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
For me the current use of the phrase 'from the river to the sea' is to encompass all of historic Palestine in calling for an end to apartheid. Regardless of the Israeli state, 2 state solution etc. Palestinian have lived under brutal conditions of apartheid.
Similar to the call to end apartheid in the USA and South Africa, it's the acknowledgement that from the original Nakba, stems an injustice. And that all Palestineans whether in Gaza or in occupied territories have the inherent right to justice and freedom from apartheid.
The phrase "from the river to the sea" is not inherently antisemitic and should not be automatically blocked or removed from online posts on Meta social media. The groups protesting the current killing of large numbers of noncombatants in Gaza intend it to mean that Palestinians should be safe from the river to the sea, without in any way implying that Jews should not also be safe from the river to the sea. This is not only reasonable, it is a simple demand for the most basic of human rights - the right to life. To censor this phrase in this context is deeply wrong - anti-democratic, racist and inhumane. Stop blocking the phrase "from the river to the sea", and go after the real antisemitism that is all too prevalent on your platforms.
I bet the only people calling for the removal of this phrase are colonizers. If this phrase is ruled as being a call to violence, then every single instance referencing From Sea to Shining Sea should also be brought before the Oversight Board.
This is a clear attempt to silence the voices of people being slaughtered by a well armed, well funded, occupying force.
“From the river to the sea” is a recognition that apartheid began in 1948 when Israel was created through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It is not a call for genocide.
To call for the destruction of Israel as an apartheid state is not a call for the destruction of Jews living there, any more than the call for the destruction of apartheid in South Africa was a call for the destruction of white people.
As a member of the black community, my family has experienced the oppression and dehumanization of antiblack rhetoric that allowed slavery, segregation, and apartheid. It was wrong for us and it is wrong for the Palestinian people.
Calling for Palestinians to be free is NOT calling to oppress the community. Human rights and freedoms are for EVERYONE.
Hi, as an Indian who’s ancestors has suffered for almost 400 years of British colonization, I know firsthand, how inhumane it can be to be born being colonized. From birth my people’s fate was sealed that in our own country, we would be treated as sub-humans, animals by the British rulers. For 400 years my people fought for equal rights, for freedom despite facing persecution, false accusations by the British rule. I see Palestinians today and I couldn’t relate more to their suffering as an Indian. They too are coming to this world being colonized by other people. In modern day and time, it simply is unacceptable for a country to colonize others, an entire population. When Palestinians say ‘from river to the sea’, it’s their freedom cry, it’s their urge to be free and to have equal human rights as any other human being on the planet for every Palestinian that lives within this boundary. How can it be considered as hateful? Those who are falsely accusing this as hate speech are following the exact pattern that the British did with Indian freedom fighters and activists. My ancestors were hanged to death for wanting to get equal pay in our own country compared to the British workers. They were called Terrorists by the British for demanding India’s freedom from colonization. Please, don’t make the same mistake as them. Wanting to be free is probably the most natural and basic human instinct.
“from the river to the sea” is not antisemitic and it does not incite violence. it represents the desire for freedom from occupation and persecution over a region that was colonized by Israel in 1948.
Censorship of the phrase “from the river to the sea” will show the undeniable bias Meta has in pushing pro-israeli rhetoric with complete disregard for the Palestinian rights cause. The phrase is inherently non-violent originating from an old Arabic poem hoping for Palestinian freedom from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea. It has been subsequently bastardized by Zionist extremists to mean the animation of one people over another which simply isn’t true. We have witnessed unhinged Islamophobia and anti-Palestine rhetoric all of which Meta has no problem with. Pro-Palestinian voices are being censored shamelessly by your corrupt organization, widespread shadowing-banning has been noted. These violations should be enough to put your organization to shame. Going through with the ban of this phrase will undeniably be an infringement of user rights. I believe you’ve had enough infringements of users’ rights by selling our data and allowing foreign governments to influence the algorithm.
Excerpt from Hearing Palestine at U of T - "From the River to the Sea: Palestine will be Free:” A Primer on History, Context, and Legalities in Canada
Scholars who have looked most carefully show that the history and present use of the slogan is rooted in Palestinian expressions for liberation, freedom, and equality and in the struggle to challenge the on-going context of colonization and military occupation. Furthermore, in a country like Canada, this colonial context is too often misinterpreted by government offices as stemming from a religious conflict. The use of the slogan challenges these dominant misinterpretations which are found across Canadian institutions, and where anti-Palestinian racism is widespread. The Primer explains why it is necessary to frame the meaning and use of the slogan first and foremost within Palestinian history, while addressing the Canadian context in which it is used.
To address these debates in Canada, Hearing Palestine convened a team of historians, anthropologists, and law professors to create this Primer on the history, context, and legalities of the 10-word slogan. The Primer’s primary audience is the police, hate crimes units, prosecutors, and policy makers who are daily contending with increased calls to ramp up hate speech protections. Moreover, in light of recent political developments in the US and Canada directed at universities, this Primer supports academic administrators charged with preserving academic freedom against efforts that may (inadvertently) chill academic freedom.
