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
This phrase is calling for the creation of a new Palestinian state in place of the existing state of Israel, which means the genocide of all Israelis
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," is an incomplete catchphrase, but the mind knows how to fill in and supply the last part of the chant, the part that's unspoken, "of Jews."
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free [of Jews]."
We understand that this is a call for genocide, because one only needs to look at a map to know what lies between the river of Jordan, and the Mediterranean, and that is the sovereign Jewish State of Israel. The people who chant this phrase or write it on social media are calling to wipe out Israel and replace it with Palestine.
Aside from being a call for the genocide of the Jews, hence rabidly antisemitic, "From the river to the sea" is a call for the obliteration of a sovereign nation and the confiscation of its territory with the intention of supplanting it with something else, another country/state.
Those who chant the phrase may be loud and visible on campus, but they are misinformed. Anthropologist José R. Martínez-Cobo (former special rapporteur of the Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities for the United Nations) developed a checklist to define indigenous peoples. According to a writer interested in the land back movement, Martinez-Cobo’s research suggests that "indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.
"This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:
*Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them
*Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands
*Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.)
*Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language)
*Residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world
*Religion that places importance on spiritual ties to the ancestral lands
*Blood quantum – that is, the amount of blood you carry of a specific people to identify as that people. The concept was developed by colonialists in order to eventually breed out native peoples."
The writer goes on to explain why the Jews tick all the boxes on the indigenous peoples checklist:
*Their lands were occupied, first by the Romans, then by the Arabs in the seventh century.
*They share common ancestry with previous occupants as determined by several genetic studies.
*Their culture can be traced directly to the Levant, where it developed into what is now known as “Jewish culture.” While different Jewish communities have slightly different traditions, they all share the same root culture, and it remains unchanged. They have resurrected their traditional language, and while many still speak Yiddish and Ladino, Hebrew has become the primary language again.
*They have spiritual ties to the land, which plays a large role in their traditions as a people."
The writer concludes, "Despite all the arguments about 'European' Jews, they in fact meet all the criteria set forth by Martínez-Cobo. Even though Israel is the first modern indigenous state, it still has lands that are occupied by foreigners in Judea and Samaria. Those are ancestral lands and, many feel that they should be returned to the indigenous peoples for self-determination."
It is offensive to Jewish people when others suggest they don't have a right to their indigenous territory. It is a sign of disdain and disregard for a deeply-felt sense of indigeneity, a feeling of belonging to the land. The Jewish religion, its prayers and practices, are all bound up in the Land of Israel, in which the sovereign modern State of Israel is located. Zionism is the expression of the desire of the Jewish people, reviled everywhere, to return to Jewish indigenous land, and have their own place in the world, where they can be free of hatred.
"From the river to the sea," is a taunt to the Jews. It is saying, "We will slay all of you and push you into the sea and take your land."
Those who say otherwise are being disingenuous. It is a thinly-veiled, highly-politicized, highly-charged phrase, but it's also a call for Jewish genocide. The chanters know exactly what the phrase means, and so do the Jews. Allowing the phrase to proliferate all over social media is not free speech, but inciteful hate speech.
When social media comments such as "From the River to the Sea" are reported, and social media outlets deem this phrase not in violation of its community standards, those who make such reports, subsequently rejected, get the impression that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people doesn't violate the standards of the social media outlets. This is untenable.
“From the river to the sea” is an antisemitic phrase rooted in the destruction of Israel and genocide of all the Jews living there, and then around the world. The government of Berlin, Germany have criminalized the phrase - the Germans understand how the genocide of Jews begins and it’s first through words that make Jews out to be the root of all evil, which then descends into the most deprave of actions. October 7th had the largest number of Jews killed in one day since the Holocaust. The depravity of the rapes of women, children and men, burning families alive, mutilation and torture, and taking of hostages was then celebrated with this chant seemingly worldwide. Given that this chant essentially celebrates the murder of Jews and destruction of the only democracy in the Middle East and the only Jewish majority country, it clearly is antisemitic in nature and needs to be censored.
The fact that META is having to debate this shows a lack of historical references regarding anti-semitism over the centuries. It demonstrates the lack of depth and knowledge that the teams have. It is shameful and disappointing that it is even a conversation. Hurt people hurt people. META is participating in anti-semitism and isn't taking responsibility to do the right thing and be on the right side of history.
The term "from the river to the sea" is a translation of the Arabic chant, "from the water to the water, Palestine will be Moslem." It calls the end of the State of Israel by violent means, as amply demonstrated on Oct. 7. As such, it is racist and promotes violence against the Jewish State, but it also provokes attacks against Jews everywhere.
I think that Posts that include the phrase" From the River to the sea " should be prohibited because it originated in a terrorist organization (Hamas) charter.
Palestine was a name the Romans gave to the region that included 'Eretz Israel', but no Palestinian State.
This phrase is calling for the creation of a new Palestinian state in place of the existing state of Israel, which means the genocide of all Israelis (of all denominations).
This phrase is calling for the destruction of Israel, as an Anti-Zionist call that rejects the right of Jews for self-determination and security. It is an Antisemitic and racist call for violence. It is prohibitive to a peace agreement in the region.
The expression "from the river to the sea," in the context of Israel/Palestine, has always referred to the strategic goal of eliminating of the state of Israel. It was used in this context by the PLO and was later taken up as a rallying cry by Hamas and other radical groups. The current wave of student demonstrations has turned it into a popular chant and Twitter hashtag, used even by kids who have no idea what river or sea they are referring to. But the intent has never changed: destroying Israel. That is all it means and all it has ever meant. It is as chilling as the expression "Final Solution" in the context of the Holocaust.
