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
The full Arabic phrase has an English translation which is far more nefarious and calls for a genocide of non-arabs. It is made more palatable by western ideals and sanitized for Westerner mass use. This is a form of propaganda and really a deceitful practice. Facebook has the opportunity to ban a phrase that has been made illegal in the United States and Germany. The phrase has marginalized the majority of Jews and people who support them, basically bullying them away, much like the Nazis in Germany and even segregationists in the US did to Minorities. The language is similar to "the south will rise again", and causes fear in the majority of Jews who support Israel's right to exist.
Please band this hate speech from Meta
“From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free” is an open call for the complete annihilation of the State of Israel and its citizens.
Its hateful Genocidal comments not only for Israel but also all of the jewish people
“From the River to the Sea” calls for the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel. It is both threatening and triggering to the vast majority of Jewish people who are Zionists, believing Israel has a right to exist and Jewish people have a right to self-determination. It is absolutely hate speech, which is not protected by the first amendment, and should be treated as such.
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is a comment that calls for expulsion of all the Jews from the state of Israel, and all the Israelis from the state of Israel. It is a call for genocide, to murder them all, wipe them off the map, completely eradicate their existence, and obliterate their history. Please stop treating that call, which is the same as saying Long Live the Intifada, as a rallying cry for freedom fighters. That cry means one thing and one thing only, the extermination of the Jewish people from the one and only Jewish country in the entire world. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the phrase "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free!".
Nazis shouldn't be tolerated, no matter if they're from the extreme Right or extreme Left. Pro Hamas activism has been tolerated enough and the damages are already done to Jews, the Middle East and Western society. It's our responsibility to not allow it.
There are few global conflicts as incendiary as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and few hatreds as misunderstood as antisemitism.
First let me say - being critical of the Israeli government and supporting the human rights of Palestinians are not inherently antisemitic. However, a frequent issue raised by the Jewish community is the use of well documented, sometimes centuries old antisemitic tropes while taking these positions.
As a simple example to get on the same page - criticizing the actions of the Israeli government and demanding accountability is not in itself antisemitic. However, calling for the dismantling of the only Jewish nation - when there are not and have not been calls for the dismantling of any other nation - is inherently singling out the Jewish people similarly to be denied self-determination while not taking such a position for others, regardless of their actions. This *is* an example of engaging in antisemitism.
So what does this have to do with “from the river to the sea?”
The phrase was initially coined by recognized terrorists - not to say that supporting Palestinian rights is terrorism, it’s not, but the source of the phrase was literally an extremist, terrorist organization that used the phrase to explicitly call for violence against and the murder of Israelis and Jews as a whole. This is verifiable historical fact.
Between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River lies all of Israel. It doesn’t call for Palestinians or Gazans to be free, it calls for the entire swath of land to be a free Palestine. This raises the natural question: What then happens to the Israeli Jews that live there?
The source of the phrase would support their wholesale murder. It is a call, while unintended by many, to deny the very self-determination they want for Palestinians to the Jewish community. It is a call for apathy towards the lives of Israeli Jews - push them out, deny them self-determination, murder them, pretend they don’t exist - this is the historical subtext underpinning that phrase.
There are numerous ways to oppose the Israeli occupation without using antisemitic tropes - in fact, most of the American Jewish continuity is highly critical of the Israeli government. But “from the river to the sea” has been latched onto as a sound bite and bumper sticker ready slogan, with no historical context. The Jewish community frequently sees explanations as detailed as this met with responses that are entirely dismissive of what is being said, such as claiming it’s an attempt to silence criticism.
This could not be further from the truth.
In today’s climate, history MUST count for something. Nuance CANNOT be thrown aside. And Jews deserve the right to define bigotry against us just as much as the LGBTQ community has a right to define homophobia and transphobia, as the black community has a right to define racism, as the Muslim community has a right to define Islamophobia, etc. Why should one single group’s experience be dismissed while others are respected, championed, and amplified?
Facebook has a long history - well known within the Jewish community - of ignoring antisemitism. (And no, “but Mark Zuckerberg is Jewish” is not a defense.) All of us have seen literally Nazi propaganda cartoons, comments telling us we belong in the ovens, posts blaming us for the Covid-19 pandemic, and countless other vile screeds that actively cause harm and danger to us - which, nearly uniformly, are deemed as not violating Community Standards. We are BEGGING you - PLEASE take a nuanced approach, learn to understand the complex nature of antisemitism, and give us the benefit of protection that would be expected for other marginalized groups.
“From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” often has no ill intent behind it. That does not change the fact that it is historically documented as a call for our destruction, and especially given the rising antisemitism we’re seeing at home and abroad, Facebook has long been complicit in promoting violence against us. It’s time for you to take responsibility and see us as understanding the hate we’ve faced for 2000 years and worthy of safety.
'From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free' is a catchy phrase. Unfortunately it is also a phrase that calls for genocide of the Israeli people, and by extension Jews around the world. The misinformation war that has been waged by Hamas (and before them the PLO) has convinced a huge proportion of the population (mostly left-leaning and woke, often younger) that Israel is an evil state that has spent its entire existence persecuting the local Arab populations, and because of that they should be destroyed.
The Arabs in Gaza have made it clear that they do not want to live alongside Jews, and have supported Hamas in its terror and genocide. Calling for Palestine to be free from the river to the sea means that the Jews will be pushed out or massacred, and that is absolutely hate speech.
Please remove any posts using the phrase: "From the River to the Sea." This phrase is not a freedom call; it is straight up antisemitism. The chant means that the entire land of Israel will be ethnically cleansed of the Jewish population, and the Palestinian people would live there instead. The chant denies the Jewish connection to Israel, which has existed since Biblical times. Jews have always lived in the land of Israel – in fact, its real name is “Judea.” “From the river to the sea” supports the expulsion, and even genocide, of Israel’s Jewish inhabitants. Additionally, it rejects a peaceful solution to the conflict, where Israel and Palestine could have a two-state solution and live side-by-side. It calls for the eradication of Israel in its entirety.
I'm an American and Israeli and saying from the river to the sea is calling for genocide. I feel the same way about anyone calling to harm Palestinians or destroy Palestine. It's all hate speech that shouldn't be allowed.
Plain and simple, “from the river to the sea” is a threat. It’s a slogan stating that Israel and the Jews that live there should be eliminated from that region.
It stirs up resentment and hatred from propel who know nothing about the region. It’s a mission statement based on the anihalation of Israel- not peace of coexistence.
This phrase is a call to murder all Jews and Israelis. Please ban it as the hate speech it is.
Despite attempts to normalize the rampant antisemitism spouted by the protestors on Deering Meadow, the reality is their entreaties ARE antisemitic. Let me explain why:
Chanting “intifada, intifada, long live the intifada” is antisemitic. As the only safe homeland for Jews in the world, this expression denies the Jewish people a right to a homeland that they have lived in for over 2,000 years. They are not colonizers. They are native. They are not solely white Europeans.
Almost half of Israelis are people of color evicted from countries like Iran, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Jews make up less than 1% of the world’s population. “Israel must go” is a statement that the Jewish homeland must go. That is an antisemitic statement, not a political one.
On the other hand, chanting Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu must go is NOT antisemitic. In fact, many American Jews agree with that, especially since Mr. Netanyahu’s attempt to undermine the Israeli Supreme Court. Here is the difference between the two: The former is antisemitic. The latter is political.
By the way, there appears to be not one student protest saying Bibi must go. Some say Israel must go.
Chanting “intifada, intifada, long live the intifada” is antisemitic, calling for the elimination of Jews and Israel from the Middle East. The elimination of Jews was stated in the Hamas original charter from the late 1980s.
In 2017, Hamas modified its charter to say it means the elimination of Israel. As I discussed above, this is also antisemitic. Instead of “we need a two-state solution,” which many American Jews support, they say “eliminate Israel” (and implicitly Jews). Further exacerbating the problem: It seems that most of these protesters have no idea what they are saying and its meaning. They have no idea which river or which sea.
On the other hand, if the protestors said, “we need a two-state solution,” that is not antisemitic. And, as I state above, many Jews support that.
Finally, one more comment about “from the river to the sea.” I have a lot of experience in Diversity and Inclusion. Before I retired, I spent part of two years helping to implement D&I at one of the largest businesses in the world. A basic tenet of D&I is that it doesn’t matter what you intend when you say something. What matters is how others perceive it.
