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 River to the Sea” is a peaceful anthem emphasizing Palestinian culture and identity. “From River to the sea, Palestine will be free” is merely a cry for justice and equality. It is only people with bad intentions and monsters who append hateful rhetoric around this phrase. For example, “hail” is ok but “hail Hitler” is disgusting. Banning the word “hail” is nonsense and what must be condemn is its latter usage. There can be many other examples, because the discussion of banning “from River to the sea” is meanness, cruelty and monstrosity. It’s a fight against freedom of speech. We will fight for our freedoms. END THE GENOCIDE IN GAZA! STOP MURDERING BABIES! END THE STARVATION! FREE FREE PALESTINE!
Every occupied people has the right to resist that occupation, by international law. From the river to the sea is a call for a free state of Palestine, for stolen lands to be returned to their rightful owners or some other kind of compensation made if that isn't possible.
Palestinians are the people who are indigenous to Palestine, and they have every right to advocate for their freedom. "From the river to the sea" is just that, promotion of Palestinian freedom and solidarity. Your constant efforts at censorship make me absolutely disgusted.
At the Dangerous Speech Project, an independent research team, we are experts in identifying content that increases the risk that people will condone or commit violence against members of another group. We have long practice in distinguishing such “dangerous speech” from content that is offensive, hateful, or objectionable in other ways. We are also familiar with Meta’s policies on Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement, and Dangerous Organizations and Individuals, having advised Meta and Facebook staff as they wrote and revised them.
In this comment we offer relevant observations about discourse, especially inflammatory and hateful language. We also report, as the Board requested, on current uses of the phrase “from the river to the sea”, and on online and offline harms related to its use. FInally we offer recommendations.
*Observations on discourse*
1. Words and phrases are not inherently dangerous - or even hateful. Their meaning and their capacity to inspire human reactions of all kinds, including fear and violence, always depend on the context in which people read or hear them. That includes other speech or content shared alongside them, and other uses of the same words or phrases to which the same audience has been exposed. To fully understand the meaning and power of the phrase “from the river to the sea” each time it is used, it must be analyzed with as much of its context as possible.
Though in this case the Board presents three examples of posts in which the phrase was posted, it hasn’t provided enough contextual information to analyze all of them adequately. For instance the Board’s description of the case omitted the contents of the video in the first example.
The phrase itself, outside a particular context or post, is not actionable under any of Meta’s policies, as discussed in more detail below, nor does Meta have international human rights obligations to ban it.
2. It is easy to confuse people’s fear that others might react violently to language, with the language’s capacity to make others actually react that way. In this case, especially since the “river to the sea” phrase has become a lightning rod for angry debate over Israel and Gaza and a sign of strong sympathy for Palestinians, some Jewish people are afraid that “from the river to the sea” will incite Palestinians and their supporters to attack Israel, Israelis, and Jews. That fear is a harm, but it isn’t a sign that the speech makes such attacks significantly more likely. Nor is it an indication that use of the phrase - in general or in the three examples at issue - violates any of the three Meta policies or its human rights obligations.
*Current uses of the phrase*
In a review of recent data from dozens of social media platforms, we found a wide variety of uses of the phrase, which reinforces our view that it cannot be said to have any particular meaning or impact, on its own.
It is usually written or chanted as part of a couplet, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” but many posts and comments replace the second phrase. In many cases it’s antisemitic (“Palestine will be Jew free”) and in other instances, anti-Palestinian (“there won’t be a Palistinian to be seen” [sic]). The phrase is also being used to criticize campus protests, and university administrators’ crackdowns on them (“from the river to the sea, campus speech will not be free”) and to discredit and demonize protestors. It is frequently used as fodder in the conflict between the political right and left in the United States. Some people have even compared the phrase with one from the U.S. national anthem, “from sea to shining sea,” usually to argue that it would be foolish to ban “from the river to the sea.”
It is true, as those who urged Meta to take down the phrase argue, that Hamas uses it. In light of its widespread and diverse use, including by thousands of non-Hamas protestors in the United States, it cannot be considered language that belongs to Hamas or, when used, evidently expresses pro-Hamas views. Based on all this, it would be a mistake to generalize about its meaning or impact.
*Harms related to use of the phrase*
As noted above, the phrase is frightening to many Israelis and their supporters including some Jewish people, who understand it as a grave threat, a call for “erasure of the Jewish state” in the words of Brandeis University President Ronald Liebowitz, who banned a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, in part because they used the phrase. Fear is a significant harm. However we are not aware of violence that was incited using the phrase since the awful Hamas attacks on Israel, on October 7 of last year.
*Recommendations*
From what we know of the three posts at issue, Meta was correct not to take them down, under its own community standards and under international human rights law. They did not apparently violate the rule against hate speech since the phrase does not constitute a “hate speech attack” in any of three three uses described.
Nor is it “language that incites or facilitates violence and credible threats to public or personal safety,” as far as we know. The phrase neither names nor targets any identity group. Those who call for removing or banning the phrase, like Prof. Liebowitz, understand it as a call to obliterate Israel and its Jewish population since Palestine could not be made to extend from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea without displacing Israel. Their fear was greatly increased by the indiscriminate massacre of more than 1,000 Israelis, mainly civilians, on October 7.
However for applying the Violence and Incitement policy, the question is not what effect the phrase has on Israeli or Jewish people, but what effect it has on people most likely to react with violence. To understand that, Meta should study the responses of other users to speech on its platforms that includes this phrase.
Finally, though Hamas is a dangerous organization in Meta’s sense of that term, the case description does not indicate that the “river to the sea” phrase was posted by a dangerous organization or individual, nor presented in a way that glorified or offered support to Hamas, in any of the three instances.
