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
Posts that include the phrase "from the river to the sea" need to be allowed to be posted.
I have been horrified at the application of "antisemitic" to commentary opposing Israel's destruction of the Gaza strip. In particular, "from the river to the sea" is not calling for the destruction of Israel, it is calling for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. It is the least Israel can do to atone for invading Palestine and subjecting it's original inhabitants to a police state. We are too accustomed to Israel (and too much more concerned for the Jewish people than the Palestinian people) to remember its origins.
Stop the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
Stop the ethnic cleansing, forced starvation and genocide (all war crimes!) in Gaza.
Ceasefire forever!
Free Gaza!
To claim genocidal intent on a people currently being genocided, is reverse-psychology at it's worst.
Stop wasting time placating ethno-supremacists, and instead crack down on real hate speech.
The vision of a peaceful, pluralistic, multi religious, multicultural democratic Palestine between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea is a beautiful one and should be encouraged and promoted widely.
The call “From the River to the Sea, Palestine shall be Free” brings out responses by Zionist spokespersons around the world suggesting that this phrase is somehow anti-semitic. They assert that this is a call for genocide of the Jews who live in historic Palestine.
But the assumption that the call for a free Palestine means for the expulsion or killing of Jews suggests that within Palestine there are only two options: Either the Jews control - and as we have seen historically kill and displace Palestinians - or, as the Zionist claim they fear, Palestinians will take control and kill and displace the Jewish people. However, there is a third option. This option can provide the guarantees for safety and security and equality for all who live within what is known as Historic Palestine, or between the River to the Sea: A country where all people live in peace. Furthermore, it has become a basic strategy to always cry “anti-Semitism” when the Zionist narrative is challenged.
WHERE SHOULD THE JEWS GO?
After a lecture I gave at University College of London, where I discussed the merits of the creation of a single democratic state from the River to the Sea, I was asked by a Jewish student, “Where should the Jews go?” My reply was, “Why do you want them to go?” That was a reaction similar to what we see on the various social media platforms where this assumption is made: a free Palestine means death to the Jews. However, the vision of a free Palestine (from the River to the Sea, where else?) is one of a country in which all people live free as equal citizens of a democratic state.
WHERE ELSE?
If Palestine is not from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, then where is it? Palestine historically borders Lebanon and Syria in the north, the Jordan River in the east, the Mediterranean Sea on the west and the gulf of Aqaba and the SInai desert in the south.
Even if there was once an argument in support of a Two State Solution — or, in other words, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital — Israel did everything to make that option impossible. For over fifty years, or since the war of June 1967, consecutive Israeli governments had made it clear through statements and creation of facts on the ground that the entirety of historic Palestine is Israel. According to the Zionist dogma, the country belongs to Jews and is for Jews to settle. At this point one must take into consideration that no part of historic Palestine has been spared the spread of Zionist settler colonialism, violence and restrictions.
Israel turned the Gaza Strip into a concentration camp. Its residents, through actions of the State of Israel and no fault of their own, are mostly homeless refugees with soaring levels of poverty and unemployment. Clearly, the Gaza Strip even prior to October 6, 2023 was a humanitarian disaster.
The West Bank no longer exists. It is now called Judea and Samaria and — like the Naqab, Al-Jaleel, and most other parts of Palestine — it is littered with settler colonies built at the expense of Palestinians and in violation of Palestinian rights. The areas in which Palestinians still reside are in fact small ghettos with economic and political limitations that make life practically impossible. Travel for Palestinians between different parts of what used to be the West Bank is restricted at best and is at times impossible — and this includes even the so-called president of the Palestinian Authority, who requires a permit from Israel in order to travel within the areas in which he has authority.
East Jerusalem, like its Western half, has been ravaged by settler colonialism to a point where in some areas Jerusalem has become unrecognizable. Unlike in West Jerusalem, where in 1948 the ethnic cleansing was absolute and not a single Palestinian family remains, the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem has not yet been completely successful. However, towns and villages like Bir-Nabala, Qalandia, A-Ram, and others — areas that are adjacent to the city and that were once flourishing business and residential districts — are now ghost towns as a result of the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign.
CALLING OUT ISRAEL
The arguments in favor of a partition of Palestine and the creation of two states have always been weak and impractical and provided no guarantees to the safety and security of Palestinians. This was particularly true after 1948 when Israel was established on 78 percent of Palestine and Zionist settler colonialism was internationally legitimized and accepted. However, the final nail in the coffin of the partition idea was hammered in by the Zionists themselves after 1967 when the remaining 22 percent of Palestine, including East Jerusalem, was taken by Israel.
The only solution for justice, democracy, equality and peace is a single, free democratic Palestine, and the boundaries of Palestine for better or worse are between the River and the Sea. This vision of a peaceful, pluralistic, multi religious, multicultural democracy between the Rover and the Sea is a beautiful one and should be encouraged and promoted widely.
The phrase "From the River to the Sea" typically refers to the geographic region spanning from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
In pro-Palestinian marches worldwide, the slogan "from the river to the sea" advocates for equality and freedom for all inhabitants of historic Palestine. This call for freedom highlights that Palestinians have been denied the realization of their right to self-determination since the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
Most Palestinians believe that their homeland, Palestine, remains "unliberated," meaning that Palestinians do not enjoy freedom and equality as individuals, and collectively, they are denied the right to self-determination.
