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 not a hate speech. Rather a cry to set a oppressed people set free in their own land.
Pro Palestine sentiments such as "from the river to the sea" are not hate speech
It us just awful that anyone can say a phrase used by terrorists on any platform. From the river to the sea is in other words is saying death to Israel. They are burning not only the flag of Israel, but the American flag while chanting the phrase, "From the river to the sea". Please stop this horrible statement of the Hamas and Palestinian people. God Bless and God Bless America.
The Phrase from the River to the Sea should be considered a Hate Crime and not be allowed on Meta. It is a phrase calling for the elimination of Israel and all of the Jewish people living in Israel.
It is not a Phrase for peace or a phrase for the Freedom of the Palestinian people or a 2 state solution. It is a phase calling for the elimination and replacement of Jews with Palestinians (or in more correct terms the Islamic Arabs that claim their families were from the region prior to 1948).
Why “From the River to the Sea” is an anti-Semitic hate speech that calls for the genocide of the Jewish people and should be banned from social media.
The slogan “from the river to the sea” is not the call for “Palestinian” Arab liberation; it is a call for the eradication of the Jewish State of Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The slogan is a call for continued terrorism and “globalize the intifada” against the Jewish people. This phrase found its way to American college campuses, community disruptions and protests outside Jewish business, all emulating tactics of Nazi Germany. Such tactics now include social media. For the Meta Oversight Board to claim that such phrases could mean anything other than a call for the genocide of the Jewish people is both disingenuous and an attempt to hide the reality of anti-Semitism, hate speech and incitement to violence in its most modern form.
Virtually everyone in America implicitly accepts banning certain words and phrases that are hurtful or deemed threatening to certain minority groups. For example, in a civilized society, no one “has the right” to use the N-word in any social or academic institution. Why then is it considered “free speech” for social media users to intone the eliminationist chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Must be Free” or the call for “Jihad” and to “globalize the Intifada” – which effectively mean the murder/genocide of the Jewish people? If hate is to have no home here in America, it has to include everyone, including the Jewish people.
As noted by Rabbi Sachs, former Chief Rabbi of England, “Judaism – twice as old as Christianity, three times as old as Islam – was the call to Abraham’s descendants to create a society of freedom, justice, and compassion…. The Jewish connection to Israel is older by far than that of any other civilization to a place. It goes back four thousand years to the first recorded syllables of Jewish time…If any nation on earth has a right to any land – a right based on history, attachment, and long association – then the Jewish people has a right to Israel.”
Calls for the eradication of the Jewish homeland can only be understood as hate speech and an incitement to violence in its most radical and rabid form. By allowing such hate speech to continue, Meta makes itself a party to its perpetuation.
It is therefore imperative that the Meta Oversight Board consider the phrase “From the river to the sea” as a violation of the platforms' rules as it pertains to hate speech, incitement, and in support of violent organizations.
Why “From the River to the Sea” is an anti-Semitic hate speech that calls for the genocide of the Jewish people and should be banned from social media.
The slogan “from the river to the sea” is not the call for “Palestinian” Arab liberation; it is a call for the eradication of the Jewish State of Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The slogan is a call for continued terrorism and “globalize the intifada” against the Jewish people. This phrase found its way to American college campuses, community disruptions and protests outside Jewish business, all emulating tactics of Nazi Germany. Such tactics now include social media. For the Meta Oversight Board to claim that such phrases could mean anything other than a call for the genocide of the Jewish people is both disingenuous and an attempt to hide the reality of anti-Semitism, hate speech and incitement to violence in its most modern form.
Virtually everyone in America implicitly accepts banning certain words and phrases that are hurtful or deemed threatening to certain minority groups. For example, in a civilized society, no one “has the right” to use the N-word in any social or academic institution. Why then is it considered “free speech” for social media users to intone the eliminationist chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Must be Free” or the call for “Jihad” and to “globalize the Intifada” – which effectively mean the murder/genocide of the Jewish people? If hate is to have no home here in America, it has to include everyone, including the Jewish people.
As noted by Rabbi Sachs, former Chief Rabbi of England, “Judaism – twice as old as Christianity, three times as old as Islam – was the call to Abraham’s descendants to create a society of freedom, justice, and compassion…. The Jewish connection to Israel is older by far than that of any other civilization to a place. It goes back four thousand years to the first recorded syllables of Jewish time…If any nation on earth has a right to any land – a right based on history, attachment, and long association – then the Jewish people has a right to Israel.”