The vast majority of Jews in the United States and throughout the world consider the phrase "From the River to the Sea" to be a call -- at a minimum -- for the violent overthrow and dismantling of Israel as a sovereign state and, for some (percentage unclear), it is a also call for the genocidal, mass murder of Israeli Jews as part of the aim to dismantle Israel. Thus, the phrase "From the River to the Sea" is classic hate speech -- it is a direct call for violence against Jews living in Israel for no reason but their Jewish identity and against the Jewish identity of the State of Israel. It is a call to action by people who believe Israel has no right to exist, should not exist and against which active measures should be taken so that it can no longer exist. It is a call for the violent overthrow of the State of Israel and mass murder of countless Israeli Jews who make it possible for Israel to exist. Even for those to whom the phrase "From the River to the Sea" may only mean a belief in one state for all people living in Israel and the adjacent Palestinian Arab territories, the phrase is nevertheless based on a rejection of the Jewish people's right to national self-determination and a homeland in at least a portion of the biblical Land of Israel where Jews have been living continuously for more than 3,500 years. Thus, at a bare minimum, "From the River to the Sea" means the rejection of Jewish self-determination and the elimination of the State of Israel as a national entity, which is necessarily antisemitic.
From the River to the Sea is an antisemitic phrase meaning that Israel should be wiped out and the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea should be Arab.
This phrase has been used for only one reason, to refer to the area of the State of Israel. It covers from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. It has always been a rallying cry for those who wish to eliminate the State of Israel by taking over all of its territory. Since Israel is the only Jewish state in the world, the phrase has also been used as meaning eliminating Jews -
I.e., as a code phrase for extermination of Jews. Thus, the phrase should be considered “hate speech@.
"From the river to the sea" has been a chant for protesting Israeli occupation for many years before it was called antisemitic. It is also in the charter of Likud, the current majority government in the Israeli Knesset. Therefore the proposal to ban the chant is more about suppressing free speech, not about combating antisemitism. This oversight board should reject banning chants based on specious reasoning.
If you know the context of the statement, and those who use it, then it is clear it is a call for the erasure of Israel and genocide of the Jewish people. The evidence is in the Hamas and PLO covenants, the statements of Palestinian leaders, the maps used in official documents and school textbooks showing "Palestine" replacing Israel, and the logos of organizations that have similar images. It also reflects the hypocrisy of the user as Palestine historically included Jordan, yet there is no call for the replacement of Jordan as part of free Palestine. The statement is a substitute for one that would suggest peace or coexistence with Jews or the Jewish state. It is never used in conjunction with chants for a two-state solution or peace now. The statement is also solely focused on Israel. There is no suggestion that Palestinians under Hamas or Palestinian Authority rule are not free (and it is not) or any reference by users to the lack of freedom of Palestinians in Arab countries like Lebanon, where they are not allowed to be citizens and are prevented from working in a variety of fields.
This is repulsive. There is not and never was a state of Palestine. Stop brainwashing people. There are 57 Arab majority countries and 1 Jewish state. There is no freedom of any sort in Arab counties while 60% of Jews in Israel are descendants of those expelled from Arab countries. 2 million Arabs live inside Israel and work and live in any way they choose while entire Arab counties are Jew free. What is wrong with you???
The phrase "from the river to the sea" when spoken in the context of "freeing Palestine" cannot be interpreted in any other way besides the reversal of the creation of the state of Israel. The creation of a sovereign Palestinian state "from the river to the sea" is dependent upon the ultimate destruction of the state of Israel. Any interpretations of this phrase that insinuate a peaceful transition of power to a new Palestinian government authority lack any basis in reality, including the documented intentions and desires of the Palestinian national movement.
I find the phrase "from the river to the sea" uncomfortable, and also unclear. However, using the phrase by itself does not violate anyone's safety, in my opinion. If, on the other hand, a person were to use the phrase to justify attacking Jews, that would be cause to remove the post and perhaps block the poster.
Form the river to the sea - a phrase which indicates the erasure of the state of Israel.
It is inherently antisemitic, since it calls for the replacement of the only Jewish state with a supposedly Arab Palestinian state. The longer version of this is “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free”.
The river being Jordan and the sea the Mediterranean, is covering the whole nation of Israel and thus not asking for a two state solution but as stated before for the erasure of Israel.
The protesters who use this phrase oftentimes don’t seem to fully understand the meaning - and if so, they perpetrate terrorist propaganda, written down as the exact same slogan by Hamas.
In short, this phrase is a shortcut to call for violence against the state of Israel and on a broader scale against Jews worldwide, since they are being met in most cases by vitriol from such protesters on- and offline.
It is a expression of manifest destiny over the Middle East, referring literally to the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. It is used by Jewish and Arab radicals to claim complete ownership over territory that has bee inhabited and disputed for 3,000 years.
While I support free speech anyone who uses this inflammatory phrase is contributing to the problem globally and regionally.
Calling for the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews is hate speach on steriods. To allow "from the river to the sea" is anti-semitism at its worst. I cannot believe that educated people would allow this to happen. Please remove this going forward.
Sincerely,
Neville Alperstein
Je DENONCE la complicité de Facebook dans la fraude, les arnaques, la vente de produits interdits (fausses cartes bancaires, fausses cartes d'identité, faux permis de conduire). Pourquoi ? parce que les escrocs PAIENT Facebook.
Il faut PUNIR Facebook, car tous les escrocs et bandits de tous pays profitent de leur complicité.