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
השימוש בביטוי "מהנהר לים" מתכתב בעיני במידה רבה עם הביטוי "ארץ ישראל השלמה", המופיע רבות אצל ארגוני ומפלגות ימין ישראליות. בעוד שני הביטויים האלו כשלעצמם לא מהווים פשע שנאה כלפי אוכלוסיה מסוימת או כל סיבה אחרת לאסור אותם, הם
בנקל הופכים לכלי שימושי כדי לייצר שיח קיצוני. בעיני, כאיש חינוך העוסק מדי יום בחינוך ערכי ובחינוך לשלום ולדיאלוג, השימוש בביטויים אלו ברשתות החברתיות מקצין את השיח ולא מאפשר דיאלוג אמיתי. כאן, לטעמי, ישנה אחריות גדולה ואמיתית למפעילי הרשתות החברתיות השונות, להוות מודל ופלטפורמה לדיאלוג אמיתי. אכן, אין למנוע הבעת דעה גם מסוג שאולי מייצר אצלי תחושות לא חיוביות; עם זאת, בעיני ישנה חובה למצוא את הדרך למנוע משיח ברשתות להיצמד רק לביטויים פופוליסטים שמחזקים שיח קיצוני. טוב יעשו מטא ודומיהן, אם ינסו לייצר פלטפורמות לשיח יותר מורכב, ימנעו את הקישור של ביטויים פופוליסטיים עם עמדות אלימות ומסוכנות וייצרו אפשרות להרחיב את הידע.
From the river to the sea, Palestine is free slogan symbolizes a call for justice, human rights, and the right to self-determination. It is seen as an expression of solidarity with Palestinians living under occupation or as refugees, advocating for their freedom and rights.
The slogan is used as part of non-violent protests and advocacy. It represents an aspirational goal rather than a call to violence or exclusion. It is akin to other global movements where oppressed peoples seek liberation and equality.
It signifies people’s wish to see Palestinians and Jews living in the area located between the river of Jordan and the Mediterranean in peace and equality without any form of discrimination or violence by any party against the other. In light of that, it is recommended that your company engage with these expressions thoughtfully and consider the broader human rights and political issues at play.
Follow the biblical principles and all will go well.
There is a great controversy on the subject of freedom of expression. But the idea of freedom of expression is not supposed to be selective. It is not permissible for us to allow some people to express a certain idea and prevent others, just because we side with the first party, but we have negative attitudes towards the second party.
Many Western countries side with the Israeli occupation, but maintain a position of hostility towards the Palestinian people. If a citizen who supports Israel raises the slogan “From the river to the sea,” meaning the borders of the State of Israel, then the Palestinian is prohibited from using this slogan to call for the borders of the Palestinian state.
Where is the freedom of expression?
I understand that people will think that this slogan refers to the destruction of Israel. But, let us look at it from a different angle.
For Israel, the slogan “From the river to the sea” is in violation of international law, given that the Palestinian territories are under Israeli occupation and not part of Israel. In addition, the State of Israel was established on Palestinian lands that it occupied by force, in addition to the fact that the borders of the State of Israel exceeded the partition resolution of 1948.
There are Israeli voices calling for a one-state (from the river to the sea) solution, particularly when the Israeli Prime Minister raised the map of Palestine at the UN General Assembly on September 23rd, 2023, showing that the Palestinian territories are part of Israel, In blatant defiance of international resolutions. This means that this includes Israeli citizens and Palestinian citizens. What is the objection to the presence of other voices who advocate the idea of one state on the basis of a Palestinian state (From the river to the sea) that includes Palestinian citizens (the indigenous people who own the land) and Jewish citizens, particularly those who lived in Palestine prior to the establishment of the Jewish state? This reflects the status in Palestine prior to the establishment of the State of Israel on the Palestinian land.
The principle of freedom of opinion and freedom of expression in Western countries in particular is at stake. Israeli pressure, and the pressure of Israel’s supporters (the Jewish Lobbies) in the West on the media and social media networks, leads to the fear and confusion of those responsible for these networks for two reasons: the first is the influence of Israel and its supporters, and their ability to cause harm to those means and networks, and the second is the complex of fear of the accusation of anti-Semitism, which is linked to the Holocaust that was carried out by the Nazis against the Jews in the World War II.
This should not be a source of protection for Israel in committing its crimes in Gaza in killing children, women and civilians. It should not be an excuse to silence people and accuse everyone who expresses their opinion of being anti-Semitic. This is intellectual terrorism and intimidation, and an attempt to impose a one sided narrative, and to obscure other opinions and other narratives.
The issue of freedom of opinion and expression, which represents a basic principle in Western thought based on democratic values, is truly at stake. Today, the world looks to Western countries in their attempt to pass this test in support of truth and justice, overcoming self-interests and submission to fear, and siding with the preconceptions that Israel’s allies have cultivated in public opinion in those countries.
Language is constantly evolving and the meaning of phrases changes over time, and also is dependent on context. For example, the word “queer” in English was first used pejoratively but now has been reclaimed by many in the LGBTQ+ community as both a political category and an umbrella term. While the words “queer” (adjective) or “queer(s)” (noun) are still seen by some people as an insult, especially people from older generations, this does not make any and all uses of the word offensive. Furthermore, for many who claim the identity of queer, as members of a marginalized group their act of reclaiming the word is a way of asserting their right to exist — for them it is empowering and liberating.
With the phrase “From the river to the sea,” we can apply the same logic. There is evidence of multiple meanings and groups using the phrase including Palestinians, who have been under occupation for over a century and are a marginalized population. There is evidence that Israel may have been one of the first groups to use the phrase “From the river to the sea” to proclaim its desire to occupy the entire territory of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Regardless of who may have actually been the first to use the phrase, the widely accepted context of its use in contemporary times is by Palestinians as a call for their freedom from occupation. Countless Palestinian activists, writers, and other actors in the movement for Palestinian liberation have spoken, sang, chanted, and written the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.
Moreover, it is not hateful to want Palestine to be unoccupied and for the Palestinian people to have the right of return to their land. These are freedoms that the government of Israel has systemically fought against since it was established on the land of Palestine. Israeli politicians, media, and its political allies around the world have promoted the narrative that a free Palestine would mean the destruction of both the state of Israel, the Israeli people, and even Jews. But this is a bad-faith misrepresentation of the context and intended meaning of the phrase “From the river to the sea“ when people calling for Palestinian freedom use it.
In this current moment, Israel is bombing Gaza and to date has killed at least 40,000 Palestinians, half of this figure children and women. It is blocking aid trucks from entering Gaza which is leading to mass starvation, and has destroyed most hospitals and all universities in the Gaza Strip. It has killed 75% of journalists in Gaza. Calling for Palestinian freedom and an end to Israel’s power over the land of Gaza and its violence toward the people living there is more crucial than ever. Opposing the actions of the government of Israel—and even opposing the existence of the state of Israel, just as U.S. Americans may express condemnation of the way the U.S. was established through the genocide of Native Americans, an economy built on the enslavement of Africans, and colonialism—is NOT equivalent to hate speech against Jews (antisemitism). It is disingenuous to claim that all Jewish people support the state of Israel or that practicing Judaism requires believing Jews have the right to create a state of Israel on the land of Palestine.
Facebook/Meta must not censor the phrase “From the river to the sea“ which is a call for Palestinian freedom being used especially frequently in the current moment, which is one of the most deadly wars in history. The straw man argument that people who use this phrase to call for Palestinian freedom are using it with antisemitic intent is not accurate, and to claim this would be in bad faith given the material power and advantages Israel has over the Palestinian people and the actual harm Israel is causing.
There can be absolutely no doubt or disagreement that the phrase, "from the river to the sea," in part or in full as "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," is an antisemitic, hateful message with genocidal intent. Though many who quote it may not know its origins and a large percentage cannot name either the river or the sea, and most have been blindsided with lies suggesting this is innocuous and means only "freedom" for Palestinian Arabs, nothing can be further from the truth. This phrase calls for the elimination of Israel, NOT co-existence, not two states for Jews and Arabs, not for real freedom.
It is a jihadist invective. It is a cruel and dangerous phrase that builds on fundamental lies about the legitimacy of Israel, the only Jewish state in the world and the historic and legal homeland of the Jewish people since ancient times. Arabs invaded in the 7th century but did not succeed in killing or deporting all Jews; there has always been a Jewish presence.