Calls for the eradication of the Jewish homeland can only be understood as hate speech and an incitement to violence in its most radical and rabid form. By allowing such hate speech to continue, Meta makes itself a party to its perpetuation.
It is therefore imperative that the Meta Oversight Board consider the phrase “From the river to the sea” as a violation of the platforms' rules as it pertains to hate speech, incitement, and in support of violent organizations.
This is a thoughtful and accurate report on the three cases under review and, in my opinion, can be generalized to most other uses of the phrase "from the river to the sea". The phrase in and of itself does not -- in fact I cannot see how it could -- constitute "Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement or Dangerous Organizations and Individuals." In an of itself, the phrase can only be interpreted as advocating, in fact, for the opposite: freedom and justice for every person and people (Jewish, Muslims, Christians, and others) in that area of the world that spans from the Jordan River to the east to the Mediterranean Sea to the west. To imply that freedom, peace, and justice for one people = hate toward another is itself an act of prejudice. I am well aware that the phrase can be manipulated by different parties in the current 'conflict' to imply or advocate for the destruction of the other party. But so can many other phrases in the English language (e.g., 'no justice no peace' comes to mine) used by advocacy groups. The possibility of manipulation is, in fact, implicitly admitted in your own report. My own suggestion is, therefore, in line with the report recommendations that the phrase not be flagged or banned in any way.
From the river to the sea clearly indicates a desire for a one state solution without the Jewish people nor the continued existence of the State of Israel and the elimination of millions of Jews. While some might argue that is not the case, and while it may not have been perceived to be the case some time ago It now clearly , and currently is the case. Historically, there are many words and phrases that at one time were considered benign at least by those using those phrases but once instructed or learned that those words or phrases were now hateful, those words and phrases , are understandably no longer appropriate and considered hateful From the river to the sea , if not previously considered that case by some should now certainly be considered that way by all.
Why “From the River to the Sea” is an anti-Semitic slogan, hate speech that calls for the genocide of the Jewish people and should be banned from social media.
The slogan “from the river to the sea” is not a call for “Palestinian” Arab liberation, it is a call for the eradication of the Jewish State of Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The slogan is a call for continued terrorism and “globalize the intifada” against the Jewish people. This phrase has found its way to American college campuses, community disruptions and protests outside Jewish business, all emulating tactics of Nazi Germany. Such tactics now include social media. For the Meta Oversight Board to claim that such phrases could mean anything other than a call for the genocide of the Jewish people is both disingenuous and an attempt to hide the reality of anti-Semitism, hate speech and incitement to violence in its most modern form.
Virtually everyone in America implicitly accepts banning certain words and phrases that are hurtful or deemed threatening to certain minority groups. For example, in a civilized society, no one “has the right” to use the N-word in any social, business or academic institution. Why then is it considered “free speech” for social media users to intone the eliminationist chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Must be Free” or the call for “Jihad” and to “globalize the Intifada” – which effectively mean the murder/genocide of the Jewish people? Such hate speech and attempts at intimidation are a civil rights violation, and socially, wouldn’t be tolerated for any other minority.
As noted by Rabbi Sachs, former Chief Rabbi of England, “Judaism – twice as old as Christianity, three times as old as Islam – was the call to Abraham’s descendants to create a society of freedom, justice, and compassion…. The Jewish connection to Israel is older by far than that of any other civilization to a place. It goes back four thousand years to the first recorded syllables of Jewish time…If any nation on earth has a right to any land – a right based on history, attachment, and long association – then the Jewish people has a right to Israel.”
Calls for the eradication of the Jewish homeland can only be understood as hate speech and an incitement to violence in its most radical and rabid form. By allowing such hate speech to continue, Meta makes itself a party to its perpetuation.
It is therefore imperative that the Meta Oversight Board consider the phrase “from the river to the sea” as a violation of the platforms' rules as it pertains to hate speech, incitement, and in support of violent organizations.
Why “From the River to the Sea” is an anti-Semitic hate speech that calls for the genocide of the Jewish people and should be banned from social media.
The slogan “from the river to the sea” is not the call for “Palestinian” Arab liberation; it is a call for the eradication of the Jewish State of Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The slogan is a call for continued terrorism and “globalize the intifada” against the Jewish people. This phrase found its way to American college campuses, community disruptions and protests outside Jewish business, all emulating tactics of Nazi Germany. Such tactics now include social media. For the Meta Oversight Board to claim that such phrases could mean anything other than a call for the genocide of the Jewish people is both disingenuous and an attempt to hide the reality of anti-Semitism, hate speech and incitement to violence in its most modern form.
Virtually everyone in America implicitly accepts banning certain words and phrases that are hurtful or deemed threatening to certain minority groups. For example, in a civilized society, no one “has the right” to use the N-word in any social or academic institution. Why then is it considered “free speech” for social media users to intone the eliminationist chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Must be Free” or the call for “Jihad” and to “globalize the Intifada” – which effectively mean the murder/genocide of the Jewish people? If hate is to have no home here in America, it has to include everyone, including the Jewish people.
As noted by Rabbi Sachs, former Chief Rabbi of England, “Judaism – twice as old as Christianity, three times as old as Islam – was the call to Abraham’s descendants to create a society of freedom, justice, and compassion…. The Jewish connection to Israel is older by far than that of any other civilization to a place. It goes back four thousand years to the first recorded syllables of Jewish time…If any nation on earth has a right to any land – a right based on history, attachment, and long association – then the Jewish people has a right to Israel.”
Calls for the eradication of the Jewish homeland can only be understood as hate speech and an incitement to violence in its most radical and rabid form. By allowing such hate speech to continue, Meta makes itself a party to its perpetuation.
It is therefore imperative that the Meta Oversight Board consider the phrase “From the river to the sea” as a violation of the platforms' rules as it pertains to hate speech, incitement, and in support of violent organizations.
Resolution to the Palestine conflict wherein 'from the river to sea is one state where two peoples with equal rights can live free with a right of return for all Jews and Palestinians', should not be considered offensive. This is the 'best of all evils' option, the people who oppose this option are the extremists who do not want an equitable end to the conflict.
I would like briefly to register a comment about the use of the phrase "From the river to the sea," which, I gather, is currently under review. Phrases like this often shift in their meaning, as this one certainly has. In recent years, it has become clearly identifiable with a political slogan that denotes an agenda calling for the expulsion of Jews from the State of Israel--or even their annihilation. Thus, the phrase often embodies a hateful message, and it warrants exclusion from social media.
Why “From the River to the Sea” is an anti-Semitic hate speech that calls for the genocide of the Jewish people and should be banned from social media.
The slogan “from the river to the sea” is not the call for “Palestinian” Arab liberation; it is a call for the eradication of the Jewish State of Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The slogan is a call for continued terrorism and “globalize the intifada” against the Jewish people. This phrase found its way to American college campuses, community disruptions and protests outside Jewish business, all emulating tactics of Nazi Germany. Such tactics now include social media. For the Meta Oversight Board to claim that such phrases could mean anything other than a call for the genocide of the Jewish people is both disingenuous and an attempt to hide the reality of anti-Semitism, hate speech and incitement to violence in its most modern form.
Virtually everyone in America implicitly accepts banning certain words and phrases that are hurtful or deemed threatening to certain minority groups. For example, in a civilized society, no one “has the right” to use the N-word in any social or academic institution. Why then is it considered “free speech” for social media users to intone the eliminationist chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Must be Free” or the call for “Jihad” and to “globalize the Intifada” – which effectively mean the murder/genocide of the Jewish people? If hate is to have no home here in America, it has to include everyone, including the Jewish people.
As noted by Rabbi Sachs, former Chief Rabbi of England, “Judaism – twice as old as Christianity, three times as old as Islam – was the call to Abraham’s descendants to create a society of freedom, justice, and compassion…. The Jewish connection to Israel is older by far than that of any other civilization to a place. It goes back four thousand years to the first recorded syllables of Jewish time…If any nation on earth has a right to any land – a right based on history, attachment, and long association – then the Jewish people has a right to Israel.”
Calls for the eradication of the Jewish homeland can only be understood as hate speech and an incitement to violence in its most radical and rabid form. By allowing such hate speech to continue, Meta makes itself a party to its perpetuation.
It is therefore imperative that the Meta Oversight Board consider the phrase “From the river to the sea” as a violation of the platforms' rules as it pertains to hate speech, incitement, and in support of violent organizations.
Why “From the River to the Sea” is an anti-Semitic hate speech that calls for the genocide of the Jewish people and should be banned from social media.
The slogan “from the river to the sea” is not the call for “Palestinian” Arab liberation; it is a call for the eradication of the Jewish State of Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The slogan is a call for continued terrorism and “globalize the intifada” against the Jewish people. This phrase found its way to American college campuses, community disruptions and protests outside Jewish business, all emulating tactics of Nazi Germany. Such tactics now include social media. For the Meta Oversight Board to claim that such phrases could mean anything other than a call for the genocide of the Jewish people is both disingenuous and an attempt to hide the reality of anti-Semitism, hate speech and incitement to violence in its most modern form.
Virtually everyone in America implicitly accepts banning certain words and phrases that are hurtful or deemed threatening to certain minority groups. For example, in a civilized society, no one “has the right” to use the N-word in any social or academic institution. Why then is it considered “free speech” for social media users to intone the eliminationist chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Must be Free” or the call for “Jihad” and to “globalize the Intifada” – which effectively mean the murder/genocide of the Jewish people? If hate is to have no home here in America, it has to include everyone, including the Jewish people.
As noted by Rabbi Sachs, former Chief Rabbi of England, “Judaism – twice as old as Christianity, three times as old as Islam – was the call to Abraham’s descendants to create a society of freedom, justice, and compassion…. The Jewish connection to Israel is older by far than that of any other civilization to a place. It goes back four thousand years to the first recorded syllables of Jewish time…If any nation on earth has a right to any land – a right based on history, attachment, and long association – then the Jewish people has a right to Israel.”
Calls for the eradication of the Jewish homeland can only be understood as hate speech and an incitement to violence in its most radical and rabid form. By allowing such hate speech to continue, Meta makes itself a party to its perpetuation.
It is therefore imperative that the Meta Oversight Board consider the phrase “From the river to the sea” as a violation of the platforms' rules as it pertains to hate speech, incitement, and in support of violent organizations.
It is not an antisemitic phrase, and Meta should continue to regard it as protected speech, as it has rightfully done so far.
I would like to make a few comments about a variety of Jewish anti-Zionist and Palestinian anti-Zionist positions, as well as anti-Zionist positions I encountered at a rally where I didn't know the identity of my interlocutors. But first a brief comment about privileging fears above facts.
Some have argued that Jewish people are rationally afraid of the implications of the phrase “from the river to the sea”. So the thinking goes, if Israel were to extend citizenship with equality to all the people of historic Palestine – that is, the full population over which Israeli sovereignty has extended since 1967 –, then the (Arab) Palestinians would “treat the Jews as badly as the Jews treat the Palestinians now.” This is then taken to mean that there would be a genocide of the Jews. At the same time, the consciousness that expresses this view maintains that there is not currently a genocide of the Palestinians at the hands of the Jews. It is a position full of inconsistencies, paranoia, flouting of international law, and support for an actually occurring genocide.
There is nothing rational about deducing the nature of an unprecedented future from precedents. The fears born of trauma may be indissoluble, but to give them a privileged place in an international dispute is as reckless as it may appear (from a very limited perspective) to be prudent. We can say that Israeli Jewish Palestinian-phobia is understandable – not more than that – given the constellation of facts that includes the Holocaust; its traumatic legacy; the extent of Israel's crimes against Palestinians; things that Palestinian leaders have said; things said in man-on-the-street interviews in the West Bank (see the Ask Project YouTube channel); and Palestinian violence in the context of armed resistance. The latter would by definition have no existence in a context of Palestinian citizenship with equality. The commonplace illogical leap that posits that Palestinian violence would exist in the new context typically (in what I have observed) relies not on any of the above facts, but on the assertion that “they are like that”, a racialist premise divorced from any understanding of historical context at all. But even when a consciousness does rely on some of the above facts, it assembles them together in a mythology that combines a distortion of Jewish history with a patently false history of Israel. The imaginary associated with this mythology that conflates antisemitisms of different periods and locations as if they're all the same phenomena, often appears as a posttraumatic response which takes the form of the circling ideation “why do they hate us??” The Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), on the other hand, explicitly rejects “the Israeli state's distortion of Jewish history into a mythology of endless persecution.”
JVP are, as far as I know, the largest Jewish anti-Zionist group in the world. Its membership has a variety of views about the various kinds of Zionism, and about Israel. The organization takes no position on how many states or political divisions should exist in historic Palestine, but, in accordance with the principles of liberal democracy (i.e., broadly accepted American political values), its spokespeople have argued that the people who live there should decide.
Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish anti-Zionist who instead advocates pragmatically for a two-state solution, has argued that Zionism, as a nationalist ideology, inverts the relationship of nation to state that exists in liberal democratic ideology. Instead of the citizen as the primary unit, Zionism posits the nation as a pre-political entity, to which the state owes its existence. It is fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy because of this inversion – the Jewish nation, not the citizen, matters most; the state is beholden to the nation, not to its citizens. That Israelis commonly disavow this central element of Zionist ideology, Finkelstein argues, does not change the truth of the matter.
Originally, the primary meaning of anti-Zionism was the rejection of a religious and political heresy that undermined European Jewish life and accepted the antisemitic premise that “Jews belong in Palestine”. In the 1930s, Revisionist Zionism made common cause with antisemitic European race nationalisms. Robert Gessner wrote chillingly in 1935: “Today the young, stern-faced legionnaires of Jabotinsky march through the streets and wear shirts, like their nordic brothers in Germany. In Poland I had seen them marching through the streets (side streets in the ghettoes) singing ‘Poland for Pilsudski, Germany for Hitler. Palestine for the Jews——”
If there is a primary meaning to anti-Zionism since 1948, it is opposition to ethnic cleansing. Today, as Israel carries out something like what Bezalel Smotrich suggested in 2017 it carry out, this meaning has perhaps been surpassed by an opposition to genocide. Meanwhile, the premise that Palestinian anti-Zionism is based on antisemitism is clearly false: Palestinians strenuously protest having been dispossessed of their land, their freedom of movement drastically restricted, being routinely arrested without charge, being killed as part of collective punishment for the actions of their factional leaders, and living under military occupation. Imagine some other group than Jews had dispossessed them of their land, restricted their freedom of movement, etc: would their objection be any different? Of course not.
The slogan "from the river to the sea" may make some of us uncomfortable, but it's not antisemitic and it should be protected speech. I asked someone carrying it on a banner at a rally in London what it meant to her. She articulated a desire for liberal democracy in Israel Palestine, and referred me to this: https://www.voice.wales/from-the-river-to-the-sea-the-true-history-of-a-famous-slogan-for-palestine/
A comrade of hers expressed a loss of hope in a two-state solution, because it would require displacing 750,000 Israeli settlers from the West Bank, and then lamented Israeli mistreatment of non-white Jews in Israel. None of that is antisemitic.
A few minutes before this conversation at the march took place, I witnessed a lone male counter-protester shove a woman to the ground right in front of me, completely unprovoked. Protesters called for the police, who were standing right next to me at the time. The counter-protester quickly wandered off.
The restrictions on speech being advanced in the US and UK today under the pretext of protecting Jewish people are part of an extremist right-wing agenda, and should be resisted by anyone who does not share that far-right agenda.
The phrase "From the river to the sea" originated with terrorists who wanted to assume posession of the entire land of the Nation of Israel , which is the Jewish homeland that actually exists between the river and the sea, to be taken over completely by Arabs with the complete removal of the nation of Israel and dispossesion and/or massacre of all the Jews therein. Use of this phrase in support of Arabs who have openly attacked and invaded civilian homes in Israel, killing, torturing and kidnapping, presently rather strongly implies the same as original objective which is an implication of hate and genocide.
The call "from the River to the Sea" is a geographic call, mostly not understood by those staying it but means in effect the the "Jordan" River to the "Mediterranean" Sea and in using thos expression calls for the elimination/destruction of the Jewish State (ie Israel) this is a call "incitement" for a genocide.
Although I am no lawyer, as a layman I believe
"incitement" to genocide should be/is a crime under international law which prohibits inciting (encouraging) the commission of genocide. Such "incitement" is an extreme form of hate speech, incitement to genocide is an "inchoate offense" (a crime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime) and is theoretically subject to prosecution even if said genocide does not occur,
The phrase "from the river to the sea" is an antisemitic catch phrase calling for the establishment of an exclusively Moslem Palestinian state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea in the entire area from Lebanon on the north to Egypt on the south.. It is a genocidal phrase calling for the destruction of the State of Israel, and the exclusion or murder of Jews. It is misunderstood by many who believe it is a slogan calling for justice rather than a rejection of a two state solution or any other solution to the establishment of a Palestinian State, and calling for the exclusion of any other state or national entity, specifically Israel, and a country completely free of Jews