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
“FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA” means Israel will be destroyed and all Israeli will be murdered, enslaved or expelled according hamas's official doctrine. it openly calls for genocide of Jews and destruction of democratic country.
it must be banned asap.
The phrase ‘From the river to the sea’ is a chant used in the Palestinian movement of resistance. The long-standing propaganda around this movement of resistance is that it implies antisemitism: Israeli propaganda paints any Israeli objective as holy and self-righteous, a taking back of power and land after the Holocaust. This is a false narrative. The land of Palestine does not belong to Israeli Zionists, and it never should have been ‘given’ to them by the UN. For those who oppose a targeted oppression and extermination of an ethnic group, their concern should lie with Israel’s inhumane actions of the past months, not the desperate responses of a subgroup of militant Palestinians. And for this reason, Meta has a responsibility to ensure people’s attention remains on the atrocities that Israel is committing. This cannot be done when spokespersons get shadow-banned, accounts suspended, or comments and rallying cries removed. The Western mainstream media is already failing their duty to accurately report what is happening, and Meta has the power to counteract this failing. Take this into consideration when defining your company’s human rights duties. If your networks allow for Israeli propaganda to be spread, and they suppress the vital work that activists are doing in their efforts to inform people and get them organised, you are aiding Israel in their state terrorism. People die as a result of this. In the last days, I have seen videos of children’s bodies crushed under the rubble, and many more posts and videos about the Met Gala, about the rap battle between Kendrick Lamar and Drake, even about Zendaya’s new film. If everyone’s eyes were on Rafah, where Israel has initiated its final stage of genocide, more pressure might be applied to our leaders to intervene. You have a crucial role in this. You must not only dismiss those who spread misinformation about ‘From the river to the sea’ being an antisemitic chant, you must also stop suppressing and censoring pro-Palestinian activists, and stop pandering to Israel’s political narrative altogether. Your President might refuse to wield his power justly, but you can rise above and choose to do the right thing. You have nothing to lose but negligible amounts of money, and the children of Rafah are worth that and more.
'FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA' undoubtedly refers to the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea being free of Jews - and how could this be made possible? Only by the eradication of all of the Jewish people in Israel - in other words, yet another call for the genocide of the Jewish people. This is completely unacceptable. Those who disseminate this information know exactly what they are saying. This racist, antisemitic phrase should be banned from Facebook.
The phrase "From the river to the sea" is emblematic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often symbolizing Palestinian aspirations for statehood but also criticized for its potential to incite violence and promote antisemitism. This controversy intensified after the 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel's military operations in Gaza, leading to renewed scrutiny of its usage on platforms like Meta. Misinformation and fake news further complicate matters, amplifying tensions and deepening divisions. Meta's content moderation policies face scrutiny for their effectiveness in addressing harmful content while upholding freedom of expression. Given the complexities, removing this phrase from Meta posts could help mitigate harm and foster more constructive dialogue among users, while also addressing concerns about hate speech and incitement.
אמירות שכאלה צריכות לא להופיע משום שבעצם הם אומרות שמדינת ישראל לא צריכה להתקיים. "מהים עד הנהר" (כלומר מים התיכון לנהר הירדן) זה השטח שבו מצויה מדינת ישראל וכל קריאה שכזאת קוראת למעשה לסילוק יהודים מהשטח הזה. עובדה היא שגם בקונגרס האמריקאי החליטו לאסור את השימוש בביטוי הזה משום שמדובר בבירור בביטוי אנטישמי שקורא להשמדת מדינת .
ישראל לכן אם פייסבוק רוצה לפעול נגד אנטישמיות עליה לאסור קריאות כאלה לרצח עם של יהודים והשמדת מדינת ישראל
First, I agree that the Palestinian people are entitled to self determination and a "free Palestine" state, under a 2 state solution.
However, to my understanding, the expression "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" calls for the deportation or genocide of millions of Jews that are currently inhabiting the area between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean sea, which is the entire state of Israel, the only real free democracy in the middle east.
it is clear, by counting the number of Jews in Gazza strip for example, that there is no intention to allow Jews to continue living their lives in the future free Palestine with equal democratic rights (and Palestine will probably not be a democracy at all), just like in any of the other non-democratic Arab states, from which Jews were driven out (or slaughtered) between 1930 and 1970.
so if this expression is calling for the genocide of Jews inhabiting their ancestral homeland, in order to allow Palestine to be established on the ruins of Israel, I personally think it should not be allowed.
"From the river to the sea is a statement that aims to annihilate the Jewish people from this region. This expression leaves no room for peace talks, and it's wrong!"
This is ridiculous. The phrase calls for human beings to be free. Human beings should be free all across the world. Between every river and every sea.
The criticism is that it calls for the “eradication” of Israel but firstly it doesn’t and secondly people are allowed to think Israel shouldn’t be there and people should have to buy land if they want to live in the region rather than stealing it.
