the likud party into their original party platform
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 about resistance from violent settler occupation and genocide. You can’t rebrand the truth.
Advocating against an ongoing genocide is not controversial. Speaking out against a violent colonial state that is actively killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians is not controversial.
Criticizing the government of Israel is not antisemitic. Zionism is NOT Judaism and the government of Israel doesn’t represent the Jewish people.
The phrase ‘from the river to the sea’ should not be banned from any platforms. At the time of the UN partition in 1947, this is how Palestine and Israel were divided (based on historical maps) and the West Bank which borders the Jordan River should be connected to Gaza which borders the Mediterranean Sea. I have recently become more aware of this conflict that has been going on for more than 75 years and have learned of how family members in West Bank and Gaza haven’t seen each other for decades under Israel’s apartheid rule and illegal settlements. This is unjust and inhumane and the Palestinians deserve to have their own state with the West Bank and Gaza connected. The UN and the rest of the world support this 2-state solution and it’s the acts committed by Israel over the last several months that have been a ‘call for the exclusion’ and extermination of the Palestinians. I do see any link of this statement to Hamas or a call to violence against those who identify as Jewish and it’s definitely not antisemitic. The Palestinians are included in the definition of ‘Semites’ so this seems ridiculous. The only violence that has increased is that committed by Israel against the Palestinians and pro-Israel demonstrators that have invaded college campuses and attacked pro-Palestinian student protesters. Banning this phrase would go completely against the principles of freedom of expression, and not only equality for the Palestinians and non-discrimination against them, but a gross violation of the principles that the USA was built on and touts itself as a democracy.
“From the River to the Sea” is not hate speech or violent language. This is a beautiful protest chant that speaks to the liberation of all people. The Palestinian struggle for freedom is interconnected to all of our freedom, that is what that chant means. It speaks volumes that Facebook is targeting Palestinian chants while allowing content on their platform that openly supports a current genocide — which has been confirmed by the most recent ICC ruling. If Facebook does move to censor the phrase “From the River to the Sea,” they are endorsing the actions that Israel are currently pursuing: dropping bombs on children, enabling mass starvation, preventing aid to enter occupied territory, and more heinous war crimes we may not even yet know of. Palestian liberation is intertwined with Jewish liberation, and the rights of all of us to exist on our land without fear and senseless slaughter.
Meta should not censor posts mentioning "From the River to the Sea" because doing so would undermine the principles of free speech, which are foundational to democratic societies. Free speech allows for the expression of diverse viewpoints, even those that are controversial or unpopular. Suppressing such expressions can set a dangerous precedent, leading to the erosion of open dialogue and the stifling of dissent.
Representative Rashida Tlaib, a sitting member of the U.S. Congress, has used this phrase in the context of advocating for Palestinian rights. Censoring her and others who use similar language could be seen as an attempt to silence political discourse and suppress legitimate concerns about human rights. This could also lead to accusations of bias and inconsistency in content moderation practices, potentially damaging Meta's reputation as a platform for open expression.
In a society that values free speech, it is crucial to allow a wide range of perspectives, including those that challenge the status quo. Rather than censoring such posts, Meta should focus on facilitating constructive dialogue and addressing hate speech and incitement to violence, ensuring that all users can participate in a meaningful and respectful exchange of ideas.
Palestine, as it has been known for millennia, including in the Bible, is a region encompassing the part of the Eastern Mediterranean south of Mount Lebanon and between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. This particular sea and this particular river have served as Palestine’s boundaries from time immemorial until the establishment of the State of Israel divided this land and banished millions of Palestinians from their homes, forcing them to live as refugees in different parts of Palestine and abroad. The call for Palestinian freedom from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is a call for Palestinians’ freedom of movement, which is currently impeded and often completely forbidden by Israel via a system of border walls and checkpoints in the occupied West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Families now divided across what was until recently (1948) historic Palestine are now prohibited from reuniting and returning to their houses. It is also a call for civil freedom, as Palestinian citizens of the State of Israel are not granted the same rights and liberties as Jewish citizens of that state. Freedom for Palestinians is currently severely encroached upon in all the land between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River, and it is a vital necessity that we be allowed to call for this freedom publicly as we indeed also call for the freedoms of all people to whom freedoms are denied.
“From the river to the sea” has been used by both pro-Palestine and pro-Israel protestors. It is not genocidal, certainly not like statements made by congressmen and women to “flatten Gaza” that were allowed to stand. Furthermore, meta had a hand in the Rohingya genocide via Facebook. Now is the time to make amends and rehabilitate it’s image by championing freedom of speech.
Censoring this call for freedom is censoring all calls for freedom. There is no hate in this statement, only hope for a better future. Someone who is offended by being called out for complicity in genocide should receive no public support or sympathy. If the call for a free Palestine is censored, then where does the censorship stop? White supremacist, racists, nazis, and other hate groups are actively promoted on all of Meta’s platforms, yet a phrase calling for basic humanity and compassion receives a blacklist? Do better, Meta
To me, the 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. Banning the phrase would be a grave mistake and disregard for free speech
The statement “from the river to the sea” is a call for the freedom of Palestinian people to be able to move as they wish within occupied Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This has not been possible since 1948, when the state of Israel was established and Palestinians and their descendants who were expelled have been unable to return to their homelands. It is well within the right of free speech to post content including the phrase “from the river to the sea.” While clear violence was committed by Hamas on October 7th, Israel has limited the rights of Palestinians within the area implied by the phrase for 76 years, and especially since blockading Gaza. This, too, is violence, as is the collective punishment and excessive retaliation by the IDF on the Palestinian people of Gaza. Freedom of movement and access to land can be achieved without this violence. By further suppressing Palestinian voices and those of other concerned parties, Meta would enable the continued violence against the Palestinian people.