Jews are indigenous to Israel; Arabs are not. From the river (Jordan) and the sea (Mediterranean) there is Israel. Arabs who live in Israel enjoy all freedoms, which is not true in most Arab lands. Arabs in every country drove out the Jews, so they want to now rid the region of the over 7 million Jews who are Israeli. This phrase is a call for mass murder, on an even larger scale than what Hamas with Palestinian Authority support and other jihadist terrorists, committed on October 7, 2023.
If Meta wants to truly reject hatred, incitement and terrorism, it must ban this phrase and all variations of it.
Palestine was never a country, but rather, the name for an area in the Middle East containing modern day Israel and Jordan. The League of Nations assigned Britain the mandate for Palestine in 1922, territories previously ruled by the Ottoman Empire. The British mandate for Palestine was the result of peace treaties following World War 2. The word Palestine was created in 142 BCE as a Roman rebrand to Israel to destroy any Jewish connection to the land.
On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain's former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. The Arab state was set to be in Transjordan (now called the country of Jordan) and the Jewish state in their historical homeland of Israel. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day. On that same day, the surrounding Arab nations attacked the new found state of Israel.
Israel was able to hold off the attacks and established itself as a country with a right to defend itself.
In 1967, the surrounding Arab nations were amassing troops on their borders and Israel preemptively attacked the Egyptian Air Force to thwart the attack. All the surrounding nations then declared war. Israel was able to defend against all the surrounding attacking nations and pushed them far into their territories. They took Gaza and Sinai from the Egyptians, liberated Jerusalem and Judea & Samaria from the Jordanians (they never annexed the land, just occupied it), and the Golan Heights from Syria/Lebanon.
The phrase, "From the River to the Sea...." is saying, from the River Jordan (Israel's eastern most border) to the Mediterranean Sea (Israel's western most border), they are claiming all of the Land of Israel, and under Palestinian control, there would be no Jews allowed (see Hamas, PLO, and PA charters).
“From the river to the sea” must be banned as hate speech. Any attempt to spin these words as support for innocent Palestinians is a direct assault on the truth.
We all mourn the civilian deaths in the conflict. There are no alternative definitions to this phrase, however. There are multiple ways to express one’s support for Palestinians, just as there are any number of ways to air one’s grievances with the Israeli government.
To allow “From the river to the sea” is simply too offensive, and a hateful, coded way to hide behind words. It’s a coward’s way out, like hiding one’s face when protesting.
I find the phrase "from the river to the sea" quite offensive. A cursory review of history reveals its roots and intentions. I feel that social media platforms have some responsibility to limit the publication of language that has no other meaning than to encourage hate/violence.
Thank you for allowing my input on this matter but I feel there should not even be a question about this.
The phrase "from the river to the sea" is antisemitic because it calls for the elimination of Israel, the only Jewish state in the world. This slogan advocates for Palestinian control over the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which includes all of present-day Israel. Such a call effectively denies Israel's right to exist and endorses the eradication of its Jewish population. By promoting the removal of Israel, this phrase disregards the Jewish people's historical and ongoing connection to the land, making it a statement rooted in hostility and aimed at the destruction of a nation and its people.
Terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi’s and others use this expression as their rallying cry. Need we say more?
POSTS THAT INCLUDE “FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA” are in fact antisemitic and incite violence against the Jewish people.
Those posts should be banned the accounts suspended.
Statements that contain "From the river to the sea" parrot genocidal language used by terrorist organizations and their supporters intent on destroying the Jewish state. The "river" and "sea" referenced in that phrase refer to the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, respectively, which constitute almost the entirety of the western and eastern borders of Israel, respectively. "From the river to the sea" is a call to wipe out the Jewish state. This was the stated intent of the countries which surrounded Israel in the 1948 war after the U.N. partitioned Palestine into two states, the 1967 war, and the 1973 war. While Israel has subsequently established peace treaties with some of its neighbors, others still explicitly call for the destruction of the state, including Hamas in its charter document. "From the river to the sea" is a call to genocide.
While many people who might use the phrase do not understand it and would never knowingly advocate for genocide, they unwittingly support and normalize the call for genocide against the Jews. The normalization of this phrase and its popularization in Pro-Palestine protests since the October 7th massacre is frightening to Jews in the United States and should be frightening to everyone. The fact that a call to genocide has been normalized in the Western world is no reason to accept its use on social media.
"From the river to the sea" is clearly a reference to the land of Israel. The call for it to be freed is actually a call for its destruction. Therefore this phrase should be banned - any call to destroy a sovran nation should be banned.
