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
As an American we abide by its law. The law protects our freedom of speech!
It is unclear when and where the slogan the slogan “from the river to the sea,” first emerged within Palestinian protest culture. There are many online sources that confidently claim that it emerged from within the post-67 Palestinian militant movements but provide no documentation for this. The Palestinian revolutionary media of the 60s and 70s is replete with rich and pithy political slogans—but in those sources, I have yet to encounter the phrase “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” or “min al-mayyeh li-mayyeh.” Similarly, the activists from this era that I have asked in recent weeks have no memory of it being used as a slogan in literature or demonstrations from this period. The phrase appears nowhere in the Palestinian National Charters of 1964 or 1968, nor in the Hamas Charter of 1988.
Activists from the First Intifada (1987-1993) have told me they remember hearing variations of the phrase in Arabic from the late 1980s onwards, including: “min al-mayyeh li-mayyeh, Filastin ‘arabiyyeh” (from the [river] water to the [sea] water / Palestine is Arab) and “Filastin Islamiyyeh / min al-nahr ila al-bahr” (Palestine is Islamic / from the river to the sea”). Scholars of Palestine document both these phrases being used in graffiti of the period.1
Friends and activists I have asked remember this phrase being used during the Oslo era, when it was adapted and developed as part of a critique of and complaint against a Palestinian leadership from Tunis that surrendered claims over historic Palestine. At some point, the phrase became the rhyming couplet that it is today: “Min al-nahr ila al-bahr / Filastin satatharrar” (“from the river to the sea / Palestine will be free”). It is this version—with its focus on freedom—that has circulated within English-language solidarity culture from at least the 1990s. More research needs to be done.
Before turning to the various senses that this slogan has had for people, and has at the present moment, I should say a few words about what I have learned while studying slogans and protest culture in the Arab world.
It is a mistake to think that the full meaning of a slogan is to be found in the words alone. In Palestine, as in the rest of the Arab world, slogans tie poetry to politics by way of song. Not all Arabic-language slogans have rhyme and rhythm, but the most memorable ones have them—and this slogan certainly does. Their musicality helps crowds digest and remember new slogans quickly and supplies audial patterns that invite embodied movement. Singing, clapping, stomping, and dancing are not secondary to the message of the slogan, they are part of what gives slogans their meaning.2
Slogans are never statements etched in stone, but rather fragments of an ongoing, contentious debate or conversation. Most slogans are occasion-specific responses to an immediate crisis or opportunity. To take a slogan out of such a context is to mistake it for a monologue rather than what it is: a snippet of dialogue.
Slogans exist in knowable genres3: some articulate protest or grievance, others express aspiration and demand. Each genre commonly entails its own mood. Slogans of grievance, for example, typically invoke a tone of righteous anger, and are often accompanied by a strident rhythm in performance. Slogans of aspiration and desire, in contrast, often sound like mellifluous song, or even laughter. The difference in tone of voice is regularly underscored by physical gestures—raised fists, clapping hands, waving flags—that amplify and clarify the message.
Conditions change, messaging goals change, as do moods and tones. Activists adapt rhetoric to suit new purposes and contexts, which means even the most successful slogans usually have a very short shelf-life. Still, old slogans are never discarded—they form a reservoir for social movements: activists commonly compose new slogans out of old ones, reworking oldies but goodies for new purposes.
In sum, slogans are never timeless phrases etched in stone. Rather, they have histories of change and adaptation. Whatever their initial message and connotations, their sense develops and changes over time; while slogans often have layers of meaning, not all layers are equally salient at all times. Context is everything: who is chanting the words—to whom, how, in what context, and for what purpose—matter as much as the words themselves.
With these understandings, we can appreciate some of the senses of the slogan as it has adapted over time. For instance, some variants promote an Arab nationalist frame (“Palestine is Arab”), and others propose an Islamist frame (“Palestine is Islamic”). In contrast, the current version (“Palestine will be free”) expresses an open-ended but emphatic aspiration for liberation—this has allowed it to resonate with other freedom struggles.
The first half of the slogan works as a response to and protest against the history of partition in Palestine. The context of the 1947 UN Partition plan is relevant here in that it sought to divide historic Palestine—the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea—into two states, one Jewish and another Arab. The 1948 Nakba is also relevant since it made that plan a reality. Similarly germane is the Israeli occupation, following the 1967 war, of the remaining Palestinian lands in the West Bank and Gaza. Also significant to this context are the Oslo Accords, in which the West Bank was fragmented into an archipelago of Bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements, bases, and checkpoints. Same too Israel’s separation wall, first erected in the wake of the Second Intifada, which has sliced the West Bank in all sorts of ways.
This history of partition and fragmentation, along with Israeli appropriation and annexation of Palestinian lands, forms the broader context that gives meaning to the phrase “from the river to the sea.” We could expect that this phrase would be taken up in protest responses to specific moments of land theft and separation and new threats of further partition. This suggests that the target of this protest slogan might often as not be Palestinian leadership—especially the Palestine Authority—who collaborated with Israel in this process of disintegration. At the same time, it also has a more aspirational sense, the utopian desire for the return of a single, undivided Palestine.
The English version of this slogan is relatively new to Palestine solidarity protests in North America, dating back to the early 2000s or perhaps earlier. Here, it circulates in a different way, given the different goals and conditions of local protest culture. In the North American case, it’s not delivered as an expression of protest or grievance but rather of liberation aspiration. This resonates strongly with other themes of struggle and overcoming, particularly among African American and Native movements. In addition, this slogan has an educative aspect in that it functions to raise American consciousness about the centrality of partition in Palestinian history. Certainly, more Americans are speaking about the history of Palestine than ever, and with each attack on this slogan is another opportunity for more discussion on the history of partition.
It is the first phrase of the slogan—“from the river to the sea”—that has caused so much fury. Dominant Jewish communal institutions, most prominently the ADL and AJC, have insisted that this phrase is antisemitic. Throughout recent years, they have composed new definitions of antisemitism that render many common expressions of Palestine solidarity as ipso facto instances of anti-Jewish hate speech.4 Despite widespread criticism from scholars and experts, the new definitions have been adopted across a range of institutions, from the State Department to DEI offices at many schools, colleges, and universities. In this literature, the slogan “from the river to the sea” figures prominently in their accusations of antisemitic doublespeak.
This preparation meant that when the current crisis erupted in early October, thousands of bureaucrats and administrators who know nothing about the Israel-Palestine conflict (not to mention Palestine solidarity culture) all held the same script. These definitions have been the grounds for punishing countless students and employees, just as they were the basis for the unprecedented censure of Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
The anti-antisemitic objection to this slogan is essentially this: calls for a free Palestine in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea necessarily entail an end to the Israeli state; this entails the elimination of Jews from Palestine; thus, to call for killing Jews or expelling them from Israel is to call for genocide; it is therefore an instance of anti-Jewish hate speech.
It is true that a state of Palestine would entail the end of Israel as a Jewish ethnic-national state. But as many Palestinian and Israeli intellectuals (and others) have noted: replacing Israel with a Palestinian state need not result in genocide or the ethnic cleansing of Jews. Proponents of the one-state solution, for instance, have thought a lot about such a future and have developed various scenarios for securing a vibrant Jewish presence alongside a vibrant Palestinian one in various versions of a future Palestine, from a bi-national, secular polity to a federation.
These debates over the one-state solution are clearly at the heart of the contemporary furor over the slogan.
Especially for older generations of Jews, the slogan conjures up the deeply problematic language of the Palestinian National Charters of 1964 and 1968, which stipulated that Jews would have to renounce their collective right to self-determination if they wished to remain in a future state of Palestine.5 Thus, many mainstream Jews hear these words as nothing but an echo of old eliminationist PLO language, which sought to strip Jews of their rights and perhaps place in a future Palestine.
But for many other Jews, especially younger ones, the slogan voices a much more capacious vision of a shared political project and aligns with their involvement with other struggles for freedom and justice. This vision is shared by many Jewish groups, most prominently Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now. These groups are surging with brilliant energy, but they have yet to topple the old guard. The struggle continues. In the meantime, until there is a consensus concerning the one-state solution, the meaning of the slogan will remain contested among Jewish American communities. Activists should note this reality. If one of our goals is to move Jewish American audiences, we need to recognize that the Israeli state and its allies have found it easy to weaponize this particular slogan in order to incite fear among Jews.
To conclude, I would like to describe a recent personal experience with this slogan, not as words ripped from contexts but as it exists in the world. At the November 4 protest in Washington, DC, hundreds of thousands of us gathered to demand a ceasefire in the war against Gaza. Over the course of many hours, the crowds chanted many various slogans against war, violence, and the continued suppression of Palestinian rights and aspirations. We shouted, “Ceasefire now!” “End the Occupation Now!” and “Free, free Palestine!” We grieved for the victims of Israel’s war crimes. We thundered against the liberal establishment’s embrace of Israeli genocide. And we sang the slogan “From the river to the sea / Palestine will be free.”
Most of us, including myself, were not aware of the earlier moments of this slogan’s history or its various shades of meaning in different contexts. And that doesn’t really matter. More important than this history was the buoyant mood of the motley crowds as we sang.
I cannot tell you what was in each person’s heart as we sang those words, but I can speak in detail about the context: we were singing about peace, love, and justice, and this song was most rousing and inspiring. At times we clapped. At times we raised fists or waved flags. We smiled and laughed, despite the sadness and anger, because we were so happy to see so many of our friends and family standing there with us. There were no songs of hatred that day (nor at any of the dozens of such protests I have participated in) nor a word blaming Jews for the crimes of the so-called Jewish state.
From where I was at Pennsylvania and 12th, I could see hundreds of young Jewish activists, and they seemed to be singing “From the river to the sea” as loud and enthusiastically as the thousands of Arabs who’d traveled in from New Jersey and Detroit. Given the upbeat tone of the day, it is mindboggling that anyone would imagine that this slogan—or our joyful singing of it—had anything to do with eliminationist desires. True, we were angry—we had come to condemn genocide in Gaza and American complicity in this crime—but singing about freedom allowed us to transcend the gravity and grief of the moment. We demanded an end to U.S. support for Israeli apartheid, and for a moment, we dreamed with Palestinians of freedom because we know that none of us will be free until Palestine is free. There was joy in the air as people sang—dreaming of freedom seems to do that to people.
Notes
1. See Saleh Abd Al-Jawad, “Faṣā’il al-ḥaraka al-waṭaniyya al-Filasṭīniyya fi-l-arāḍī al-muḥtalla wa-shu‘ārāt al-judrān,” Majallat al-dirāsāt al-Filasṭīniyya 2:7 (Summer 1991); and Julie Peteet, “The Writing on the Walls: The Graffiti of the Intifada,” Cultural Anthropology 11:2 (May 1996), 139-159.
2. See my article: “Egyptian Movement Poetry,” Journal of Arabic Literature 51:1 (Spring 2020), 53-82.
3. See Kamal Mughith, Hitafat al-thawra al-Misriyya wa-nususha al-kamila (Cairo: Al-Majlis al-A‘la li-l-Thiqafa, 2014).
4. See, for example, AJC’s 2019 campaign, “Translating Hate.”
5. It must be stressed that already in the 1970s, the PLO had moved away from these early formulations. See Muhammad Muslih, Toward Coexistence: An Analysis of the Resolutions of the Palestine National Council (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1990).
Published at: https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/on-the-history-meaning-and-power-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/on-the-history-meaning-and-power-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is simply a call for the end of apartheid and genocide. It is a call for justice and freedom for Palestinians from Israeli occupation. Nothing in the statement implies harmful intent. To ban this is a complete violation of free speech and will further the spread of islamaphobia and anti Arab rhetoric. This is a desperate attack on those fighting oppression to keep them silenced.
“From the river to the sea” has no right to be banned from posts. Before the Nakba, Palestine encompassed the areas from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. That land was historically occupied by Palestinians before it was unrightfully taken away from them. Palestinians deserve to be proud of the land that is theres and banning this phrase would take away their freedom of speech, alongside with the land that as already stolen from them.
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is calling for an end to apartheid and occupation of Palestine, and is popularly understood as such. This does not inherently mean violence towards Jewish people as has been claimed, and to make that conflation would be a highly biased act of repression of free speech. As a social media platform Meta should be neutral and not involved in censorship of either political perspective.
The phrase "from the river to the sea" has often been misinterpreted and vilified in contemporary discourse. Originally, it was a slogan used by the Likud Party in 1976, reflecting territorial ambitions of extremist in Israel. Over time, Palestinians coopted the phrase to signify their aspirations for freedom and self-determination across historic Palestine. However, the reinterpretation of this slogan by some media and political figures as a call for the extermination of Israelis is deeply rooted in racist assumptions.
The notion that Palestinian freedom necessitates the death of Israelis is grounded in the dehumanizing stereotype of Palestinians as barbarians whose liberation would inherently lead to violence against innocents. This perspective is steeped in anti-Arab and anti-Islamic biases, reflecting a long-standing prejudice that equates Palestinian identity with violence. Importantly, the phrase "from the river to the sea" does not evoke any anti-Semitic tropes but reinforces the Islamophobic and anti-Arab trope that all Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians are violent and terrorists.
In reality, this interpretation requires significant mental leaps. The desire for freedom and equality for one group does not logically imply the annihilation of another. Yet, this flawed logic is frequently used to perpetuate white supremacist ideologies, which historically have viewed the liberation of oppressed groups as a direct threat to the oppressors' existence. For instance, during slavery in the United States, the idea that the freedom of Black people would lead to the violent overthrow of white slave masters was a common fear used to justify continued oppression.
Similarly, the portrayal of Palestinian aspirations as inherently violent serves to justify ongoing suppression and ignores the legitimate desire for self-determination and human rights. Banning this phrase not only misrepresents reality but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes that dehumanize both Palestinians and Arabs.
Rampant Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment on platforms like Facebook and in the United States in general have led to tragic consequences, including the death of a 6-year-old child, numerous physical assaults, the shooting of three college students, and the stabbing of two other individuals. By conflating any aspirations for Palestinian freedom with antisemitism, the argument implies that Palestinians are not entitled to sovereignty because of their alleged violent nature. This narrative not only denies Palestinians their rights but also fuels further hatred and violence against Arab and Muslim communities.
I understand the “From the River to the Sea” to mean all Israeli citizens have equal rights.
Therefore, I oppose censorship.
The phrase "from the river to the sea" does not incite violence. It merely describes a well known embattled geographical location wherein lives people whose fundamental human rights need to be upheld. The connotation of the phrase should be understood by mere common sense and there really is no need to ascribe wrong interpretations to this phrase
From the River to the Sea means one thing and one thing only: the mass murder of Jews and the dismantling of the democratic, established country of Israel so that “Palestine” can be “free” of Jews. This is a basic and unanimously accepted truth among Arab speakers and it becomes self-evident when one considers what the phrase is in Arabic. When spoken in Arabic, the phrase translates to “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab,” meaning full erasure and ethnic cleansing of the Jews and every other minority group living in Israel. It’s sanitized for the English speakers to “Palestine will be free” because they know how much western society values freedom. But when you look around at Islamic Fundamentalist countries, like Islamic Republic of Iran, Afghanistan, Houthi controlled parts of Yemen, etc, there is no freedom to be found – not by our western definition of freedom. Therefore, From the River… is not a phrase advocating for freedom of any people (not even the Palestinian people who indeed deserve the same freedoms of anyone else.) The phrase actually advocates for the ethnic cleansing of Jews and a dismantling and total destruction of an independent democratic nation. This kind of phrase in the definition of bigoted racism and antisemitism against Jews as well as other minority groups who live freely in Israel, including Druze, Bahai, and Muslims.
For generations, Jews in the Middle East have been told that the singular desire of Muslim countries is to “drive the Jews into the sea.” We’ve heard this for generations in the countries where my parents were born – Iran and Iraq. This is our lived experience. We don’t need references and scholars to tell us what “from the river…” means or doesn’t mean. Generations of attacks on our community tells us all we need to know, and we recognize this as another attack against Jews in this digital age.
When people use the term the “Israeli Occupation,” they’re not referring to the disputed territories, nor are they referring to Gaza or the West Bank. They’re referring to the entire established democratic country of Israel as “occupying” what should be Muslim land. This is an Islamist view that comes straight out of the Koran.
Hamas leaders repeatedly say, “Israel has no place on our land.” And that “everything we do is justified,” until Israel is eradicated. Referring to Israel as “our land” reflects the fundamentalist Islamist belief that once Arabs/Muslims occupy a land, that land should be Muslim forever to the exclusion of everyone else. So having “infidels” or non-Muslims living among them is intolerable, and losing control over any area of land that was once considered “Arab territory,” is also intolerable. This can also be seen when they speak about regaining control of parts of Spain that were once under Moorish control. This belief refers to the Koran verse 2:91: https://quran.com/al-baqarah/191
We all witnessed Meta doing all they could to establish a “safe space” for other minority groups and marginalized group. And yet, when it comes to Jewish people, outright persecution against us is ignored. Just as other minority groups get to say what constitutes bigotry against them, we should be believed when we tell you this phrase is not only bigoted against us, but literally calls for our death and the destruction of the one Jewish-majority country. To have this happen on the heels of Oct 7 is the definition of adding insult to injury.
Please do the right thing. Protect your users from hate of all kinds, including Jew hatred. If you fail us, you fail yourselves.
There is no offence in river to the sea slogan, it is a phrase used by so many groups including those opposed to each others such as the zionist Israeli entity and the Palestine supporters. It should be allowed to stay.
To me, saying or writing this does not mean supporting or suggesting to cause harm in any way to any individual or to any place like a country.
May 21, 2024
Facebook Oversight Board
www.oversightboard.com
RE: CAIR Comments to Facebook Oversight Board Concerning Posts That Include “From The River To The Sea.”
Dear Facebook Oversight Board Members:
On behalf of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, we urge the Facebook Oversight Board to reject the notion that the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” violates Meta’s rules on Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement, or Dangerous Organizations and Individuals.
Countering real antisemitism is important, but it is also critically important for Facebook and other social media companies to reject pressure from the Israeli government and its supporters to suppress advocacy for Palestinian human rights based on false allegations of antisemitism.
Most Palestinian, Jewish, and other activists who use the phrase have explained that they are calling for Palestinians and Israelis to live together in a single state with equal rights for all. No reasonable person would call this antisemitic, even if they disagree with that proposed solution. In stark contrast, the Israeli government’s interpretation of “Israeli security control from the river to the sea” signifies a permanent occupation where Palestinians are denied rights.
Even though the Israeli government's demand for apartheid from the river to the sea is racist and unjust, Facebook should not ban Israel or its supporters from expressing their view, much less ban supporters of Palestinian human rights from expressing their support for a single state with equal rights for all. Free speech principles should lead social media users to debate ideas with each other, not silence each other.
To further demonstrate this point CAIR highlights the Israeli government’s 2022 declaration of guiding principles by the then-incoming far-right Netanyahu coalition government. Their guiding principles stated, “The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel—in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan Heights, and Judea and Samaria,” which includes the entire West Bank.
We also note the absence of any reports about Facebook censoring references to the Likud Party Platform, which asserts, “Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the [Mediterranean] Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” This includes Israel’s illegal occupation and control of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
When the world opposed the discriminatory white supremacist colonial regime of apartheid in South Africa, it did not call for the destruction of that state; rather, it aimed for freedom and equality for all people, regardless of religion or ethnicity.
Social media companies like Facebook need to respect the voices of Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and all those who advocate for the rights and freedoms of Palestinians, in addition to defending every person's right to peacefully protest and express their views.
Sincerely,
Robert S. McCaw
Government Affairs Department Director
Council on American-Islamic Relations
The phrase “from the river to the sea” does not have anything to do with Jewish people in general. It is only pertaining to the freedom of Palestinians who are currently being slaughtered en mass. This means we will not stand for children and adults alike being murdered for existing. There are a great number of Jewish people who are in the pro Palestinian movement as well, proving that this is not an anti Jewish statement. It is only about freedom from genocide. Removing this from Meta aligns it with ethnic cleansing.
The phrase “From the river to the sea” refers to the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. While its exact origin is unclear, it has been used by both Palestinians and Israelis. Variations of the phrase pre-date the 1948 Nakba (the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from historic Palestine) and the establishment of the state of Israel. The pre-1948 Zionist movement used the phrase “The Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, and the other one too,” this was used to express the desire to establish a Jewish state extending beyond the Jordan River.
In the 1970s, the phrase “between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty” was published as part of the manifesto of the Likud, the Israeli political party of the current Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In this particular use, it is a de facto call for the annexation of the Palestinian territories (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem). This aspiration is contrary to International Law and UN Security Council Resolution 242.
According to Elliott Colla, Associate Professor at Georgetown University, it is unclear when the “from the river to the sea” slogan first appeared in Palestinian protests. He writes:
“There are many online sources that confidently claim that it emerged from within the post-67 Palestinian militant movements but provide no documentation for this. The Palestinian revolutionary media of the 60s and 70s is replete with rich and pithy political slogans—but in those sources, I have yet to encounter the phrase “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” or “min al-mayyeh li-mayyeh.” Similarly, the activists from this era that I have asked in recent weeks have no memory of it being used as a slogan in literature or demonstrations from this period. The phrase appears nowhere in the Palestinian National Charters of 1964 or 1968, nor in the Hamas Charter of 1988.”
While the phrase has been used in various formats by Palestinian protest movements, “the current version (“Palestine will be free”) expresses an open-ended but emphatic aspiration for liberation”.
This is in line with a statement on this by U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib, who wrote in November 2023: “From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.”
To say that the phrase “from the river to the sea” and/ or “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” is a form of antisemitism, hate speech, racism or call to violence is far from the truth. Many have noted that pro-Palestine and anti-genocide Jewish activists also use this slogan: Colla writes that “it is mindboggling that anyone would imagine that this slogan had anything to do with eliminationist desires.”
“From the river to the sea [Palestine will be free]” is a call for freedom, human rights, and equality for all — Israelis and Palestinians alike — between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea, regardless of ethnicity, religion or national identity.
Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/arabic/67420634
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party
https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/SCRes242%281967%29.pdf
https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/on-the-history-meaning-and-power-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
Human Rights Watch’s Public Comment
2024-004-FB-UA, 2024-005-FB-UA, 2024-006-FB-UA
May 21, 2023
The origin and current uses of the phrase: “From the river to the sea”
The slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” has reverberated at protests in solidarity with Palestinians around the world since October 7, 2023.
The phrase "From the river to the sea" has been used to mean different things, ranging from a demand that Palestinians, wherever they live, including in Israel, be free, to a rejection of the state of Israel. For many Palestinians, the phrase reflects a desire for unity of land and people and their aspiration for self-determination. For others, it's a call to replace the state of Israel with Palestine. While the phrase itself can have different political meanings with which different people may agree or disagree, taken on its own it is protected speech under international human rights law.
Research into online trends in content using the phrase.
In a December 2023 report, Human Rights Watch found that Meta’s content moderation policies and systems have increasingly silenced voices in support of Palestine on Instagram and Facebook in the wake of the hostilities between Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups. The report, “Meta’s Broken Promises: Systemic Censorship of Palestine Content on Instagram and Facebook,” documents a pattern of undue removal and suppression of protected speech including peaceful expression in support of Palestine and public debate about Palestinian human rights. Human Rights Watch found that the problem stems from flawed Meta policies and their inconsistent and erroneous implementation, overreliance on automated tools to moderate content, and undue government influence over content removals.
The complaints under consideration challenge Meta’s decision to not take down content that included the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” on the basis that the content violates Meta’s rules on Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement or Dangerous Organizations and Individuals. Meta made the correct determinations in leaving this content up since the context provided indicates that the phrase was used to express peaceful support for Palestinians.
Human Rights Watch has documented other instances where use of this slogan or related variations was improperly suppressed by Meta for other reasons, including for violating its “spam” policy, for violating unspecified “community guidelines”, and, at times, without any explanation provided at all. Suppression included removal of comments, significantly lower circulation of posts, and temporary restriction from posting.
These examples of suppression are consistent with other treatment of Palestinian content documented by Human Rights Watch. Examples were also frequently accompanied by a lack of transparency and functioning appeal mechanisms. Instances of suppression of this slogan on Meta compound real-world attempts to prohibit its use, which are inconsistent with human rights. These and other aggressive restrictions of Palestinian content contribute to a chilling effect already taking root on Meta platforms.
Meta’s human rights responsibilities in relation to content using the phrase including with regard to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and equality and non-discrimination.
Under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), Meta has a responsibility to respect human rights by avoiding infringing on human rights, identifying and addressing the human rights impacts of their operations, and providing meaningful access to a remedy. This responsibility includes aligning their content moderation policies and practices with international human rights standards, ensuring that decisions to take content down are not overly broad or biased, being transparent and accountable in their actions, and enforcing their policies in a consistent manner. Meta’s own Community Standards state that their goal is to create a place for expression and give people a voice. Meta says it wants “people to be able to talk openly about the issues that matter to them…even if some may disagree or find them objectionable”, and in some cases, allows content—which would otherwise go against its standards—if it’s newsworthy and in the public interest.
With respect to the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” Meta should treat it as protected expression and should not have a blanket policy restricting the use of the phrase. As with other protected expression, posts using this phrase should only be restricted in specific contexts where the speaker is inciting violence, discrimination or hostility.
Unduly restricting or suppressing peaceful content that supports Palestine and Palestinians impermissibly infringes on people’s rights to freedom of expression. Given that social media has become the digital public sphere and the site of social movements, undue restrictions on content and the ability to engage with other users on social media also undermine the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, as well as participation in public affairs. The enforcement of content removal policies and adjustments to recommender algorithms, which determine what content people see in their feeds, to significantly limit circulation of certain types of content may be perceived as biased or selectively targeting specific viewpoints and could undermine the right to non-discrimination and the universality of rights as well as the right to due process.
Removing or suppressing online content can hinder the ability of individuals and organizations to advocate for human rights of Palestinians and raise awareness about the situation in Israel and Palestine. Content removal that is carried out using automated systems, such as on Instagram and Facebook, raises concerns about algorithmic bias. As HRW’s report documents, these systems may result in the erroneous suppression of content, leading to discriminatory consequences without opportunity for redress.
Users reported that their ability to express opinions, including dissenting or unpopular views about the escalation of violence since October 7, is being restricted repeatedly and increasingly over time. As a result of comment removal or restriction, users reported altering their behavior on Instagram and Facebook to avoid their comments being removed.
Engaging with content, such as posting or reading comments, is a crucial aspect of social media interaction, especially when open discussion is prohibited and contested in offline spaces. Social media can be a vital communications tool in crises and conflicts. However, users experiencing account restrictions, or their mere possibility, may refrain from engaging on social platforms to avoid losing access to their accounts and vital information, resulting in chilling effects and self-censoring behaviors.
Implications of Meta’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals Policy
Should the Oversight Board reverse Meta’s decisions on these three cases and link use of the phrase with support for Hamas, the Oversight Board risks establishing use of this slogan as a violation of Meta’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals (DOI) policy. Human Rights Watch recommends against doing so. Prohibiting the use of this slogan under Meta’s DOI policy would greatly exacerbate the policy’s propensity to stifle peaceful content that supports Palestine and Palestinians in a manner that impermissibly infringes on people’s rights to freedom of expression. First, the phrase cannot be understood as support for Hamas without additional context. Second, instead of relying primarily on a definition of terrorist entities or dangerous organizations based on designations set by particular governments, Meta should refocus the policy on prohibiting incitement to terrorism, drawing on the model definition advanced by the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
Meta should also be more transparent about voluntary requests by governments, including internet referral units, to remove content based on Community Standards and Community Guidelines. For example, it should notify users if a government was involved in their content being taken down based on a policy violation, as the Oversight Board recommended in the Ӧcalan Isolation case, and provide a transparent appeal process for the decision.
Implications of Meta’s reliance on automation
Given that the phrase "From the river to the sea" is widely used to engage in protected speech, any guidance from the Oversight Board regarding the moderation of this phrase should take into account Meta’s heavy reliance on automated assessment tools, which are notoriously poor at interpreting contextual factors. Specifically, any such guidance should emphasize the challenges automated tools have historically faced when attempting to classify comments advocating for the rights of Palestinians, particularly during times of ongoing hostilities.
Human Rights Watch’s research found that Meta’s reliance on automation for content moderation is a significant factor in the erroneous enforcement of its policies, which has resulted in the removal of non-violative content in support of Palestine on Instagram and Facebook.
Meta reported on October 13, 2023, that it was taking temporary steps to lower the threshold at which it takes action against potentially violating and borderline content across Instagram and Facebook to avoid recommending this type of content to users in their feeds. However, these measures increase the margin of error and result in false positives flagging non-violative content.
In reviewing hundreds of cases of content removal and the inability of certain users to post comments on Instagram and Facebook, Human Rights Watch found Meta’s automated moderation tools failed to accurately distinguish between peaceful and violent comments. After multiple experiences with seemingly automated comment removal, users reported being less likely to engage with content, express their opinions, or participate in discussions about Israel and Palestine.
Meta should improve transparency about where and how automation and machine learning algorithms are used to moderate or translate Palestine-related content, including sharing information on the classifiers programmed and used, and their error rates.
It should also conduct due diligence to assess the human rights impact of temporary changes in Meta’s recommendation algorithms in response to the October 7, 2023, attack, and share those findings publicly. This assessment and reporting should become standard practice whenever Meta applies temporary measures in crisis situations.
Implications of Meta’s Spam Policies
Human Rights Watch has documented numerous cases where this slogan, as well as comments such as “Free Palestine,” “Ceasefire Now,” and “Stop the Genocide,” were repeatedly removed or restricted by Instagram and Facebook under “spam” Community Guidelines or Standards without appearing to take into account the context of these comments. In many instances, appeal buttons did not work or were not available. An analysis by The Markup of Meta’s treatment of Palestinian content under its spam policy similarly concluded that Meta “heavily demoted” legitimate content and “erratically suppressed hashtags,” among other problems. These statements and the context in which they are used are clearly not spam, nor do they appear to violate any other Facebook or Instagram Community Guidelines or Standards. For instance, the words in each of these statements on their face do not constitute incitement to violence, discrimination, or hostility.
Repeated posting of slogans and higher post rates is behavior that may share attributes to spam. However, it is precisely what activism and protest look like in the digital sphere. Meta should review its spam policy to ensure that it is not being enforced in a manner that interferes with people’s ability to peacefully express themselves and participate in social movements. It should particularly consider including more safeguards against misuse of its spam policies against political expression during times of crisis.
In order to prevent the suppression of political advocacy using "From the river to the sea", the Oversight Board’s guidance to Meta should take into account the impact of its spam policy on viral political engagement that uses this and related slogans, particularly at times of crisis.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free means that all Palestinians, from the West Bank border on the Jordan river, to Gaza on the Mediterranean Sea, will live in freedom and have equal rights with Israelis. That means changes to the apartheid system which grants citizenship and rights to Israelis, while Palestinians have no rights and are living (and have been for decades) under a brutal military occupation in both the West Bank and Gaza. It is not a call for harm to Israelis, it is a call for human rights for Palestinians.
““From the river to the sea” is a historic chant for the freedom and liberation of the Palestinian people. Without additional context, the chant on its own cannot be considered hateful. The chant is used by people who believe in the 2-state solution with a separate state of Palestine and a separate state of Israel but one which includes the right of return for Palestinians. The chant is also used by people who believe in the 1-state solution of Israel/Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in freedom. The chant is not associated with any ethnic or religious hate or violence, but with a political stance of freedom and equality for the inhabitants of historic Palestine / Israel.”
This speech should NOT be limited and should NOT BE CENSORED.
This is promoting RACISM, the very thing Meta says they're against. If Americans/Jewish Americans / Palestinian Americans can say "from sea to shining sea", then Americans, American JEWS, and American Palestianians should be able to say FREELY, "from the river to the sea". By not allowing one and allowing the other, this is clear and evident Racist action on Meta's part.