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
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/
Any comment that recommends or supports the destruction of any country - in this case Israel - ought to be rejected. When South Africa was boycotted, no reasonable entity called for the utter and total destruction of the country or the expulsion of any if its people. We Jews are uniquely familiar with the destructive power of words. I am a child of a holocaust survivor - if Israel existed as country during WWII, there would have been one country in the world which would have accepted the Jews, instead of abandoning them to the hate-filled Nazi regime. Ultimately, the highest test you could use when considering accepting or rejecting posts could be civility. I understand that would require a thorough washing of content on the platforms. But, it can stand as a horizon-line that leads you forward as you consider this and other cases.
"From the river to the sea" means that they want to kill all the people that currently live in between the river & sea (Israel) and create a land for Muslims only. This type of hate speech should never be allowed!
Hello, I am American-- Kansas, protestant, Chiefs fan. I believe in our rights, including our right to pray and our right to free speech. I am horrified by what is happening with censorship right now.
There is nothing wrong with the words, "FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA!" There isn't even anything wrong if you add "Palestine will be free" at the end of it!
First, Israel uses the beginning section all the time. Our right wing government uses it all the time for Israel. Don't be hypocritical.
Second, it is a peaceful call. It is a lovely call. I have so many rich things from my heritage that I am allowed to say. FTRTTSPWBF is peaceful. There is no reason to restrict this. None! Allow it.
Banning this only adds to the culture of fear and division.
Also, I understand that Meta has leadership belonging of certain beliefs. Is this action to ban the statement a personal vendetta? Is this to appease congress?
This phrase has a rich cultural background and is beautiful. It is peaceful.
The statement or call of "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is a call for freedom from oppression that has been, and is still being, inflicted on Palestinians who are in fact the indigenous people of Palestine, whether they live in Gaza, the West Bank, in the colony of Israel, or in diaspora.
Examples of the oppression previously mentioned are first and foremost genocide of Palestinians, as well as the continued ethnic cleansing, occupation, apartheid, administrative and illegal detention (also known as taking Palestinian hostages), home demolitions, dehumanization, harassment in forms that beggar belief, and the list goes on and on.
Let's look at how israelis use the same phrase:
I also reference the use of the self same phrase in the terrorist israeli LIKUD CHARTER: "From the river to the sea" is a Palestinian phrase that has been used by the right-wing Israeli Likud party since 1977 in its election manifesto. The phrase states that "between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". The 1999 Likud Party platform also emphasized the right of settlement, stating that "the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values".
An old Zionist slogan envisaged statehood extending over the two banks of the Jordan river, and when that vision proved impractical, it was substituted by the idea of a Greater Israel, an entity conceived as extending from the Jordan to the sea.[9][10] The Palestinian phrase has also been used by Israeli politicians. The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."[11][12][13] Similar wording, such as referring to the area "west of the Jordan river", has also been used more recently by other Israeli politicians,[3] including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 18 January 2024.[14] Some countries have considered criminalizing Palestinian use of the phrase.[15][16]
- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party and Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#:~:text=The%20Palestinian%20phrase%20has%20also,Palestinian%20use%20of%20the%20phrase.
Let us not forget that Benyamin Netanyahu who stated “in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea,” according to an English translation of the speech from Israeli news channel i24News. According to another translation, Netanyahu said that Israel “must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River” — which effectively means the same thing.
- https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/
And lest you forget, a reminder, that Netanyahu used his big red marker and scribbled all over a map of the Middle East explaining - to the UN of all entities - "Greater Israel" which is literally a plan to take over land from several Middle Eastern countries INCLUDING THE ENTIRETY OF PALESTINE! Go read about it. All references are included in this Wikipedia:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
Free Palestine, FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA.
The phrase you are considering censoring refers to the physical geography of Palestine, as well as the concept of freedom for Palestinians.
