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 often intentionally misrepresented as an incitement of violence against Jewish people. The phrase actually refers to ending violence against Palestinians. Ending violence against Palestinians does not requite violence against Jewish people or Israeli citizens, it only requires Zionists to stop perpetrating anti-Palestinian violence. "From the River to the Sea" is an important call to non-violence, and censoring it is part of a pervasive anti-Palestinian and anti-BIPOC sentiment that permeates institutionalised narratives. Jewish Palestinians already lived alongside Palestinians of other faiths prior to the UK's decision to give Palestinian Lands they did not have any right to, to Zionists. "From the River to the Sea" includes safety for Palestinian Jews.
Att: Oversight Board of Meta,
“From the river to the sea” is a slogan whose definition is recognized to specifically mean the eradication of the state of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. It was coined as a terrorist call to arms to completely eradicate the Jewish people in a global “intifada”. To claim its meaning to be anything less than an incitement of genocide against all Jews is naïve at best and criminally ignorant of history. Before your organization discusses whether this is “hate speech“, it should be obligated to do research, both historical and current, to adequately understand the tremendous social implications of this phrase.
Please do not take this obligation lightly. “From the river to the sea“ is hate speech in its purest form. It is all the more insidious as it shows up on the lips and computer screens of people who are oblivious as to true meaning.
Please ban this phrase on Facebook and Instagram in recognition of the evil it represents.
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Free to do what? If it were freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech - people living from the river to the sea have those freedoms (at least those controlled by Israel. The PA, between the mountains and the river, does not allow any of the above. But it's not the PA they're chanting about, oddly.)
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" - it's "free from", not "free to". In particular: free from Jews. Judenrein. In Arabic, it's clearer: "from water to water, Palestine will be Arab".
This chant is a call for the death, destruction, dispossession, and disenfranchisement of 9 million citizens of a sovereign country.
I happen to be one of those citizens, living between the river and the sea. There is no other way to interpret that slogan. If it's metaphorical, then the metaphor is that we are vermin.
If that is not hate speech, I don't know what is.
With Antisemitism at an all time high, and antisemitic incidents rising up to 400% since the 7 October Massacre, the use of hate speech, threats, intimidation and implied violence online have equally skyrocketed, with people feeling free to say the vilest of things, including the repeated use of the overtly antisemitic phrase “from the river to the sea”. One can no longer pretend this phrase is a benign one…it clearly stands for the Hamas-stated threat to wipe Israel, its people, and all Jews off the face of the earth. To claim otherwise is to attempt to distort the facts. To allow its use is to be complicit in allowing hate speech, incitement to violence, and antisemitic rhetoric. It shocks me that so many vile examples of hate speech manage to pass your Facebook scrutiny, even when reported. I was actually told that Hitler should have finished me off yet when reported, nothing was done about it…it was accepted by Facebook. If calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state, it’s people and all Jews is something that Facebook even has to question is hate speech then I feel Facebook is showing unabashed bias. This phrase has been banned by certain countries and is on the list for hate speech in others, including the U.S. It would be astonishing if Facebook decided to override the judgement of the US and others who have now defined hate speech and included this phrase. At the moment many of my fellow Jews are finding, perhaps coincidentally, that posts they put that are pro Israel are magically not appearing or disappear. I myself found in posting something benign and when I went to do my next post found I had been sanctioned for 6 days, supposedly for breaching Facebook’s code of conduct. I was not told what it was that had supposedly breached the rules but I can assure you I posted nothing remotely controversial. This seems to be happening to many of my fellow Jews yet the vilest posts and comments from pro Palestinian supporters, as I said, despite being reported, never are removed. One could be forgiven for thinking Facebook has its own “leanings”. I trust you will acknowledge the hate filled phrase “From the River to the Sea”, as pure hate speech. To do otherwise would be to be complicit with the haters.
From the river(jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean) Palestine will be free is call to destroy entirely by force the state of Israel, the only Jewish state in the world, with the death of its almost 10 million inhabitants. It calls for the genocide of the Jewish people, similar to the nazis and the phrase is hate speech par excellance.
There is no question that the phrase From the River to the Sea is antisemitic in that it calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people. Use of the phrase is often used as intimidation as well as to incite people to violence. Antisemitic attacks are reported to have risen by over 300% since October 7th. Meta has a moral obligation to do whatever possible to not contribute to this horrific situation. Thank you.
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.
The slogan, "From the River to the Sea Palestine will be free" calls for the extermination of Israeli Jews and the destruction of the State of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and the only Jewish state in the world.
This is the attitude that led to the 1948 Palestinian Arab rejection of the UN compromise plan, the rejection that has left the Palestinian Arabs homeless, surviving on international welfare handouts, and seething with hatred and resentment to this day. This fixation has caused endless war in the Middle East and the destruction of the lives of their own people.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
After the Allied victory over the Central Powers in World War I, France and Great Britain redistributed the Middle Eastern possessions of the former Ottoman Empire. Britain received the Mandate over what is known today as Gaza, Israel, and Jordan, which according to the 1917 Balfour Declaration it was to administer as the eventual homeland for the Palestinian (and other) Jews, with the proviso that they not impinge on the rights of the Palestinian Arabs. In April 1921, Britain violated the Balfour Declaration. It arbitrarily cut off all the Mandatory territory east of the Jordan River (roughly 75% of the promised Jewish Homeland)and delivered it to the Palestinian Arabs. This Palestinian Arab state was named Transjordan and later Jordan. The Jews who lived in Transjordan were promptly slaughtered by their Arab neighbors.
In 1937 the British Peel Commission sought to pacify the continuing Palestinian Arab violence in Western Palestine by offering them half of this remaining Jewish homeland as a second Palestinian country, after Transjordan. The Arabs refused the chance to have their own country, refusing to divide the land with Jews and laying claim to the entire territory "from the Jordan (the River) to the Mediterranean (the Sea)."
In 1947, the UN presented an international compromise of 2 states one Arab and one Jewish, living peacefully side by side. The Palestinian Jews accepted the compromise despite the fact that they had to settle for a mere fraction of the land that had been intended for them under law. Several months later, in 1948, they declared the State of Israel and began building their nation and accepting as citizens the surviving Jewish remnant from the concentration camps, and the ethnically cleansed 700,000 Jews expelled by the Arab nations.
Instead of accepting their own state (for which Palestinians are clamoring today), Palestinian Arabs and their allies from 5 Islamic countries attacked the nascent Jewish state. They chose war instead of peace and land because again they refused to compromise seeking to exterminate their Jewish neighbors and establish their caliphate "from the River to the Sea." They lost this war and all the others that they launched against Israel. Some seventy-five later, the Palestinian Jews (now called Israelis) have built a first-world nation with rich contributions to the world of technology, agriculture, water and energy conservation, medicine etc. Meanwhile Palestinian Arabs are universal beggars, who brainwash their children into becoming suicide bombers and anti-Semitic racists, and whose only contribution to the world is the suicide vest. All this because of their obsession with "From the River to the Sea."
Meta on From the River to the Sea
Dalal Iriqat
Supporting the rights of occupied peoples doesn’t equate to anti-Semitism. Dialogue must be nuanced, respecting historical context. Critiques of Israeli extreme right-wing government policies aren’t anti-Semitic; they aim for truth and justice. The portrayal of posts including the language of From the River to the Sea lacked context and analysis, falling short of professionalism. Meta is vital for rigorous analysis and dialogue.
From the River to the Sea should mean that all humans are equal, and all residents from the River to the Sea must be treated equally based on the universal declaration of human rights including political rights and most importantly the right to freedom and self-determination.
It is important to note that the right to self-defense is preserved in international law, particularly; UNGA Resolutions 3314 (1974) and 37/43 (1982) affirm the legitimacy of every people’s " struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and alien domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle".
On one hand, Israel can’t claim it is defending itself in a territory it occupies, and on the other hand, the right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation is not contested in international order according to the legal reading, the Palestinian right to struggle is legitimate; the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN charter and Article 31, of the Rome Statue, which guarantees the right of peoples to defend themselves against aggression — particularly war crimes is legitimate.
Therefore the right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation is not contested in international order, the Palestinian right to struggle is legitimate according to international law and UNGA resolutions.
For biased media to label judge and take out of context is simply unprofessional, journalism, communication, and Academia 101 is inquiry, and climbing up the ladder of inference is an obligation otherwise they are judgmental and not fact promoter-researchers or writers.
Relying on one side of the story, without inquiry, rigorous analysis, or context, and without hearing the other narrative is mere judgments and jumping to conclusions that serve one side at the expense of the other. There is a big difference between being critical and being judgmental.
In framing/contextualizing and explaining statements after October 7, civilians in Gaza broke into the fence, and images of children, youth, and elderly running, riding motorcycles, and even paragliding and using every tool possible to break the deadly siege. As hundreds of unarmed civilians were running randomly towards the fence seeking freedom, at 6:45 am, very early morning hours, as images were coming out of Gaza describing people breaking the blockade and running for freedom, no casualties or deaths were yet reported, it was normal struggle for freedom.
In contextualizing the atrocities and sufferings, one cannot deny that people in Gaza had endured 16 years of a deadly blockade imposed by the Israeli military occupation, 2.3 million civilians were deprived of basic human needs, living in a big pressure cooker of a 365 km2!!
Civilians endured 4 wars during the Israeli blockade and this is the 5th, many international reports warned that the situation in Gaza was inhumane and that the strip was experiencing unprecedented injustices in the 21st century, the reports warned that Gaza experience uninhabitable circumstances that would lead to people revolting in their just quest for dignity and freedom under a prolonged military occupation that started 5 decades ago, let alone the settler colonial project that started 7 decades ago under a package of apartheid, extrajudicial killings, confiscations, detentions, settlements and terror.
Therefore, I refuse the framing of October 7! One cannot ignore 76 years of the suffering and injustices of the Palestinian people.
Let me be absolutely clear. It is prime time to engage, debate, learn, and contribute to an informed discourse. Meta is expected to engage in a difficult and constructive discourse that is very much needed today, more than ever based on the motto "Veritas" producing knowledge based on TRUTH and facts rather than mere opinions.
In 2024, the world witnessed a war against the truth; unfortunately, propagandists and the Hasbara machine had managed with the biased Western media to label anyone who dares to criticize Israel as antisemitic. Taking people out of context would not serve peace or security, it is an attempt to silence the voices who continue to work to raise awareness and spread the truth to bring about a better future for peace, prosperity, dignity, stability, and freedom for the Palestinians and the Israelis on an equal base.
It is crucial to recognize that advocating for an end to occupation and supporting the rights and dignity of occupied peoples does not in any way equate to anti-Semitic beliefs. The distinction between opposing occupation and harboring prejudice against any ethnic or religious group is fundamental, and it is incumbent upon us to engage in nuanced discourse that respects this crucial differentiation. By fostering a climate of open dialogue, understanding, and empathy, we can collectively work towards addressing systemic inequalities without perpetuating harmful and unfounded stereotypes or biases. Such efforts must be seen within the broader historical context of the protracted plight experienced by the Palestinian population.
Any insinuation that critiques of the Israeli extreme right government's policies amount to anti-Semitic sentiment is devoid of merit and serves only to hinder the pursuit of truth and justice. As an advocate for conflict resolution and a proponent of peaceful means to address systemic injustices, it is fundamental to engage in a fair and critical examination of the root causes of ongoing conflicts, starting with the Israeli military occupation of Palestine. This stance from the River to the Sea is in no way a reflection of hostility towards the Jewish people or their faith, but rather an ethical and intellectual obligation to address profound and persistent inequalities.
In the face of such challenges, Meta must stand as bastions of veritas, committed to the pursuit of knowledge based on factual inquiry. The importance of confronting uncomfortable truths and engaging in meaningful dialogue to foster peace and stability in the region cannot be understated. To this end, I salute everyone who joined this discussion, in their search and dedication to engage in an honest exploration of these critical issues.
