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 the liberation, self-determination, and right of return for Palestinian people who have been oppressed, slaughtered, and driven out of their homeland. Censoring it on the frankly very weak grounds that it is antisemitic would set an extremely dangerous precedent on this platform. Instagram and Facebook should not uplift the voices supporting apartheid regimes, especially those known for denying free speech and press, above the voice for justice. Instagram and Facebook succeed as social media apps because people are able to speak relatively freely.
PALESTINE’S RALLYING CRY IS NOT HATE SPEECH
The statement “From the river to the sea” is falsely attributed to terrorism and hate just like multiple other terms/statements used by pro Palestine supporters like Jihad, Nakba, Intifada, etc. The main reason is the lack of understanding of what they actually mean and blindly following the wrong interpretations which are unfortunately much louder simply because it’s a lot easier to convince people of the negative meanings when there’s already been a negative sentiment around Arabic and Arabs for years. Another confusion that’s been going around is mixing up anti-zionism with antisemitism. Pia Feig, of Manchester Jews for Justice for Palestinians, told BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine programme that "anti-Semitism has been used to quieten down and suppress my concern and the concern of other people for Palestinians" (an excerpt from BBC.com). The statement in question has been often associated with this confusion and that’s where all the claims about it being hate speech came from. This confusion has to be addressed properly and a clearer differentiation has to be made between the two terms to ensure free and fair speech for both parties. My personal reflection on what Meta has been standing for lately is truly frustrating, Meta has been very clearly applying double standards, censoring pro Palestine content and promoting anything but free speech so I truly have hope that this case is going to make a difference in the way Meta goes about its decisions going forward.
It is grossly unfair to block a phrase such as “from the river to the sea” when Meta is filled with language of actual hate that causes real life harm to people I know and love. Selecting this phrase of all phrases as the one to deny is racist and against the freedom of speech, which Facebook claims to support and is the only reason Facebook gets away with the language it allows on the daily.
Leave this rhetoric alone. It is not causing actual harm, unlike many other phrases Meta has been asked to block by marginalized communities for ages.
I think it’s ridiculous to ban this phrase specifically calling for liberation, it has no violent or hateful words in it whatsoever. Moreover I think it’s interesting that there is a link to translate the page in hebrew only, and there is no option for other languages including Spanish (the second-most spoken language in the US, is that not where meta is based?) but I’m not surprised as meta has clearly been on the side of the oppressor as can be seen in the shadowbanning, limiting reach, etc etc with activist’s accounts. If you actually cared about hate speech and violence you’d be banning phrases that dehumanize people, phrases that promote white supremacy, or shadowbanning/limiting the reach of literal neo-nazis. If you can’t figure out the difference between supporting collective liberation and actual hate speech then you shouldn’t be banning any specific phrases, but instead providing a platform for free speech and if necessary, reviewing on a case by case basis to asses the intent behind whatever’s being said WITH NO DISCRIMINATION or BIAS. That is to say, include zionists referring to Palestinian people as “human animals” and calling for extermination of an entire population in your alleged quest against hate speech.
We all know exactly how this is gonna go, but you need to know that we’re watching exactly what you do and in ten, twenty years’ time we will not allow you to rewrite history as if you weren’t clearly backing the oppressors.
This phrase represents that every Palestinian, actual human beings who exist between the river and the sea, will be free.
From the river to the sea should not be banned it is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.
The phrase should not be banned. It is clearly an aspirational call for freedom and equality, made by the people who simply want to live in their homeland without being oppressed by an occupying force. The people that claim this phrase is anything else, are lying, twisting the words to fit their agenda. Let clarity and logic guide us and allow for free speech.
It is ridiculous that Meta should even consider banning "from the river to the sea." The phrase is not violent, and only calls for the freedom of an oppressed group who is victim of apartheid.
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is first and foremost a call for liberation and national democracy for the Palestinian people, specifically in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
This phrase, as expressed by many thousands of Palestinians and their supporters over the last several decades, is not a call for the incitement of violence, but the opposite, a call for the establishment of peace.
The very fact that this phrase was used, albeit with far different connotations and political context, by members of the Israeli government themselves, should be a testament to the harmlessness of the phrase, especially as one that is not antisemitic.
To censor such a phrase would be an egregious infringement of free speech and a dangerous slippery slope towards the further digital censorship of free speech, setting a precedent not just across Meta, but across the internet as a whole.
As such, I implore you, do not vote for the censorship of this phrase.
Unlike other pro-Palestinian slogans, "From the River to the Sea" expresses a totalitarian attitude and outlook towards this conflict. It is much like the term "Final Solution". It leaves no room for peace. Though there are many people who use this phrase without understanding the geographical / political context, and its actual meaning, there are many who do understand and use it exactly because it expresses the totality of their proposed solution. A phrase that literarily means the destruction of a state and the annihilation of its people should not be treated as a nuanced "depends on context" phrase. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this question.
The slogan "from the river to the sea" was coined by the Israeli likud party speaking of expansion into a greater Israel.
Today this slogan, used by many Jews around the world today, is meant as a wish for the people of Gaza and the West Bank to live with self determination meaning the right to move freely without checkpoints, separate roads, fear of being attacked by US made weapons, without having to worry about settlers stealing their homes or burning down their homes. This is a call for a return to the system before the 1948 nakba when the extremely far right Zionist groups committed their first mass ethic cleansing.
All people deserve human rights. This slogan is a call for human rights to be applied to Palestinians.
The slogan "from the river to the sea" was coined by the Israeli likud party speaking of expansion into a greater Israel.