Meta will be remembered as solidly on the wrong side of history, given their blatant censorship & bias, Islamophobia, & racism during the Gaza genocide. The immediate, overt censorship on instagram is well-documented & given their so-called accidental labelling of Palestinian users as “terrorists”, these social media platforms are overt about their agendas.
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.
As a Jewish American, I think it’s absurd that the phrase “From the River to the Sea” is being considered as possible hate speech. The origin of the phrase translates from an Arabic chant meaning “from the water to the water, Palestine is Arab”. It is a chant describing the historical populace of Palestine, which includes Palestinian Jews, and represents a call to resist genocide and ethnic cleansing. Anyone with any critical thinking ability can see that. Banning this phrase clearly targets Palestinians and Palestinian self-determination, which makes us all less safe and free. Shame on you for even considering it.
What is the Oversight Board’s proposed alternative to the full freedom of a population confined to an ever-shrinking enclave under indefinite siege—perpetual imprisonment? Should they *not* be afforded the same freedom enjoyed by their neighbors?
“From the River to the Sea” means that someday Indigenous Palestinians will have freedom and equal rights. It doesn’t mean less rights for Israeli Jews. I’m around a lot of pro-Palestinian people and I’ve never heard anyone say they think Jews should be eradicated from “Israel.”
"From the River to the Sea" appears in the Likud party platform. In their eyes, Israel should have unilateral authority in those lands, which would require the Palestinian people to either be displaced or at the very least not have the right to vote.
By saying instead "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," one is affirming the Palestinian people's right to continue living in their homes and the right to become full voting citizens. A singular secular democratic state would satisfy this outcry.
As a user of Instagram, I want to address the debate about whether the phrase, “from the river to the sea” should be allowed on the platform. In my view, and by any empirical measure, the phrase is about freedom for Palestinians throughout the area encompassed from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea. Why any discourse around freedom would be censored from the platform is absolutely confounding.
Freedom - which every human is entitled to - shouldn’t be a controversial concept. It might be perceived as controversial by individuals or groups who desire to oppress others, or by supremacists. But for the average person - and from what I have seen, every person who used the phrase “from the river to the sea” - freedom is a normal expectation and pursuit in life.
Some people have erroneously claimed that there is antisemitism or some sort of intent to harm Jewish people wrapped up in “from the river to the sea.” There is not. It is not a phrase about Jewish people at all. But rather, it is about Palestinians - their right to live as equals with their neighbors, and to govern and manage themselves solely and completely. This cannot and should not be perceived as a threat by anyone. Anything else is projection and false accusation.
The idea of freedom has long-been associated with land and bodies of water. Even Americans sing “from sea to shining sea” in “America the Beautiful.” Is that meant to be a threat to anyone? Of course not. It is meant to relish our liberty, and freedom from oppression.
Simply put, if you can effectively make the case that the words “from the river to the sea” are hateful or threatening in some way and must be banned, you must also treat the words “from sea to shining sea” the same, and similarly, ALL expressions of freedom that reference land. But it strikes me that this would be the antithesis of our right of expression under the First Amendment, and in direct conflict with what our Founding Fathers intended when they enshrined that right. Further, banning “from the river to the sea” will alienate an enormous segment of your users, driving us to alternate platforms that utilize more sensible moderation.
Ultimately, I ask you to reflect on whether any call for freedom is something to be rejected and censored. If you find it is not, the only option is to allow the phrase “from the river to the sea” on Instagram. If you find, however, that freedom-for-all does not align with Instagram’s values, I’m sure we will find other platforms to spend our clicks and views on. The most important feature of a social media platform is the ability to freely express. Without that, you have nothing to offer.
From the river to the sea is a call for the freedom of the Palestinian people from the apartheid system created by Israel, a call for the freedom from bombs, drones, surveillance, and genocide. Conflation of calling for the end to a genocide with antisemitism actually paints Jews in a worse light. Stop censoring Palestinians and their allies who are fighting for humanity
From the River to the Sea, to me means: that all people of all faiths will live in a peaceful and free democratic society. Where Jews, Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Whites and people of all races, can live and protect the holly land. Where they can feel free to worship, have children, be educated, marry whoever they love, and govern together as one entity of peace and of freedom….