I am a 71 year old Jewish woman who supported Israel for much of my life. About 15 years ago I learned about how the Palestinians are treated by the Israelis, about the very unequal, apartheid system there. I stopped being a Zionist then. My understanding of the phrase “from the river to the sea”, from conversations I have had with Palestinians I know, is basically what a “one-state solution” would be: one land where both Israelis and Palestinians live side by side, with equal rights for all. It is absolutely not a terrorist or hateful statement, but a wish to live peacefully with any others who would desire the same thing, in a land without giant barrier walls, inferior infrastructure, and threats of and actual harm a part of everyday life. “From the river to the sea,” a much better country for those who desire peace.
It is very simple. "From the River to the Sea" is calling for the genocide of all people in Israel whether they be Jewish, Christian or Muslim. In reality those who use this incitement are usually calling for the extermination of people of the Jewish faith. It is unequivocally hate speech intended to intimidate people merely on the basis of their religion.
Hello. I am writing today to express my deep disappointment in your proposal to further suppress Palestinian and allies' voices during an ongoing humanitarian crisis and genocide, perpetuated in part by North America's continual funding and exports of technology and arms to Israel. Over 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, 15,000 of whom are children—and these numbers continue to climb.
Thousands of peaceful protesters who oppose the countless war crimes happening as the world watches are Jewish, and know that the heart of these protests are in no way antisemitic. Misappropriating such an accusation only further exacerbates harm against Jewish people, and thousands of us have seen this in action on our phones—riot police and white supremacists assaulting demonstrators, accusing pro-Palestinian Jewish protesters of being "traitors," etc. When we say never again, we truly MEAN never again—for anyone.
The censorship of these protests and sharing of real-time information will not stop it from happening. Suppression is and never has historically been met without fighting back. Reconsider this proposal and remember that people won't forget actions like this.
The phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Is hate speech. It is racism. It is the call made directly by genocidal terrorist organizations like Hamas. In Arabic, the call is actually “from water to water, Palestine will be Arab”. They have sanitized this phrase so it will be more palatable to western audiences but the meaning is the same. It is a call to wipe all of Israel off the map, and for Israel, the world’s only Jewish state which houses 50% of the Jewish population, to not exist. It is not a statement for peaceful coexistence. It is possible to support Palestinian rights without this hate speech phrase. The U.S. government recently recognized this as hate speech.
Please remember that Jews are only 0.2% of the world’s population. There are billions of Muslims who were raised from birth with antisemitic propaganda and anti Israel rhetoric. Your decision on this matter should not be a simple “majority rules” vote. In such a scenario, Jews will always be outnumbered due to being a small minority. You should decide on the merits of the case, not a popularity contest. Thank you
Israel is an appartheid state. This is not a defamatory statement against the state, these are facts, plain and simple. Palestinian Arabs do not have equal rights under Israeli law. They have been ethnically cleansed, massacred in the tems of thousands, and denied the right to return to their land by the Israeli government, all while granting people with absolutely no ties to the land "the right of return" based on their religion. Furthermore Israel controls Palestinians right of movement, keeps Palestinians as prisoners without trial, uses torture against them in captivity, denies them adequate amounts of water, controls their import and export and denies them the use of their airspace and sea. These are things that were happening long before they started the genocide after October 7th. I
Israel is denying the most basic rights to an entire ethnic group and is currently conducting a genocide that has taken the lives od over 40000 civilians. Palestine is by no means free. It hasn't been free since the Nakba of 1948 so the chant "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" is nothing more than a call for the liberation of a Palestinians, who live under an apartheid system, and an end to the brutal Israeli occupation. Limiting this and any other support for Palestinians is a crime against humanity, it is an attack on free speech, and it is a direct move towards fascism. I urge you not to make such a step, for the 14000 murderered children in the past 200 days, for an end to genocides everywhere, for a safer and more just world, and for freedom in general.
I won't go into much detail on the history of this phrase, because it seems the team at meta already has. What I will explain is the context of this phrase. "From the river to the sea" is the shortened version of the full phrase - which you already know by now - "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." There has been debate over this phrase for a while, especially as of late given the current genocide of the Palestinian people by Israel - their oppressors and the apartheid regime. Which should give all the context you may need in and of itself, but I will go into more detail. The real controversy of this phrase has not been that it's being shouted, but by whom it is being shouted by. The Palestinian people and those who support their freedom from apartheid, and now genocide. Not Hamas. Hamas may use this phrase, but it is not their phrase. Another big contender of the why people - typically Israelis (not the Jewish community in whole, but a fraction of that group, which has been a huge proponent of white supremacy in their state) - is the term 'free'. The call for Palestinians to be free is not a call to harm Jewish people, or even Israelis, but to have a harmonious relationship in the same state, with no biased laws towards one group or the other that harms the group being targeted. This is being called for because that's what is happening right now, and what has been happening for the past 70+ years. "From the river to the sea," is not an antisemitic, or even anti-israeli sentiment, it simply calls for a single state solution, with justice for a group of people that has been forced to withstand so much.