For Palestinians, "from the river to the sea" signifies the aspiration for Palestinian sovereignty or liberation across the entire area, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This interpretation varies from seeking a single democratic state with equal rights for all inhabitants to advocating for Palestinian independence across the entire territory.
"From the river to the sea" is not anti-Semitic and it is not hate speech. Support for freedom and liberation of an Indigenous people can never be categorized as hate speech. Support for the Palestinian people is the exact opposite of hate speech.
The phrase is a cry for freedom from an oppressed, occupied people. They want freedom and the return of their land, which was illegally stolen from them during the Nakba in 1948 and in violent attacks by Israel in the seven decades since. There is no hate, violence or genocide in those words. They are words of a wounded people who have been greatly wronged by Israel, and Palestinian people deserve their own state, as well as the right to self-govern and defend themselves. Ceasefire now and let Gaza live.
The area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea was inhabited by people who spoke the Semitic language, Arabic, before the advent of political Zionism, an ideology articulated by the European Theodore Herzl in the late nineteenth century. It is believed that these SEMITES were descendants through Ishmael, the firstborn son of Prophet Abraham, and thus, it is impossible to accuse THESE people, who are ALSO Semites, of "antisemitism," as they are Semites themselves. Before World War I, there was also a small minority--less than 5% of the population--of Jewish inhabitants, mostly religious Jews, who lived in peace with their Arab neighbors in and around Hebron and Safed.
But the Treaty of Versailles gave the rule of Palestine to the British, who colluded with Zionist Jews to force Arabs from the lands they had tilled for centuries, and give those land to Jewish immigrants in Palestine. Under the terms of the League of Nations mandate, the British were supposed to prepare the inhabitants for self-rule, but instead gave authority not to the representatives of the majority Arab population, but to the minority Jewish population.
The expression "from the river to the sea" thus became part of the language of opposition to the colonization of Palestine by these aggressive and hostile immigrants. (It should be noted that Jews who lived in peace with Arabs in Arab countries largely do not accept this rule of these newcomers, and did not voluntarily migrate to Israel.)
The expression "from the river to the sea" has also been used by those immigrants themselves (e.g. in the charter of the Likud Party), but when organizations like Meta seek to restrict the freedom of language, you do so in order to favor those who have engaged in land theft of that region, and genocide of the indigenous inhabitants, the Palestinians.
Meta should refrain from favoring either side in this dispute, and allow free speech on this vital topic. If it does not, it will lose its mandate as a vehicle for communication by all, and the respect of the community as an impartial medium for discussion. It is possible in such a scenario that the movement of nonviolent resistance to Zionist oppression, called BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) will be used to encourage people who oppose Israel's genocide to use other means of communication.
Do not deceive yourselves. BDS has already been used successfully against other corporations which use their power to support Israel's land theft and genocide. Do not be too sure that "It can't happen here..."
من البحر إلى النهر هو شعار يمثل الدولة الفلسطينية التي يسعى لتحقيقها الفلسطينيون، وهي تمثل الدولة الفلسطينية قبل احتلالها عام 1948، ولا يمكن اعتبار هذا المفهوم معاد للسامية، حيث أنه يناقش قضية سياسية متعلقة بدولة الاحتلال الاسرائيلي ولا يتطرق إلى اليهودية سواء كانت ديانة أو مواطنين، فلا مشكلة مع هؤلاء من الناحية الدينية والعرقية، المشكلة هي سياسية دولة الاحتلال الاسرائيلي التي تعارض وجود دولة فلسطينية وتعارض وجود الفلسطينيين في هذه الدولة، رغم أن الفلسطينيين قد وافقوا أن تكون دولة اسرائيل بجانبهم إلا أن الاسرائيليين يرفضون أن تقام دولة فلسطين بجانبهم.
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.
From the river to the sea is not antisemitic
I'm a Jewish attorney. I believe in FREE SPEECH!!!
“From the River to the Sea” is about hope, a vision for a land in which ALL are equal, and free of oppression. It does not discriminate, or distinguish. It is about a hopeful, sustainable future. Would any honest person assert that hope and freedom are hateful? What is hateful is an ideology based on racism, entitlement, and fascism. That is Zionism. Zionists are so afraid of the power of truth, justice and dignity, legitimate aspirations of any person, that they will make every effort to suffocate the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians. Shame on them and more shame on anyone who goes along with their cruel deceit.
I do not support bans on Palestinian Solidarity. Being anti-Zionist IS NOT BEING ANTISEMITE. I do not believe the so-called Israeli State, should have EVER BEEN FORMED, and I also believe that all Jewish people should have had to have complete restoration by the German government. Additionally, Amerikkka should never have left the Japanese responsible for Unit 731 go free. We have done heinous, heinous things. We still ought to see those in our government who profiteer rather than serve completely expelled from any involvement with any government, anywhere.
“From River to Sea” is not hate speech. It is a statement which seeks to honor full human rights for all individuals living in the region.
“FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA” is not antisemitic.