I believe in free speech and human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples all around the world. I am appaled at the way the global north has been selectively use these sacred human principles when it does not suit their economic and geopolitical interests. I believe that the phrase "from the river to the sea" is a call for rightful existance of the Palestinian state. Human rights cannot be selective. Free speech cannot be selective. Supporting Palestinian human rights is in no way antisemitic. Antizionism is not antisemitic.
This phrase is used by Palestinians and those who support Palestine to describe a beautiful hope, which is for Palestinians to be free within their ancestral homeland. As of now, Palestinians in the West Bank cannot move freely, nor do they have the same rights as Israelis in the same area. They are completely denied access to some parts of their homeland. In Gaza, they’re largely denied the right to leave and return. 75% of Palestinians were displaced during the creation of Israel in 1948, and are denied the right to return. Palestinians are not free between the River and the sea, and that is what this phrase refers to. This is not hate speech and should not be categorized as such.
To even consider banning the phrase, “From the river to the sea” is unacceptable. It affirms the right of the Palestinian people to exist. It does not indicate displacement or killing of Israelis. I implore you to research the matter in a balanced way.
I believe this statement to simply reflect the locations of Gaza (by the sea) and the West Bank (by the river) and the desire of Palestinians to be free. I do not believe it to be anti semetic or violent in any way. Banning the phrase would be against free speech and a victory for repression. I am not Israeli or Arab,Jewish or Muslim. My understanding is that the phrase was originally used by the Likud party and then Palestinians and supporters started to use it. If the phrase was banned by Meta, I would consider it to be a very dark day for freedom of speech and democracy
Because the only people who use the phrase ‘From the River to the Sea’ and mean genocide are from the state of Israel.
Indeed, this phrase was coined by Israeli Zionists who declared Israel a ‘land without a people for a people without a land’ before they forced 750,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948.
This phrase has been reclaimed by the Free Palestine movement. Which calls for the end of the bombardment and the end of apartheid living conditions. It calls for freedom of movement for Palestinians from the Jordon River to the Mediterranean Sea. It does not call for the killing of Jews. In fact, many Jews who are anti-Zionist and anti-israeli-supremacy are involved in this movement.
In closing - Palestinians are Semites, by very definition the continued assault and bombardment from the state of Israel is anti-Semitic.
PPS you can ban our words - but you will never kill this movement.
From the river to the sea should no be censored on any of metas platforms. It is a form of political speech that has been used by both Palestinians and Israelis. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party’s original manifesto in 1977 stated that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”. I happen to not agree with that but that does not mean I can report and censor Israelis who have that view. In my opinion, from the river to the sea Palestine will be free is a cry for equality rights within either a 2 state solution or more likely a one state solution. Several international human rights monitors, like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have stated that Israel is an apartheid state for Palestinian ‘Arabs’ within Israel, the Palestinian's living in occupied West Bank, and even before the invasion of Gaza. Palestinians do not have equal rights and, from the river to the sea, through out the whole area, they should have equal rights and a right to return. In the USA, during Jim Crow, the solution was not to fully separate black and white communities. From our own history we know segregation needs to end and there needs to be a constant struggle towards equal rights which we are still working on in our own country today. In my opinion, saying from the river to the sea should be censored is like saying black lives matter should be censored. it is a rallying cry to bring attention to what a group of people are currently living in and why it needs to be improved. White people feared integration and that it would lead to violence in the US and in South Africa and we know from history that it was not the case. We should not be putting the 'feeling' of insecurity thinking that the violence oppressors do to others will be turned back on them. The concern of a oppressing system should not censer the call for equality for all palestinians, Israelis, and all people of faith be it Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc.