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
While I personally discourage people from using the phrase because it is so often misunderstood, a look at both the origins of the phrase and its meaning by what appears to be the vast majority of people (at least in North America, where I am most familiar) is for a single democratic state where Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have equal rights. For most people (though unfortunately not all) it is NOT a call for genocide or ethnic cleansing or anything of the sort.
In this article, linked below, I examine the history of the phrase, its various meanings, and how rightwing Republicans have disingenuously misinterpreted the phrase as a means of discrediting peace and human rights activists. There are dozens of citations within the article you can follow up on.
https://truthout.org/articles/dont-buy-the-right-wing-disinformation-campaign-on-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
If “from the river to the sea” is controversial and considered hate speech then so should “from sea to shining sea” — the exact same intentions from different groups of people. It’s a shame you even have to do this considering Meta’s history in covering up and enabling genocide.
If it’s not obvious to you now, it will be soon, Instagram isn’t more important than genocide. Facebook is definitely not more important than genocide. And TikTok is already beating you at the game you think you invented.
it’s over Meta, but you could do something incredible and stand for Palestine. Stand for humanity. Stand for justice. Stand with the people who’ve made you billionaires.
But i suppose the failed metaverse attempt must make your overlord, Zuckerberg, very pleased.
I do not believe the phrases “From the river to the sea,” “ceasefire, “defund Israel,” “free Palestine” or calls any other calls for Palestinian liberation or against Zionist Occupation should be considered hate speech. (And based on the reports of the specifically mentioned comments above only about .01% of people reported them as such)
If calls for a liberation of people from an occupying force are considered hate speech that means we have entered Orwellian doublespeak territory.
Israel is actively committing atrocities—with ongoing bombing, restriction of movement, restriction and denial of humanitarian aid, restriction of the media (not to mention specifically targeting media). Yet, we find ourselves restricted from commenting against Israel. Why are the people suffering such horrific atrocities considered terrorists? Why isn’t the state committing the these horrific atrocity against the original inhabitants of the land considered the terrorists?
Supporting Palestine does not mean supporting terrorism because this did not begin on October 7, it began in 1947/48 during the Nakba. Suppressing calls for a free Palestine is suppressing freedom and peace.
How is supporting the liberation of people held in an open-air prison (no airport, no freedom of movement, no passport) and treated as second-class citizen with restricted zones and humiliating checkpoints considered “hateful?”
Imagine if abolishing slavery in the United States was considered an “annihilation” of the confederacy or hateful speech against the confederacy instead of the freedom of enslaved Africans? I think we can all agree that that would be ridiculous.
These words are a call to liberate Palestinians from oppression and are not a call to violence or hate speech. In fact, quite the opposite. These words are meant to STOP violence and prohibiting their use means Meta supports, is complicit, or at least has turned a blind eye to violence and genocide against the Palestinean people in favor of saving some other people’s feelings.
Calling for freedom of a people is always something we should strive for. I've always advocated for freedom around the globe. The same courtesy should be granted to my people.
I believe the Jewish people have a right to live in their indigenous homeland. That homeland is Israel. The bible proves this and for those who are not bible readers or religious, the archeological sites, finds and discoveries prove this.
So when people chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” they are chanting that the land of Israel, which is the land between the river of Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, be free of Jews.
This means expulsion or death of the Jews in Israel and the dismantling or destruction of the one and only Jewish country and state in the world.
This is a direct definition of genocide. Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years, they have suffered as a people more than any other. They deserve a place to call home, their own state, their own country, in their own indigenous homeland.
The use the phrase ‘From the river to the sea…’ should be banned because it is a vile, antisemitic, Jew hating call for the genocide of the Jewish people. We need to stop this now before it’s too late. We need to protect Jews, they have suffered enough.
I am a white, middle aged, American woman. For years I have noticed my posts in Facebook and Instagram facing censorship when I speak out against police violence, apartheid and genocide, and sexual violence.
In response to my support of Palestinian safety and freedom I have found my own account locked and shadowbanned, unable to comment, post, or even load my newsfeed. Comments as innocuous as Happy Birthday are blocked and censored. Comments wishing safety and healing or offering support to victims of violence are equally blocked.
This has been happening to me intermittently since at least 2021.
Facebook and Meta have faced scrutiny for years for censoring content that challenges the dominant power structures: white, male, western, christian… Meta’s own internal investigations claims of anti-Islamic censorship determined that the algorithm was inflicting a bias and suppressing Islamic content. In the last year, users have noted that Meta’s new translation feature was falsely translating peaceful phrases from Arabic into calls for violence, thus deliberately and grotesquely misrepresenting the identity and sentiments of users.