The phrase "from the river to the sea" refers to expanding the Palestinian domain from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Should the phrase be carried out, Israel would be annihilated. How is it possible not to see calling for the annihilation of a people group as hate speech? Does not Facebook's community rules reject calls or threats of violence? Since when does calling for someone's destruction not constitute violence? I find it ironic that if the situation were reversed or if it were any other people group other than the Jewish people, the entire planet would be up in arms, throwing a fit to have every post, comment, etc, taken down. For example, if the phrase were directed at the LGBTQIA+ community, something near revolt would have occurred. If Facebook would consider it hate speech for the LGBTQIA+ community, it should be the same for the Jews and Israel. There should be room for discrimination where dealing with hate speech is concerned.
Given that we’ve seen that it’s the Israeli gov. and military who are carrying out actual genocide, actually mutilating children and babies, actually committing sexual violence… I don’t think we can trust a messenger who cries wolf about “From the river to the sea,” particularly when the phrase indicates the verifiable, historical fact that the land to which the phrase refers was indeed stolen in violent Zionist attacks in the 1940s and continues to be illegally and violently seized by Israel Occupation Forces today. And, once again, I don’t appreciate being chided to be concerned for a genocide that *isn’t happening* by the perpetrators of a genocide that is. It’s clear to me that the demonization of the phrase is in keeping with all Israeli state propaganda that paints itself a victim even as it victimizes others. More importantly, it paints itself a victim *in order to mask it’s victimization of others.*
There can be no doubt that “ from the river to the sea” currently being used by Pro Palestine supporters is calling for the compete destruction of the Jewish state. Its is always accompanied by a strong antisemitic vitriol. I don’t have to show you any footage, you just have to look at thousands of posts on Facebook to see the antagonism towards jews
As explained by the American Jewish Congress: “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” and the shortened version “from the river to the sea” is a rallying cry for terrorist groups and their sympathizers, from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to Hamas, which called for Israel’s destruction in its original governing charter in 1988 and was responsible for the October 7, 2023 terror attack on Israeli civilians, murdering over 1,200 people in the single deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. It is also a common call-to-arms for pro-Palestinian activists, especially student activists on college campuses. It calls for the establishment of a State of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea —ERASING the State of Israel and its people instead of building a peaceful two state solution of coexistence. It should be banned from social media platforms as inciting hate and divisiveness, and advocating for the genocide of the people of Israel
Before I could truly provide comments I feel it is prudent to concretely define the phrase/slogan in question. “From the river to the sea,” which is the abbreviated form of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Is an unambiguous call for freedom to a geographical region. The one referenced being the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea(historical Palestine, previously the British Mandate of Palestine and Syria Palaestina.) it’s a political Slogan and as such many who politically oppose it are offended it by it, but it is objectively and plainly not a call for violence.
Words have objective meanings, slogans have objective meanings, anything else is stretched-thin interpolation by readers through the lens of their prejudices and preconceived notions, and that is simply not grounds for justifiable and fair censorship. The biased censorship of protected political speech because it offends those who politically oppose it is a clear and simple violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression that users reasonably expect they will be afforded on Meta’s platforms. And adopting the wild, bad-faith interpretations of said protected speech that stretches the definition of each word into meaninglessness to craft from whole cloth an entirely new meaning that violates hate speech rules doesn’t make it the truth and it doesn’t retroactively make the censorship of what is still protected political speech justified.
It’s unclear where the phrase “from the river to the sea” was first coined, but some historians suggest it was first used by Zionists to signify “Eretz Israel” (Greater Israel), while others take note of the use by the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the 1960s, calling for a free Mandatory Palestine that included Arabs and descendants of Jews who had lived in Palestine before the 1947 Nakba. The phrase was also adopted by the Israeli Likud Party in its 1977 election manifesto, using the words “Between the sea and the Jordan [River] there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” Similar wording, such as referring to the area "west of the Jordan river", has also been used more recently by other Israeli politicians, including Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu as recently as January 18, 2024, saying in a nationally broadcast news conference that “In any future arrangement … Israel needs security control over all territory west of the Jordan River…” Recent use of the phrase by Palestinians and those supporting Palestinian human rights has largely focused on the rights of Palestinians living under what many governments and international organizations have deemed an apartheid system, calling for peace and equality amongst Palestinians and Israelis. The phrase has been widely used at various protests, including the March on Washington, which remained peaceful and did not require any police intervention or any hate crime charges for the use of the phrase. While some may understand the claim to be calling for the end of Israel, there is no veritable claim that the phrase has ever been used to inflict violence towards a specific group of people, other than the use by PM Netanyahu in January 2024 as Israel continues its attacks and indiscriminate bombing of Gaza. To censor the use of this phrase would be a gross breach of freedom of expression and equal rights, as the phrase is only being criticized when used by Palestinians or those supporting Palestinian rights and equality. To censor the phrase would only exacerbate inequalities.