Approximately 23% of Israel's citizens are Arab and they enjoy freedom of religion, equality of opportunity, and equality before the law. Israel's Arab citizens have the right to vote and are elected to all levels of the Israeli Government. The Israeli Arab is already the freest Arab in the Middle East. Since this is not a call for freedom for people who live "from the river to the sea" - its true interpretation is a call for their destruction. Therefore there should be no question but to ban it in all languages and all platforms.
None of the three Facebook posts in questions could be reasonably considered in violation of Meta’s Community Standards. None of these posts are “statements advocating for high-severity violence,” nor are they “aspirational or conditional statements to commit high-severity violence.” On the contrary, it appears that the posts are calling for an end to high-severity violence (“#ceasefire” and condemning “senseless slaughter”).
In order for the phrase in question (“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”) to be interpreted as a call to violence, one must necessarily believe that the freedom and self-determination of Palestinians requires violence against another group (Israelis and/or Jews). This assumption belies a cynical–or, indeed, bigoted–perception of the consequences of Palestinian liberation, just as it reveals the problematic belief that Israelis can only live in peace and security as long as Palestinians live under occupation.
It is noted in the case description that the phrase in question “could have antisemitic implications, as claimed by the users who submitted the cases to the Board.” A call for a population’s freedom, dignity, and human rights cannot, on its own, be considered hate speech. Only when this phrase accompanies racist comments, threats or stated desires to commit violence against another group (in this case, Israelis or Jews), can this phrase be considered hate speech.
In terms of context, it may be worth considering other phrases associated with movements for liberation, sovereignty, or self-determination. It is doubtful that calls to “Free Tibet,” “liberate Donetsk and Crimea” or to “recognize South Yemen independence” would be considered advocations for high-severity violence. Although these causes stem from various historical and political contexts, none of them are necessarily calls for violence, but rather an expression of a desired sociopolitical shift.
It should also be noted that the phrase in question cannot be associated solely with Palestinian liberation movements. References to control of the land “from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea” have historically been leveraged by right wing Israeli political parties, such as the Likud party, which included in its 1977 charter: “ The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace…between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”
(see: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party) Likewise, Israeli leaders including Benjamin Netanyahu have repeatedly depicted the State of Israel as existing between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, with no reference to the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. (see: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront-israels-version-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/)
When I hear or read "From the River to the Sea Palestine Will be Free," or its original Arabic rendition "min il-ṃayye la-l-ṃayye / Falasṭīn ʿarabiyye - From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Arab," I hear an eliminationist call for the destruction of Israel. I hear the phrase calling for the cultural and quite possibly physical genocide of the people of Israel. The only response to calls for the genocide of Israelis and especially its Jewish citizens is "Never Again." The motto of "From the River to the Sea" will not advance the needed peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
"Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea" makes a claim about the territory of Israel. Saying that this area is Palestine wipes out the existence of Israel. Some say it demands a unitary state including right of return for all Palestinians with refugee status. This would make the Israelis a minority, and within a few years they would be dead or fled. Israelis consider it means "Palestine will be Jew-free, from the river to the sea." A variant that gives the true meaning is "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab."
So, a threat of ethnic cleansing of the inhabitants of Israel - including 7 million Jews, 2 million Israeli Arabs, plus Druze, Bahais, Christians etc.
The phrase "From the River to the Sea" clearly refers to a "Palestinian" vision in which the land of the former British Mandate for Palestine is under the control of the "Palestinians" and free of Jews, from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea. Virtually every Jewish person hearing this phrase would interpret it as a call for the destruction of Israel and a genocide of Israeli Jews.
FRIM THE RIVER TI THE SEA IS HATE SOEECH AND SHOULD BE BANNED BY META.”From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” is a rallying cry for terrorist groups and their sympathizers, from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to Hamas, which called for Israel’s destruction in its original governing charter in 1988 and was responsible for the October 7, 2023 terror attack on Israeli civilians, murdering over 1,200 people in the single deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. It is also a common call-to-arms for pro-Palestinian activists, especially student activists on college campuses. It calls for the establishment of a State of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, erasing the State of Israel and its people. Another phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” which uses the Arabic word for “uprising” or “shaking off,” also calls for widespread violence against both Israelis and Jews across the globe (see “Globalize the Intifada”).”
From the river to the sea is a genocidal call to exterminate all Jews in this territory