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
Today at UCLA Pro-Hamas protesters beat a Jewish woman unconscious and she was rushed to the ER. When not so peaceful protesters say “From the River to the Sea” it means expel all Jews from Israel.
What the protesters are calling for is death to Israelis (genocide) and Zionsts (Jews) worldwide. Even if the masses don’t know what they are saying, it is Anti-Semitism.
Israel is a multiparty democracy with strong and independent institutions that guarantee political rights and civil liberties for all citizens. In fact Israel’s 20% Arab population are the best educated and arguably the most financially successful in the Middle East.
In contrast, Islamic Republics in the Middle East are dictatorships. They don’t have women’s or gay rights, Most don’t allow Jews or Israelis to enter.
The fact there are Pro-Hamas protesters at Colleges is sad and shows Anti-Semitism. In my opinion, were it not for November elections, campus security, local police. and if necessary national guard would arrest and prosecute/deport protesters who interfere with student classes and graduation ceremonies.
There is no ambiguity on what the words themselves mean. "From the *Jordan River*, to the *Mediterranean* Sea" is literally a finite space of land. Some people (I will not say Palestinians, because many don't believe this, and moreover there are many other Arab individuals or pro-Islamist individuals that do) believe that the entire space should be known as Palestine. They believe an identity group, called Palestinian, are rightful owners of the entire land and it is (western) colonizers that are illegally occupying (all or part of) it. The existence of the Palestinian identity is itself disputed, and arguably is weaponized as a tool for those wishing for a global Islamic caliphate, or at least certainly a contiguous Arab world.
Regardless of the regional geo-politics or the agendas there, which I can get into in detail, the history of the phrase itself is also clear. "From the River to the sea" was invited by an organization known globally for terror. I believe at least 12 plane hijackings that they've claimed credit for, such as one in Pakistan, that claimed the life of an Indian air hostess. It's been a rallying cry to exact violence, including in both Intifadas. In my opinion, it's use and resulting aftermath, has on occasion been worse than neo-Nazi chants, which we do not tolerate.
I often see content censored that is not even violent, but this is. Certainly, I do understand free speech and nuance matters. Sometimes language is simply hurtful, and I've seen it be banned. This is truly violent. It is without a doubt calling for the erasure of Israel entirely. It based on the premise that Israel should never have existed and we'll use "any means necessary" to undo it's creation. If it was simply an intellectual opinion on borders, or even an opinion of military strategy, it would be one thing. But without a doubt, this is calling for violence against anyone Jewish. It has been used in that capacity tremendously and continues to do so.
It factually strikes fear in the minds of millions of Jews. When they hear it, they scared for their life. Again, one can have an opinion on what Israel should do in this war. But when a Jewish person is stopped in the street, and confronted with folks blocking them, showing this sign -- they have every reason to feel scared. There are many ways to make a point about the need for an independent Palestine. There are many ways to say there should be a two state solution, using the 1948 borders or 1967 borders. Insisting that this phrase has to be used is not a trap that Meta should fall for. This phrase is a terror chant and they deliberately want to use it.
To be perfectly clear, I have no objection with "free Palestine". I have no objection with "Israel is evil". Or "down with Netanyahu". But "from the river to sea" is 100% about ethnic cleansing, and in the US, we censured a congresswoman for it, with support from her own party. Even within the state, members of her party spoke out against her. There is a ton of political power behind her, yet they took this step.
You might as well allow "see a jew, shoot a jew". It's literally the same thing. Domestically, per the FBI, 60% of all hate crimes are anti-semitic, or anti-Jewish. Online, anti-hindu hate is 2.2x of anti-muslim hate. I do feel there is a lot more sensitivity and thus online censorship to simply hateful comments towards muslims and trans, then there is for jews (even as jews face calls for outright violence). We'd never allow "see a nig**r, shoot a nig**r" or something like that. This is like that, but perhaps with a much higher dead body count, as it was the based of the intifadas, where innocent people were slaughtered in buses, schools, etc, all under "from the river to the sea".
