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
הביטוי מוחק את מדינת ישראל שקיבלה את אישור האו״ם ב1947 לאחר השואה שבה נרצחו 6 מיליון יהודים בידי הגרמנים הנאצים.
הביטוי מעודד את השמדת
היהודים ומחיקת ישראל והפיכתה למדינת פלסטין.
From the river to the sea is a saying basically expressing the wish to get rid of the state of Israel and the community living there. It is highly offensive and discriminatory
As an Israeli Canadian Jew I believe the slogan from the river to the sea should be banned as it is calling for the removal of the Jewish state Israel.
נולדתי ואני חיה בישראל, ארץ אבותיי, ביחד עם חבריי ומשפחתי. הסיסמה הזו שבעצם קוראת להשמדת העם היהודי בארץ ישראל פוגעת בי ובבטחוני האישי. שיתוף פעולה עם הקיצוניים המשמיעים את הסיסמה הזו הופך אתכם - הלכה למעשה - למשתפי פעולה עם הרצון הזה להשמיד אותי ואת עמי. אנא בטלו את האפשרות של הקיצוניים להשמיע את קולם.
“From the river to the sea”
Speak of the annihilation of the due of the Jewish people from the Jordan river to the Dead Sea that means all of Israel, all the Jews across the world
My grandparents were holocaust survivors. Their parents were murdered in Auschwitz ,I was taught “never again” will the Jewish people have no place to feel safe and call their own. This chanting is unacceptable by any human right.
It’s unacceptable to call for the annihilation of any race on this earth and that should be the same for the Jewish people.
הקריאה מההר לנהר אומרת למעשה שאין מקום ליהודים במדינת ישראל !!! זה אומר שנהר הירדן ועד הים התיכון השטח יהיה שייך לערבים ואז לא תהיה מדינת ישראל.
This sentence mean's to put all jew without country
Supporters of Israel object to the slogan 'River to the Sea' for several reasons. In the current cases (2024-004-FB-UA, 2024-005-FB-UA, and 2024-006-FB-UA) complainants cite five objections:
'promotes violence'
'supports terrorism'
'constitutes hate speech'
'is antisemitic'
'is a call to abolish the state of Israel'
This comment addresses the last issue, and indirectly the antisemitism question.
The State of Israel constitutionally describes itself as 'the nation-state of the Jewish people', and is generally recognised by researchers as a nation-state. The existence of the 'Jewish people', as an ethnic or ethnoreligious group, is also generally recognised. The Zionist movement was, and is, a political movement seeking a sovereign state in Palestine, to serve as a national homeland for the Jewish people. The Balfour Declaration (1917) also speaks of a 'national home' for the Jewish people.
Nationalism research uses the term 'titular nation' to describe the primary claimant to statehood in each nation state - the Danes in Denmark, the Hungarians in Hungary, the Thai in Thailand. It is evident from the historical background, that the Jewish people is the titular nation of the State of Israel. That implies that the Jewish people is a 'nation', and that it can be treated as a nation, when considering the ethics of state formation, and territorial claims.
That should not be controversial, but some supporters of Israel evade the terms nation and nation-state, because of their logical association with nationalism, and therefore implicitly with European nationalist antisemitism. They prefer to present Israel as, for instance, a utopian project. Israel's self-definition as a nation-state, the claim to 'independent nationhood' in its Declaration of Independence, the official insistence on maintaining its Jewish character, and the overwhelming national and patriotic sentiment among Israeli Jews, contradict this claim. In any case, the widespread use of the term 'Jewish people' in English is customary, and does not constitute a claim that the Jewish people is not a nation.
It is not necessary here, to show that the Jewish people is exactly comparable to every other nation, or to deny the existence of a Jewish religion. What matters is that for ethical assessment of state-related political claims, including the existence claim, the State of Israel can be considered as a specific nation-state, and the Jewish people as a specific titular nation. In other words: the ethics of nationalism and the nation-state apply.
Within that framework, we can consider the legitimacy of a call to abolition or dissolution of the State of Israel - the fifth cited objection to the disputed slogan. The full form in English is "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". The river is the Jordan, and since all Israel is between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, the slogan implies its replacement by a Palestinian state. Supporters of Israel correctly conclude that Israel - a Jewish state with a Jewish character which serves as the national homeland of the Jewish people - will in that case disappear.
That is not wrong in itself. States come and go, and no state has a right to exist. Such a 'claim right' would imply, that all natural and legal persons are obliged to facilitate or accept its existence, and refrain from anything which might terminate its existence. Modern international law does not confer an existence right on any state. Israeli claims to a 'right to exist' are propagandistic, and have no legal basis. They have no moral basis either, because the existence of states is mutually exclusive, and the 'right' is self-contradictory. For every existing state, there are alternative possible states, which would require the destruction of that existing state. They cannot all exist at the same time, which is what a universal 'existence right' would imply.
In the absence of this claim right, it is legitimate for any person to question the existence of any state, and to judge whether it should exist or not. If it should not exist, then it is also legitimate to seek its abolition, or termination, or dissolution, regardless of whether the state approves. States can legitimately be assessed on ethical, logical, and practical grounds, with reference to their origins, the circumstances of their foundation, their intent, their actual function, their administrative logic, their utility, their effects, and their malevolence or benevolence. For each state, we can and should ask: "Why does this state exist, and can it be replaced by something better?"