Unless there is contextual information that undermines this analysis, we urge the board to uphold Meta’s decision not to take down the phrase in all three cases.
Finally, we suggest that the Board offer examples of uses of the “river to the sea” phrase that would be actionable, and explain why, to distinguish them from non-actionable examples like the ones in this case.
the phrase from the river to the sea should not be censored as it is not hate speech
From the river to the sea
It is an inspiring call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistance. It has been used by many during peaceful protests and calls for action and solidarity with those suffering in Palestine and the Gaza Strip.
For those who see this phrase and insighting violence are misguided and do not understand the meaning. It's the same as claiming "black lives matter" is saying hurt everyone else.
It is a call to understand Palestinian land has been taken, and their governance removed, and all they want is their own rights and land back. It. belongs to them. The only reason those may see this as a threat is because they are actively stealing the land which doesn't belong to them and KNOW it doesn't belong to them.
Whether or not this restriction goes through, our voices will be heard and we will continue to chant for freedom, human rights, and dignity for those affected by oppressive entities. What we are saying is "please hear us, and stand in our side as we shout for the right to exist"
Hello, I believe the statement “from the river to sea” should not be banned as it only represents an aspirational call by Palestinians to live freely and with dignity in the entire region without dominating others nor without getting dominated by others. It’s a vision of a world where Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc can all as equals.
Hello,
I see no issues with the phrase “from the river to the sea” and I think it’s perfectly acceptable to have this phrase in the comments on posts. Do not remove these comments or posts containing this phrase.
Thank you,
Sophie
“From the river to the sea” expresses “a desire for a state in which
‘Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating them’” - Yousef Munayyer, Palestinian-American writer
It is not a call to kill or push out Jews, contrary to the Zionist sophistry on the topic.
Signed, an anti-zionist Jewish American
The phrase “from the river to the sea” should ABSOLUTELY be allowed on social media and in the public domain. It is not hate speech—in fact, quite the opposite. It is a call for the humanization of the Palestinian people, it is a call for love, peace, justice and equity for Palestine, for all illegally occupied lands worldwide and for all human and non-human life on this planet. Palestine has endured the longest military occupation in modern history and “from the river to the sea” is a beautiful phrase that indicates solidarity and unity for a world free of domination and violence. To censor this phrase is to deny what the Palestinians have endured and what they continue to suffer. “From the river to the sea” is a cry for humanity; don’t silence it!
"From Sea to Shining Sea" -famous lyric to an American song
A mari usque ad mare (Latin: [aː ˈmariː ˈuːskᶣɛ ad ˈmarɛ]; French: D'un océan à l'autre, French pronunciation: [dœ̃nɔseˈã aˈloʊ̯tʁ]; English: From sea to sea) is the Canadian national motto.
Why is "from the river to the sea" any different?
To most Palestinians, this phrase is calling for 1, democratic state, under which Palestinian Arabs have equal rights and are no longer subjected to exclusive laws and policy by a government which will do anything to prevent an Arab voting block to have majority power.
Israel is Apartheid. A "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" is calling for true equality and a single state instead of the current farce of a democracy which is only possible while Palestinians are living under occupation, making them not citizens, and yet subject to Israeli laws, through a loophole that is anything but legal.
Reminder that if everything is Antisemitic, then nothing is. We cannot limit free speech on the basis of a phrase that has been misinterpreted and over exaggerated to mean something that it does not. Especially when the occupiers, in this case, also use the phrase but in reference to an ethno state instead of a place where everyone has equal rights.
A call for Freedom is not a call for violence. Everyone who lives between two bodies of water should be free. It should never be assumed that freedom for one group of people would threaten the freedom of another.
The phrase From the River to the Sea has been used for decades and refers to the area of Palestine between the Jordan river and the Med sea. It is not referring to any other race, religion, ethnicity, state, country at all. It is referring to the Palestinian homeland of pre 1940, when all maps (if you look them up, many available on line) ,that area was defined as Palestine. This was and is the indigenous Palestinian peoples homeland which has been brutally stolen and colonised by Zionists since early 1900s. It is and has never been a call to violence, racism or anti anything., just wanting to live in peace on the land they were born on, of their fathers, grandfathers, great grandparents etc.
,
From the river to sea is a loud call for justice and humanity for all, to live with dignity and equal human rights from the river to the sea regardless of ethnic background, nationality and religion. It’s a call to stop the illegal dispossession and settlements and upholding international law!
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is a call for freedom and equal rights for a group of people living in a state that doesn’t not grant them equal rights.
Unlike Israel, that Aya specifically that Israel will occupy the land from the Jordan to the sea ( increasing their boundaries).
I have attended many protest marches and aid for Palestinians events. I have not heard this phrase being used to call for murder or destruction of Jewish people.
It should be allowed. If banned, that opens the door for any call for equal rights to be banned.
In its current use, this phrase is an aspirational cry for Palestinians to be able to live freely, not under apartheid, just like any ethnic group should be allowed to do. It is NOT calling for the destruction of another group of people. It is a cry for freedom. On the flip side, the Israeli PM has used the phrase while killing a large portion of the people who are simply demanding to live freely - which we all say we want for all people.
saying « From the River to the Sea Palestine Shall Be Free » is advocating for equality and freedom and if you censor this text or similar text then you are violating my right to free speech.
"From the river to the sea" is a phrase describing the geography of the region of Palestine. Wishing freedom for the colonized people of this region is not hateful. Rather, it is the opposite. Occupation is a crime.
The phrase “From The River To The Sea”. Means peace freedom and Justice for Palestinian people. That they can live without a military presence, the have freedom of movement, they are treated equally and fairly.