I share this opinion not in the context of strategic interests of the US, which I often opine on. This is not based on ally ship with Israel or anything like that. Even from an understanding of the need of Palestinian freedom, the way to achieve it, should not involve terror chants that strike fear in those thousands of miles away. There are jewish children, in American schools, who hear this at lunch, specifically by bullies. The school has to give those kids a separate room and many of those kids have nightmares of getting killed at school. It's a very serious situation. There are bomb threats to synagogues with this, graffiti on synagogues with this. It's way past just a phrase.
Dear Board Members,
I am writing to encourage you to ban the phrase "from the river to the sea". As you are well aware, the river stands for the Jordan River, and the sea is the Mediterranean Sea. The area being referenced is Israel, and any reference to the phrase above is implicitly calling for the destruction of Israel. This is the definition of genocide, calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state, and harm to Jews and others who live in the land of Israel, and as such has no place in peaceful dialogue to share viewpoints and opinions. It is unfortunate that our society has gotten to the state we are in where terms like genocide are hijacked and corrupted and used against another state or people. Israel is held to a double standard with respect to the sovereignty of their land. As a democratic and free country, it should be allowed and in fact it must work, as its primary goal, to defend and protect all its citizens (both Jewish and non-Jews). Showing support for a terrorist organization, Hamas, and for the people of Gaza, who elected Hamas to lead the strip and who outwardly call for the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews, is misguided at best. Free speech is not free, and there needs to be limits, such as not being allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater. This phrase should not be allowed to become part of the dialogue among those who might have a different feeling about what is happening and in light of the history behind the conflict in the Middle East. Please support honest dialogue and oppose any phrase or speech, including "from the river to the sea" (that many might not even be aware of the reference) that openly supports terrorism and the genocide of any group, in this case Jews and Israel.
Thank you.
I believe all three of these in incidents include the right of these individuals to their freedom of speech. At no point did those comments indicate any harm or incitement against any particular group of people. Rather, these incidents illustrate individuals in total support of the freedom and justice for a group that has been oppressed for so long. Why would that be a violation and be banned????
Simple, from the river to the sea is calling for all Jews to be killed!
This phrase, "from the river to the sea," is a shorthand way of someone saying that they want to push the entire nation of Israel, and its Jewish inhabitants, into the Mediterranean Sea. That is to say, no more Israel, no more Jews. It is a dog-whistle for anti-Semitism, and for wanting to kill all Jews. While there are other ways for anti-Semites to express themselves, unfortunately, this phrase is the easiest and clearest way for them to say where they stand. A forum like Facebook, especially with its Jewish founder, should be in the forefront of combatting anti-Semitism, and a good start would be to ban this phrase.
Looking at the members of the Oversight Board, I don't see any who are identifiably Jewish. If in fact there is nobody Jewish on the Board, that is a huge oversight. At this tumultuous time in history, I don't think anyone who is not Jewish can fully comprehend the terror we are feeling.
This chant "from the river to the sea..." is not only not leaving room for peace and prosperity in the middle eastern region, but blatantly Anti-Semitic. As Ben Schapiro likes to ask these protesters: "From which river to which river?", when you just realize that this chant is LITERALLY call for the destruction and obliteration of Israel and all its inhabitants (mainly jews but is also made up of many Arab, Christians & Hindus). As has been in the past other nations has risen up against our Jewish brethren, our Ally and we MUST stick up for them and not allow chants that call for the destruction of many good people.
I am just a person. I have no illustrious background nor business. As a person who has used Facebook since its inception, I’m appalled at the amount of censorship and targeting of Palestinian voices since October 7th. The world has beared witness to the atrocities taking place in Gaza by Israel. Women and children, like Hind, have been targeted and murder by the IOF in plain sight while the governments and corporations of the world has done all it can to turn us away from seeing it. It is too late, we have seen it. Stop trying to silence those calling for Peace by saying “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free” and instead I implore you to get on the right side of history and call for an immediate ceasefire and return the Palestinians to their rightful land.
If any people or country would barge into the USA, slaughter its babies, rape its women, massacre its people, would the United States of America consider such actions anything less than barbaric?