In other words, just like I can’t tell African Americans what racism is, non-Jews cannot tell Jews what antisemitism is. “From the river to the sea” is an expression founded by an organization, Hamas, that the U.S., the European Union and other Western countries call a terrorist organization.
The origins of “from the river to the sea” are antisemitic. Its continued use is antisemitic. Basic principles of D&I tell us that if you say something that others think is antisemitic — you don’t say it. Can you imagine if someone were using the KKK symbol and saying, “Well, we don’t mean it to be a hate symbol. We think it means love and peace.” Do you really believe any college campus would tolerate that?
Experience at universities has shown they won’t tolerate language like this. There are repercussions. And, similarly, they should not tolerate this language in reference to Jews and Israel.
"From The River To The Sea" is a very politically charged phrase with a long history. For most of that history it has been used to mean the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the land of Israel. Many Americans today do not use it with that intent, but most people who are not American do use it with that intent and history in mind. I don't think use of the phrase by itself should be a bannable offense, but it does warrant a flag on the account to search for other antisemitic posts.
The phrase “from the river to the sea” was invented to promote and glorify the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Levant. It has always meant the destruction of Israel and the de facto elimination of Jews. It is a threatening phrase and a call for genocide, ethnic cleansing. It is a classic “dog whistle” and is used to intiminidate and incite violence.
The phrase ‘from the river to the sea’ is an unambiguous call for the eradication of the state of Israel, the ancestral home of the Jewish people and the only safe haven for Jews in the world today. These words carry a message of intolerance and hatred. Those who claim it is not an explicit attack on this small minority are either ignorant or feigning ignorance. The rise of anti-semitism in the world today is terrifying. History tells us what this may lead to and it is incumbent upon all of us to call it out and fight against it before it is too late. Please do your part.
“From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” is pure Hate and antisemitic language. This should be a known fact to all intelligent people with even half a brain. It’s calling for the annihilation of Israel along with all the Jews in it. If META allows this to be posted, I can only imagine the Pandora’s box it will open up and FB becoming even more of the Wild West allowing anyone to call on destruction of a ppl or someone they hate. Act correctly META - restrict it and take it down.
From the River to the Sea is a call for genocide for Jews. It is abhorrent.
The term “from the river to the sea” can mean three things.
1) Abolish Israel entirely from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. (Part of Hamas’s initial charters)
2) Abolish Palestine and its Palestinian citizens from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea (Part of the likud party charter - nehtenyahu’s party), and also annex parts of the territory from Jordan.
3) free the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza from the occupation of Israel. Israel has significant control over what goes in an out of Gaza and Israeli citizens with the help of the government/IDF, have occupied varies Palestinian areas as part of illegal settlement schemes in the West Bank.
There is no doubt that some may be using the term “from the river to the sea” to call for a greater Israel, or for one Palestine, but that doesn’t necessarily justify the outright banning of the phrase. When I, and many other people use “from the river to the sea”, we do not call for the destruction of Israel, and certainly not for the destruction of Palestine. We are calling for Israel to end its blockade of Gaza, and to end its illegal settlements in the West Bank, therefore freeing Palestine. Reducing a slogan to one singular meaning of your choosing is a way to oppress a people, and curtail their rights to free speech.
hanks for your consideration of banning the hateful phrase "from the river to the sea,” which has been interpreted by many as a call for the elimination of the State of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants.
This interpretation arises from the geographical implication of the phrase, which spans the entirety of the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, areas comprising Israel and the Palestinian territories. The slogan is seen by some as suggesting that one state (Palestine) should replace the current state of Israel, which raises concerns of antisemitism and threats against the Jewish people.
In light of these interpretations, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution on April 16, 2024, condemning the phrase as antisemitic. This decision was grounded in the recognition that such rhetoric potentially incites violence and fosters an environment of hatred and intolerance. The resolution reflects a bipartisan agreement on the importance of maintaining civil discourse and supporting peace initiatives that promote coexistence rather than conflict.
Banning this phrase aligns with efforts to foster a safer and more inclusive society by reducing inflammatory rhetoric that could potentially escalate tensions or endorse ethnic or national eradication. While advocating for free speech is crucial, it is equally important to ensure that such freedoms do not extend to incitement of violence or promotion of hatred against any group. The ban on this phrase is intended to uphold these principles, promoting a discourse that supports peaceful resolution and mutual respect among communities.