While the report provides a robust analysis of the 10-word slogan’s history and use in the Canadian context, two key findings are important to emphasize:
For Palestinian movements, the slogan is not primarily a political program (e.g., two-state solution, one-state solution, confederation, etc.), but rather a Palestinian expression for liberation, freedom, and equality given the on-going context of colonization and military occupation.
The robust history of the phrase and the slogan suggests that these 10 words cannot be understood as inherently hateful or hate-promoting under the Canadian Criminal Code
It is generally understood in Canada to be a call for recognition and change, justice and freedom. The slogan is used in a number of different contexts and can have multiple meanings in terms of what kind of future is envisioned in Israel and Palestine. Scholars with expertise in the subject conclude that the slogan is a call for an end to the structures of violence that have impacted Palestinian life for decades. Moreover, for all writers examined, the meaning of the slogan is recognized to depend on the speaker and context.
It is clear that a criminal law response in terms of charging those chanting “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” with hate speech or hate motivated offences under the Code is or would be a gross overreach of the criminal law and one which erodes the Charter protected fundamental right to freedom of speech.
“From the river to the sea” began a rallying cry for Palestinians who sought to be free under one state–from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea before the 1948 partition.4 Today, it is a call for a free Palestine, rather than confinement to restricted areas under Israeli occupation and military assault. Self-determination for one people does not require the extermination of another. Palestinians themselves have said, again and again: “From the river to the sea” is not a call to violence against Israelis, and it is plain propaganda to suggest that Palestinians demanding liberation while currently being exterminated are the ones who want to mount a genocide.5
While Palestinians are vilified, actual anti-semitism thrives on Meta’s platforms. Meta has not meaningfully snuffed out white nationalists and neo-Nazis, nor banned discussion of the “Great Replacement Theory.”6 Anti-semitism is dangerous and presents a real threat to Jewish communities and our movements for justice, online and offline. By misrepresenting Palestinian liberation and solidarity as anti-semitism, we obfuscate real white supremacy and anti-semitism. Jews are not synonymous with the state of Israel, and it is dangerous and insincere to conflate criticism of a country’s war-mongering actions with hate speech.
Hello! I am a citizen of the United States writing to express my concern about banning posts that include the phrase "from the river to the sea." The phrase itself—divorced from the rest of the slogan currently under fire, "Palestine will be free"—simply denotes a geographical region, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. A version of the phrase appears in the Israeli Likud party's election charter from 1977, which states, "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." One phrase claims freedom for all peoples in the region, not lifting up a specific regime; the other threatens the expansion of Israeli occupation and rule throughout the region—the realization of which we are seeing today in Gaza and the West Bank. So, iterations of the phrase are used by people who both support and reject Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. The difference is that Israel is actually making good on its threat to control the whole region—through a decades-long campaign of violence, control, and starvation—while Palestinians ask for the right to self-determination owed to them by Israel and the world. Banning the phrase would get this situation backward. These words are not violent or a threat to violence; Israel's occupation is, as may be seen on thousands and thousands of horrifying videos shared on your platform.
Those who support Palestinian liberation use the phrase to say that the geographic area should be a place of freedom for all of its inhabitants. I have witnessed and participated in many protests at which the slogan is used, and the protests have all been peaceful and directed at criticizing Israel's slaughter in Gaza. Condemning violence is NOT violence. That is crucial. Nor is it hate speech directed at Jewish People. As many note, Jewish people are on the frontline of the movement for a free Palestine, and have been since Israel's founding.
As it stands, Palestinians are subject to various forms of inequality in their land, mandated and enforced by Israel. Far-right Israeli leaders and their sympathizers abroad accuse people who say "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," of anti-semitism, but this is a deflection aimed at silencing free, peaceful speech in order to keep Palestinians in a state of non-equality. It is a mistake to criminalize the voices of people demanding freedom for a people who are protected under international law—Palestinians (who are also a semitic people)—while caving to the demands of those supporting the occupation of Palestine, which is, per international law, illegal.
The Board ought to seriously consider its relationship not just to the Israeli government and its Western friends like the United States but to the global community, including voices of dissent in Israel and the people of Palestine, at a moment when both Israel and Hamas are being tried in the court of public opinion as well as the ICC and ICJ. Please, do not silence dissent. I have used Meta products for ten years or so and do not wish the platform to go the way of Twitter/X, wantonly banning phrases and accounts at the whim of fascists. Meta can choose to be a tool of censorship and propaganda or a way for all to speak their mind nonviolently and fairly democratically.
Thank you very much for reading and considering.
See: https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean
To begin with, Meta is showing their blatant prejudice by offering Hebrew translation for this public input opportunity but no other language.
The phrase, "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free," is a call to end apartheid and create an inclusive democracy in which all residents have equal rights regardless of ethnic background, languages spoken, or religious beliefs. It demands an end to land theft, genocide, and the racist policies that have made these possible. Ultimately, it's a call to end violence and begin a peaceful, loving future for all.
I am Jewish and I use the phrase ‘from the river to the sea Palestine will be free’ often.