Imagine tomorrow, this same group of radicals begins to spread the slogan "From the river to the sea, America will be free". What kind of freedom do you think they are referring to?
Do you think it's OK for them to free America of every last peace-loving citizen by killing, burning, raping, torturing them to death? Does that sound like freedom to you?
Let's begin with the fact that there is no such state as Palestine. There never was. Look up the historical facts.
The borders of the land of Israel are clearly written in the Bible. Who exactly are the Palestinian people? Where do they come from? What right do they have to claim the land of the only country in the world that was nice enough to let them settle there?
The term "from the river to the sea" refers to the idea that the entirety of the State of Israel should be replaced with a Palestinian state. The river and the sea in this phrase are the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, so the land in between them consists of the entire territory of Israel’s borders, According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism, which has been adopted by 31 countries including the United States, this is therefore an antisemitic statement. Here is a quote from the IHRA definition: "Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." Meta should not allow posts that include language suggesting that State of Israel does not have the right to exist. This language is antisemitic by our own government's definition and should not be proliferated.
If you had asked me ten years ago if I felt that "From the river to the sea" is a call to genocide, I would have likely said no, not really, it is simply a call for a Palestinian state. However, I no longer believe that to be true. I am educated enough to understand that language and symbols have connotations that evolve over time. Over the past five or eight years, I am seeing "from the river to the sea" associated with calls for the eradication of the State of Israel and the genocide of Jewish people. More importantly, when I am seeing it over the past year in social media posts, I am seeing it accompanying "intifada," "death to Jews," "death to Zionists," "burn Israel to the ground," and in conjunction with calls for a single Palestinian, Muslim state. While I understand that people have differing opinions about the meaning of the phrase--much in the same way people argue about what a swastika's original intent was and how "Zionist" is often used as a derogatory term for "Jew"--there can be no questioning what people mean when they say "from the river to the sea" today. With the phrase's changing connotation and associations, it is now synonymous with the eradication of Israel and/or the eradication of Jews living in Israel. "From the river to the sea" is not a call for peace and freedom; it is a call for violent action toward Israelis and Jews.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' which is an abridged version of 'from the river to the sea, palestine will be free' is hateful, harmful, offensive and scary.
The phrase is used by perpetrators and followers of hate speech to mean eradicating all the Jewish Israelis from the borders of the legitimate State of Israel, delineated by The Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
This is so Jew-haters can replace the legitimate sovereign State of Israel with their 'Palestinian state'
These people may claim, when challenged that this is not true, but that claim is for front only. There is no other meaning for this phrase and it cannot be explained away any other way.
Using this hate speech on social media emboldens further hate which spills out from the virtual arena into real life, as can be seen on British streets and University campuses, repeated across the world.
This leads to genuine fear among individuals from Jewish communities. Additionally, hate crime has been perpetrated against individual Jewish people in the 'real world'.
That this phrase is antisemitic has been overwhelming acknowledged by the US elected houses in recent voting on the matter.
Facebook should be a place where joy is shared, not hate perpetrated, as set out in its code of conduct.
To me, "From the River to the Sea" is a call to eliminate the world's only Jewish State. It is meant to encompass everything from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, leaving no room for a Jewish presence in the area. There is nothing political about the slogan, it has genocidal intentions behind it as the only way to secure the land of Israel would be to destroy the Jewish population.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing in my personal capacity after having worked for 30 years on human rights issues with the United Nations. I am also the daughter of a holocaust survivor and believe that the latter has informed my career choice.
At the outset I note that your announcement regarding the Oversight Board's decision to take up this case, and asking for comment, is only translated into Hebrew and not in to Arabic. This is deeply problematic as it indicates an initial bias.
The same is true regarding the Board's decision to look solely at the term "from the river to the sea" and not other terms which mean exactly the same thing (except that all the relevant land belongs to Israel not Palestine) such as "Judea and Samaria" and "Eretz Israel."
On this point, I draw your attention to the first point of the Charter of the Likud, Israel's current ruling party, which states: "a. 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; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." See, Although the Charter dates back to 1977, to my knowledge this provision has not changed.
In short, there are zealots among both Israelis and Palestinians who believe that all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean sea belongs solely to their ethnic group. This despite the fact that no credible historian can assert that both peoples don't have historical rights to the area.
According to your site, users have complained that use of the term "from the river to the sea" constitutes hate speech, incitement, anti-semitism, and a call to abolish the state of Israel. As noted above, at a minimum, the term cannot constitute anti-semitism since the Charter of Israel's ruling party uses those exact words, and Israeli leaders and government documents routinely refer to Judea and Samaria and Eretz Israel.
The term may be a call to abolish the state of Israel in some instances but there are numerous Israelis, including Israeli leaders, who have come out against the establishment of a State of Palestine, although 146 Member States of the United Nations General Assembly accept that such a State exists.
Finally, if the term "from the river to the sea" is deemed to constitute hate speech or incitement to violence or terrorism, then the Hebrew equivalents should also be removed from Facebook as equally unacceptable forms of speech, although strictly speaking terrorism is committed by Non-State Actors and similar acts when committed by States constitute human rights violations, or war crimes, or crimes against humanity, etc.
Best regards, Carolyn Buff
The chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is deeply troubling and harmful. It implicitly calls for the eradication of an entire people, which is a terrifying prospect for Jews worldwide. This chant isn't just about political discourse; it's about denying an entire community's right to safety and existence. It fuels hatred, division, and violence, impacting not only Jews but people of all backgrounds who strive for peace and coexistence. Meta must take a firm stance against such inflammatory rhetoric. Allowing this chant on your platforms only serves to propagate hostility and undermines the safety and well-being of countless individuals. It's imperative that Meta bans this phrase to foster a more respectful and secure online environment for everyone.
Very simple from the River to the Sea is hate chant calling for the elimination from Jews from the land of Israel and the planet. This is hate speech and should be considered so by social media and broadcast media. We can CHOOSE to be kind, giving, healing, grateful, loving...Also we can CHOOSE TO HATE. We are not born to hate. We come from the womb and hate is a learned spoken, written or of action. From the River to the Sea incites hate to wipe Jews off their ancestral homeland and all Jews perished from the planet.
From the river to the sea calls for the annihilation of the nation of Israel. Nothing more or less.
"From the River to the Sea" was phrased during the 1960's, with the sole intention to rally Israel's neighbors to destroy and eliminate Israel all together. Despite some recent attempt to argue this phrase purpose is different, Jewish and Israelis find this term offensive, threatening and as an attempt to deny Israel's right to exist as the only Jewish state in the world. Most evidence support this understanding, as this chant is usually followed by another one, which might sound clearer: "We don't want two states, we want all of 48", meaning, Israel should not exist, and that pro-terror organizers want to eliminate the Jewish state, and replace it with Arab state.
Unfortunately, Jews are the only minority in the world that say clearly and out loud it find a statement threatening and dehumanizing but being ignored. Going over your policy, this speech lies right inside the scope of what Meta itself defines as Hate Speech: "We define a hate speech attack as dehumanizing speech; statements of inferiority, expressions of contempt or disgust; cursing; and calls for exclusion or segregation."
Furthermore, when right-wing extremist in Israel talk about ethnic cleansing the entire world finding it disgusting. However, the same does not go when it involves the aforementioned chants, although they mean the same - the ethnic cleansing of Jews. Jewish communities in Arab countries were ethnically cleansed after Israel was founded; there is no reason to believe this will not be the case if there is one state; and the more recent example of Lebanon, where Muslims attack Christians on a daily basis, leads only one conclusion - that the true meaning of this chant is to ethnically cleanse Jews.
If any other minority would make the argument I make here, Meta would acknowledge that and define it a hate speech. I hope that this opportunity will lead to the definition of this chant as a hate speech. To provide some background on the impact of this chant on our real life experience here at Stanford, I attach a letter I wrote to one of the school's committees.
I would be happy to assist you with any other inquiry should you have any.
Best,
Ehud Ephraim
Stanford Law School LL.M 24'
Tel Aviv University LL.B 19'