Today this slogan, used by many Jews around the world today, is meant as a wish for the people of Gaza and the West Bank to live with self determination meaning the right to move freely without checkpoints, separate roads, fear of being attacked by US made weapons, without having to worry about settlers stealing their homes or burning down their homes. This is a call for a return to the system before the 1948 nakba when the extremely far right Zionist groups committed their first mass ethic cleansing.
All people deserve human rights. This slogan is a call for human rights to be applied to Palestinians.
To ban this phrase “from the river to the sea”
Which is a statement calling for the dignity, sovereignty, peace, and well-being of the people of Palestine is a GROSS censorship and stands with and encourages the genocide, mistreatment, and discrimination of Palestinians committed upon them by israel and their allies.
This statement “from the river to the sea” is seeking and fighting for peace for which Palestinians have been denied for 76 years under the nakba which never ended. How can you even consider censoring this? How is calling for peace and sovereignty worth censoring?
The fact that ANYONE can report the saying "from the river to the sea" as hate speech should be an indicator that a certain group of people (committing war crimes) are reporting it as such.
A simple online search would show any paid researcher that "from the river to the sea" was originally used by the Israeli Lukid party to promote the annihilation of the Palestinian people and now that its being taken back failed attempts at censorship are being implemented. Maybe your "researchers" and "moderators" need to be replaced as to not waste more of your precious money on these failing attempts to silence truth, war crimes and atrocities happening since 1948. We the people should not do your jobs or educate you for free. We ALL have our 1st amendment rights and if you want to censor "from the river to the sea" then you should censor pedophiles, white supremacists, islamophobia, queer hate etc.
The statement "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" means exactly what it says. That Palestinians are deserving of freedom from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, just like anybody else. It is not complicated and it is not an incitement of genocide. It is a call that Palestinians are deserving of universal human rights, of dignity, and of self determination. Freedom for Palestinians, from Gaza (Mediterranean Sea) to the West Bank (Jordan River). Palestinians are facing occupation in the west bank, a siege in Gaza, and now a genocide. NO human being should exist under an apartheid system. In Apartheid South Africa and in the Jim Crow South of the U.S., calls for freedom were echoed across movements for liberation and equality. Are the Palestinians not allowed this? Saying that this is forbidden speech sets a dangerous precedent. Next it could be Free Palestine, Landback, or right to return. It will never end. If Nelson Mandela said, freedom for black South Africans from here to here, does that mean death to all white South Africans? No it means an end to the apartheid system and freedom for black South Africans. To be equal. Instead of asking if "From the River to sea, Palestine will be free" is a genocidal or antisemitic statement and should be suspended, ask why is it that Palestinians are chanting for freedom? Groups that chant for freedom often are calling to be freed from something that is infringing on that. Infringing on their basic human rights. History has shown that these chants for freedom are just. Often times struggles for freedom have experienced opposition, but when we look back on these movements we learn how important these rights are and how people are willing to fight for them, because we are ALL deserving of these basic human rights. Palestine and Palestinians are no different. Their fight for freedom is just a continuation of that struggle and that legacy.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free simply means what it says - it is a hope for freedom and justice. Currently, and for the least 75+ years, Palestinians have been dispossessed, displaced many times over, endured collective punishment, torture in prison without charge, apartheid, brutal occupation, blockades, home demolitions, myriad human rights violations, carpet bombing every few years in Israel's effort to ethnically cleanse the area. This is what Palestinians wish to be free from and what I and many around the globe also wish them to be free from when we use the phrase. Palestinians deserve to have freedom of movement, food and water AND, yes, to be free and have self-determination like any other people.
It is disturbing to see this possible ban on these words and to see people with such vicious Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian hatred twist a phrase about freedom into what they wish it meant ("a hateful slogan"), so they can put a decisive end to any discussion around Palestinian statehood, human rights violations, resistance to occupation, and eventual freedom. A ban on words that are pro-freedom and anti-genocide will show you are for repression and genocide. It's that simple.
Posts that include the phrase, "from the river to the sea" cannot be problematic even if someone claims they are. The subjective morals of any individual or group does not dictate the meaning of a phrase. Read it yourself. The phrase is clearly talking about a land, and the common phrasing of it alluded to a people who have a land but this land is not free for them to live on. It has, rather, been taken from them and therefore needs to be freed.
Hence the phrase, from the river to the sea. (I.e. between two places) X will be free (i.e. x will be freed from corruption and illegal occupation of the land).
From the river to the sea is a rallying cry for true peace—that is to say, not just freedom from overt physical violence, but also from structural violence, colonialism, and oppression. It is a cry for justice. Speaking of, I find it interesting that, although English, Arabic, and Hebrew are all acceptable languages to comment in, the announcement itself is only available in English and Hebrew, despite the acknowledgement that the phrase is one used specifically to wish for peace and justice in Palestine (which lies between the river and the sea), where many speak Arabic.
The phrase “From the River, to the Sea” is often a shortened version of the much longer phrase “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.” This call is not one of antisemetic hate speech but, rather, a rallying cry to see that Palestinians are given equal rights and treatment under the rule of law. Palestinians live and work in many places throughout the colonizing state of Israel and, as the media has shown, do not face equal protection under a supposedly democratic law. Israel, knowing the location of journalists and aid workers, still strikes in those areas, sometimes with military precision. Palestinian children, some in single-digit ages, are held in prisons and tortured for a crime of “throwing stones.” These social media posts are not a call for Jewish people to be expelled but a call for the Zionist state of Israel to see the double-standard. In addition, this cry of “From the River to the Sea” is one of hope in a time when Western media is so determined to criminalize any form of protest against the United States and Israel, both being countries funding a genocide.