The phrase is not antisemitic nor it is a call for genocide. To be clear the only genocide that is taking place right now is in Gaza.
The phrase refers to a longing to see freedom, justice, and equality for everyone from the river to the sea — no exceptions.
Calling for an end to apartheid in S Africa was not a call for genocide nor did S Africa cease to exist.
Calling to an end to apartheid from the river to the sea is equally not a call to genocide nor a call for the destruction of Israel. It is a call to end the system of Israeli apartheid.
Please read the following article (https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean) written by a PALESTINIAN in a JEWISH publication so that you get a full picture of what this phrase means.
Thanks.
The slogan represents solidarity with noth countries Palestine and Israel to live in Harmony with each other. The phrase was coined by Israel politicians as a discriminatory one but now the masses are turning it into a positive one.
It is a call for justice untill all people, Palestinians and Israelis, between the river and the sea can love in peaceful liberty - Andy Mcdonald, London Labour PM
It is an aspirational call for Freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence not death, destruction and hate. - Rashida Talib, US Congresswoman
It is the demand for democratic coexistence between Jews and Arabs - American-Arab Anti-Discriminatory Committee
The phrase should not be banned. It is a call for peace and harmony.
Dear Meta Oversight Board,
Flagging and removing the phrase “from the river to the sea” will only serve to silence Palestinians, Jewish dissenters in Israel, and those of us around the globe who oppose the Israeli government’s brutal genocide in Gaza. At a time when Palestinians are being massacred and starved to death, it is crucial that calls for liberation and solidarity are heard round the world.
Anti-semitism is a dangerous prejudice that presents online and offline threats to Jewish people. However, Palestinians calling for freedom from Israeli occupation and military violence from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – the entirety of their ancestral homelands before the 1948 partition – is not an example of anti-semitism, nor of hate speech.
We urge you to maintain Meta’s policy of leaving the posts with the phrase “from the river to the sea” uncensored.
I am a Jewish American, and I believe that making Jews the face of censorship by banning content that includes the phrase "From the river to the sea" would be a terrible move that makes Jews less safe.
It is a phrase used by all sorts of interlocutors, for all sorts of purposes. If you want to ban it, don't pretend it's because you're fighting anti-semitism - Jews like me strongly oppose it.
Similar to the Jewish author in the following article, this review feels like 1984 as a way to control people’s use of language:
https://mco.dev/1984-redux/
Freedom of a people is a right and it can be achieved in many ways. Given this phrase does not invite people to a certain action like terrorism, how can one assume what it means and ban it as a whole? I find it absolutely absurd that this phrase is even selected for a review. A platform can not decide the meaning of a phrase by the edict of certain groups who suspect it means a certain thing. Any potential ban on such phrasing would mean a high level of censorship akin to totalitarian regimes.
It takes a real colonizer mentality to assume that a call for liberation "from the river to the sea" is a violent one. Why does liberation have to be violent? Perhaps that's because the people offended by this phrase support taking land by force and violence. Folks like that believe land can only be returned with force. Of course they do.
Israel has stolen land from the Palestinians. This is basically history. End of discussion. Acknowledging this is not antisemitic. In fact, elevating Israel's atrocities as representing all of Judaism is itself quite antisemitic. Just ask the folks at Jewish Voices for Peace what they think. You've probably suppressed their content, but you should reach out anyway.
To say we want Palestine to be free "from the river to the sea" is to say we want an occupying force to give back what they have stolen through violence, oppression and apartheid. It is honestly insulting for this to even be considered "hate speech" when it is used so frequently as a call for freedom and peace.
If you ban this, then why not ban the phrase "from sea to shining sea," which is, essentially, a call for the conquering and theft of Native American land? I don't see anyone getting upset about that. Maybe because when white folks say things like that it's ok, huh? (Just to clarify, it's not. Y'all may be a little confused on that.)
Meta has been on the wrong side of history in so many woeful ways. It's time for the company to make the right decision for once. Unfortunately, I anticipate the company to not only ban the phrase, but also enforce it solely on those who support Palestine given how much "shadow banning" has taken place. You all clearly have a favorite.
In my opinion, your company is already complicit in a genocide coverup and should be held accountable. Don't add to your rap sheet. Do the right thing.
Meta should not ban the phrase 'from the river to the sea' because free speech is a fundamental right of the people. Limiting or banning speech sets a dangerous precedent. What's next? Broader censorship and suppression of dissenting voices?
Limiting free speech undermines the principles of open dialogue and debate, which is a core feature of social media. Social media companies are supposed to be open platforms, not one sided narratives that limit free speech for a specific group of people.
"From the river to the sea" is in no way antisemitic or hateful. That phrase is used in the call for a democratic state where ALL people, including Palestinians, Christians, Muslims, and Jews, have equal human rights. Israel is an apartheid state that systematically displaces and murders Palestinians and anyone who is not Jewish. To ban this phrase being used by a movement aimed at ending genocide and apartheid would be a frightening restriction of free speech and would buttress Israel's impunity.