It is unfair to take the word of a group that is opressing another on what the meaning of chants and slogans mean to the people using them. The lobby to condemn the use of the phrase "from the river to the sea" is the same lobby who would consider "black lives matter" to be a call for all other non-blacks to not matter. This is just another way to control and essentially criminalize the way that an oppressed people protest and share their experiences. "From the river to the sea" is an expression of freedom and peace. Freedom of movement (which is not allowed for Gazans because of Israeli policy), freedom of education (which is not possible for Gazans as every single university has been destroyed by Israel), the call for peaceful existence (which is not allowed under military occupation, checkpoints, extra-judicial killings and arrests by the Israeli government).
Banning this phrase will do nothing but make it harder for people to show support, empathy, and desire for freedom for Palestinians who are currently suffering at the hands of the leaders of Israel who the ICC have condemned and called for the arrests of due to their crimes against the people of Gaza.
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is a loaded one, undoubtedly. But to fully understand it’s meaning, one must look to the past, in the present, and to the future.
In the past, Palestinian people were forced to leave their homes by Zionists, people who believe Jewish people should lay claim to a land with a rich and diverse history. It’s worth noting here that not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists: British military led the displacement and violent removal of Palestinian people from their homes. Palestinians were forced to leave their country or into small, separate portions of the land we now know as Gaza, at the sea, and the West Bank, at the Jordan River.
Now, and since then, Palestinian people’s movements, travel, employment, trade, basic resources like food, water, and shelter, and even technology has been controlled by Israel. To be clear, their basic safety is at the mercy of Israeli military, who are shown to be heavily discriminatory and violent to Palestinian people. These people are far from free.
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is about returning basic human rights to the Palestinian people.
In regards to Meta’s responsibility to human rights, not only is this phrase not a promotion of violence or oppression, but it is the expression of a belief, call it political or social or whatever you may, but it is a signifier of a core belief on a prominent issue. If Meta were to remove the ability to state this belief, they would be taking away people’s rights to express their views on an ongoing current event.
Meta has allowed numerous religious, political, etc slogans to circulate their platforms for years. In targeting this phrase, but leaving other political phrases like “build the wall” and “come and take it” discriminated against some beliefs over others.
From the utilization of language point of view, that terms doesn’t conflict with any of positive and normative clause in humanity,
From contextual point of view, it is a cry for justice, it is a term for resistance towards oppression, towards a global act of illegal settlement and genocide.
Not a single reason that the terms should be banned from the platform which aimed to voice the factual of the world with transparency
The phrase in question, "From the river to the sea," is completed with the words "Palestine will be free." Taken as a whole or in either part representing the whole as demonstrated in the contexts given, this sentence is not hate speech but rather a belief in freedom and sovereignty for the people of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The land has historically been a place where Palestinians of different faiths - Muslim, Christian, and Jewish - have coexisted prior to territorial claims by European powers/settlers. Thus "From the river to the sea" is a call to return to that coexistence, the end of internationally recognized occupation, and indigenous sovereignty. It is ignorant or hateful to claim otherwise.
"From the river to the sea" is part of a larger statement including "Palestine will be free".
It is not a violent statement. It is talking about the liberation of an oppressed group of people - people who are currently suffering at the hands of someone who the ICC now wants to arrest for war crimes.
The phrase "from the river to the sea" is not hate speech - it is a phrase naming the traditional boundaries of Palestine, much as the phrase "from sea to shining sea" does for the US. The next part of the phrase, "Palestine will be free," is talking about freedom of Palestinians from the system of apartheid they are living under. It does not call for violence against anyone. I am a Jew and do not feel this phrase is anti semitic.
I am appalled to see the legal consideration to block “from the river to the sea” from public posts. I want to know why pro-Israel posts calling for the suffering and elimination of Palestinians using explicitly threatening and hateful language do not get removed just because they do not use the phrase “from the river to the sea”. The public posts made in the name of Palestine using “from the river to the sea” must contain a direct statement or threat linking the phrase to a hateful goal or ideology, to be banned. Banning the use of the phrase at all in the name of some people who choose to assign hateful context to a phrase that is not consistent with the motives or messages behind its every use, is limiting free speech on a public platform. This is especially concerning in the wake of the recent uptick in the popularity of the phrase being used by users and organisations directly advocating for unity among all people including but not limited to Jews worldwide, and speaking against hate.
I believe the phrase “from the river to the sea” should not be banned as it does not go against Meta’s community standards of hate speech, violence and incitement, and dangerous organizations/individuals. To me this phrase represents a cause which aspires for a better world— no different than #MeToo, “black lives matter”, “stop asian hate”, etc. If Meta were to ban “from the river to the sea”, it would set a dangerous precedent to ban similar such phrases representing current world struggles, where in actuality these phrases hold importance in education and dialogue in order to advance society.