Elevating the conversation and propelling meaningful progress towards a more equitable and peaceful future for all those affected by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East needs more informed debating.
All nations must fulfill their ethical and legal obligation as stipulated in the UN charter, the Declaration of Human Rights 1948, The Fourth Geneva Conventions 1949, the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, and the Genocide Convention 1949.
Denying facts doesn’t negate their existence. the root cause for violence in Gaza and in the Middle East is the Israeli occupation that must end.
My ethical and legal obligation as a professor of conflict resolution is to educate and raise awareness, so if you are seeking the truth, feel free to climb your ladder of inquiry instead of jumping to conclusions based on unprofessional media interpretations aimed at defaming and lame to silence the truth.
“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.
The phrase "From the River to the Sea" is interpreted by many people - especially Israeli people and Jews throughout the world - as meaning the destruction of Israel and all of its Jews. It doesn't matter if some people intend it to mean something more benign because people who hear it interpret it the way I described it. Therefore, I believe that most people who chant this phrase know, and intend it, to be very ominous.
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 expressions of hate wouldn't be tolerated for any other minority group.
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.
The phrase "From the River to the Sea" is used to call for the liberation and equal rights for people who live between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea. It is used to call for freedom from Israel's occupation and apartheid. Calling Israel an apartheid state and calling out its occupation over the Palestinians is well documented and cited by many sources: Amnesty International, the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem which is the Israeli Information Center for human rights in the occupied territories. These sources have documented Israel's occupation and apartheid systems prior to October 7, 2023. Again the phrase "From the River to the Sea" is a non-violent call for equal rights for all who live there. There have been many attempts to silence activists from sharing the truth about the occupation and this is another attempt at silencing the oppressed and those who stand in solidarity with them. In the three cases presented, the phrase "From the River to the Sea" was used in a way that is non-violent and non-hateful. The phrase is used to uplift those who may not have a voice due to silencing and censoring from a government who has thrived off inequality and apartheid. We must uphold our values of free speech especially for the voices that have been forcefully silenced.
The history of the slogan "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" used by Palestinian and Arab ideologues as well as terrorist groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad clearly indicates that its meaning is the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel to be replaced by an exclusively Islamic Palestinian state in the entire territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, that is, a one-state solution with no room for Israelis or Jewish national self-determination. It is also consistent calls for military Jihad against Jews and Judaism.
As part of my work in education for youth and teens I have noticed tremendous destruction, hate, and rupture being caused by the recent protests legitimizing acts of terror and murder. Calls like from the river etc have been causing students across the world to feel unsafe and insecure, and are riling our youth against everything we hold precious.
These posts are anti-semitic but also, anti the West and peaceful democracies. They should not be banned as it shows us exactly who people are
Although supporters may intend for this phrase to be a call for Palestinian liberation, the impact to most Jewish people is received as a call for genocide of all Jewish and Israeli people.
This has also has been affirmed by the House of Representative's resolution condemning the phrase as antisemitic.
Antisemitism dehumanizes Jews, first through words, like with this phrase you're considering. Through the centuries, we have seen how words lead to action when we view each other as 'less human'.
Allowing this phrase on Meta is not consistent with the positive role that Meta can serve to bring humanity together. Meta should not allow speech on its platforms that dehumanizes its Jewish users, a global minority that needs to be afforded protection. Only 0.2% of the world population are Jewish people, and they should be protected like any other minority with shared ethnicity and national origin.
Intent and impact are not the same.
Jewish users of Facebook cannot possibly use the Facebook platform and associated applications, safely and equitably, if hate speech is permitted.
That is the impact, regardless of the intent of the phrase in question. And as a company, not a governmental entity, Meta can and should balance user safety and equitable use of its applications over allowing hate speech to persist.
There is no permissible context for saying “From the river to the sea”. Any phrase that in any way can refer to the genocide of a people should be forbid, period. “From the river to the sea” is one of these phrases. It should be prohibited immediately.