In the real world, we are judging political preferences for the division of territory, not existence rights. We could abstain from judgement, and simply leave the geopolitical order as it is, but that is undesirable. Because territory is finite, states must disappear, to make way for others. Without that, there can be no innovation in the system of states, and the world would be filled with obsolete types of state.
This is particularly relevant for the nation-state model, formalised in 19th-century Europe, and explicitly adopted by the State of Israel. In the light of demographic, cultural, social, and technological changes, this model is clearly outdated. It presumes national unity and homogeneity, whereas western societies are divided and polarised, and the titular nations' majority status is threatened by migration. The model is historicentric, and prescribes cultural continuity across generations, whereas collective cultures are always subject to erosion. It is legitimate to consider and propose alternatives, including new states and new forms of state. Even if an existing state is not obsolete in that sense, it may still be appropriate to replace it by something better.
There is nothing 'sacred' about the nation-state - that is simply propaganda. It is not a moral necessity, nor is the nation itself. If there were no nations or peoples, there would be no reason to invent them, and consequently no need for the nation-state. Their present existence is a political matter, not an obligation. The fact that the Jewish people want a national homeland, is not sufficient moral justification for its establishment and permanence. Non-Jews have no moral obligations to the State of Israel.
Obviously, it is in the collective interest of the Jewish people to have a sovereign national homeland. In that sense, it is 'antisemitic' not to support its existence, and its territorial demands. However, that cannot oblige non-Jews to support political demands, which have no moral or logical justification. It certainly cannot oblige non-Jews to condone or facilitate immoral acts, even if these are essential to the establishment and defence of a Jewish state. That is the background to the issue of 'modern antisemitism'. There is no doubt of the intense emotional commitment to Israel among Jews, even those live outside the state. Those emotions can turn to anger, if non-Jews will not share their commitment, and refuse to be their friend and ally. However, the ethics are clear: there is no moral obligation to philosemitism. This remains true, even if antisemitism is maximally defined as non-philosemitism.
None of these considerations provide a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the wider conflicts in the region. Almost certainly, there is no 'solution' anyway. At issue for the Oversight Board, is a pro-Israel political strategy, where reversal of the Balfour Declaration is excluded from consideration of future alternatives. That is the logic of prohibiting calls for the abolition of Israel. In Germany, the Federal Commissioner for Antisemitism Policy has gone further, demanding a general criminalisation of all 'state destruction' proposals. That would prohibit, among other things, proposals for a united Europe. Although Meta may have specific legal obligations in the United States, general political and ethical considerations make it undesirable to prohibit proposals, for the abolition of specific states.
I love in Israel and will stay here forever
This is the Jewish people home!!!
‘From the river to the sea’ is hate speech that calls to wipe out all the Israelis that currently live there. It is a not a call to peace but a call to violence.
Translate text with your camera
Of course, without any doubt, that these exaggerated and anti-Semitic expressions should be stopped, in general, the stage that the social network gives to all the propaganda created by this situation is very large and it needs to be controlled and restrained.
This is a sentence that describes genocide.
We must not give a platform to such sentences and such behaviors, certainly if it affects the environment itself and residents around the world when all the pro-Palestinian demonstrations have become violent, extreme and clearly unpleasant.
Hope and believe it will stop soon and the best decision will be made by the platform
And kudos to humanity and decency .
These phrase should NOT BE ALLOUD !
It is practically calling for the annihilation of ISRAEL !
השימוש בביטוי הזה מזעזע! הוא בעצם אומרים שרוצים להשמיד את כל היהודים שגרים בישראל ולמחוק את ישראל מהמפה. שוכחים שקבלנו את המדינה באופן חוקי לאחר הצבעה באו"ם ולאחר שנים רבות שטבחו בנו באירופה בשואה.
אין לנו לאן ללכת ישראל זאת המדינה היחידה שלנו וכאן נשאר!
“From the River to the Sea” is a phrase used by recent demonstrators against Israel. The phrase obviously means that they want to replace the 76 year old, sovereign and internationally recognized State of Israel, by a future State of Palestinian Arabs in exactly the same place as Israel is now. This idea is equivalent to saying we want to eradicate the Population of Israel. It is obvious from the actions of Hamas on October 7th 2023 as well as the many preceding decades of Arab terrorism, what would happen to Israel’s population if that new State were to come about. I strongly oppose any use of the above phrase. It is a genocidal statement in and of itself. The recent unprovoked and bestially brutal attack on Israeli civilians lends it an even more sinister and bloodthirsty connotation. Please remove this phrase from all discussions; don’t lend a hand to making our world a repeat of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
Since Israel is only located between the Jordan Rivet and the Mediterranean Sea (there are no other rivers and sea) this really means that Israel should be wiped off the map. This is true genocide and this phrase should be outlawed
This is not just hate speech, but pure evil, calling for the genocide of the Jewish people. It has no place in any conversational forum.
"From the river to the sea" is a call for the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea. This should be obvious and especially after October 7th where we had a holocaust for a whole day and more than 1500 citizens where murdered
The expression "from the river to the sea" should be banned because it promotes hatred, conflict and exclusion. People commonly use this expression out of ignorance, not understanding its underlying meaning or context, without even knowing which river exactly is mentioned. This slogan is meant to promote and legitimise the goal of "freeing Palestine", which is no other than a desire to drive the Jewish nation out of their home country, Israel, disguised behind an idealistic mission to help the Palestinian people and speculating on their ordeals. The slogan is merely a tool in the vast arsenal of the Islamist propaganda and its sole mission is to spill oil into the fire of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to spread hatred towards the Israeli state.