The phrase « From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free » means exactly what it says. There is no dark secret message. It refers to the geographic region that constitutes Palestine, and promises that one day this land will be free. Since 1948, Palestinians of all religions have been herded into two separate and isolated concentrations. The West Bank of *the river* that defines the eastern border of Palestine, and the Gaza Strip along *the sea* that defines the western border. « From the river to the sea » means all of Palestine. United and complete. « Palestine will be free » means that some day this land will be free of genocide, apartheid, and oppression. Free to practice any religion, including Judaism - Judaism and Christianity have always been part of Palestinian culture.
Please look at Meta’s promise of connecting communities. Consider its complicity in media blackouts and the violence that takes place behind the shadows of censorship. And do not silence your own community for speaking out against violence.
Greetings,
I am writing to express my support for Meta’s statement 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 phrase, "From the river to the sea" comes from a longer statement, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." This slogan has been used for decades to protest the ongoing Zionist settler colonial project that began in 1948. It was popularized by the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the 1960s, accompanying calls for the establishment of an Arab state. It was also used by Hamas during their 2017 campaign. Due to these government-level uses of the phrase, many Zionist and pro-Israel voices have condemned its use, asserting that it carries antisemitic sentiment. However, the phrase has been used most consistently and frequently by individuals calling for justice and liberation in the region -- justice and liberation that would apply to all people, regardless of faith or ancestral lineage.
Common use of the phrase today is often found in conjunction with the slogan, "None of us are free until all of us are free". This statement demonstrates the importance of standing up for human rights around the world, and underscores that committing genocide and ethnic cleansing of one group is a great damage to all groups, including the oppressing group. When used together, these colloquial calls for peace acknowledge the importance of valuing and protecting all life, and are intended to envision a reality in which Jewish people and Palestinians are truly safe, both in their ancestral homelands and around the world.
Online use of the phrase “From the river to the sea” has appeared in posts, videos, comments, and messages. It has propagated countless discussions regarding settler colonialism, Zionism, the Palestinian struggle for liberation, and the importance of speaking out against antisemitism. However, I have personally never seen the phrase being used to call for (or even to imply) the ethnic cleansing of Jewish people. I have only seen it used to condemn the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people by the state of Israel. Thus, I agree that Meta’s assessment that clarifying context is needed to determine the intent for use of the phrase, and that the phrase itself should not be censored.
The last comment I will share is that I have conducted a quick Google Analytics search of the phrases 1) “From the river to the sea” and 2) “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” over the last 12 months. Both phrases showed the largest spike in interest in mid-October (after October 7) through early November 2023, followed by smaller spikes in interest mid-April 2024. However, the country that returned the highest number of searches of the first phrase is Israel. Because I don’t have information that would guide me otherwise, I’m left to speculate that people in Israel searched the phrase in search of bias confirmation, but I’m sure there are a variety of factors at play. The other top countries searching for this phrase included Netherlands, UK, Malaysia, and USA. By contrast, searches for the entire phrase were most heavily conducted in the Maldives, followed at great distance by Malaysia, Netherlands, Qatar, and Israel. I’m not sure why searches for the full phrase were not as popular in Israel or the US. I have attached screenshots of both of these search results for your review.
For all of these reasons, I support Meta’s decision not to censor the phrase “From the river to the sea.” I hope that Meta has the technology and manpower to finely review reported content, and to accurately determine the intent behind posting before making decisions to allow or remove content. It has been disheartening to see content removed, profiles locked, and engagement plummet when people are speaking up for liberation and justice, so I am heartened by this opportunity to share these observations. Thank you for your efforts in defending our US first amendment rights while also carefully ensuring safety for all who use Meta’s products.
Below are 2 links I can recommend to review additional published opinions about this matter.
https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean
https://vpalestine.org/2020/12/05/from-the-river-to-the-sea-call-for-freedom-is-not-antisemitic/
I am an Israeli citizen, an IDF veteran, whose children and grandchildren will and have served in the IDF, and an orthodox Jew. I agree totally with the slogan, "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free," because the freedom and human rights of all residents of Palestine/Israel should be recognized and protected, which is not currently the case. Attempts to suppress this slogan is not only anti-Palestinianist but also is a slap in the face to Israelis and Jews who support human rights. Suppressing the slogan is itself anti-Semitic. It says that Palestine should not be free. How can any decent person support that?
I strongly urge the oversight board to consider the phrase “from the river to the sea” as antisemitic hate speech.
For many Jewish people, a phrase suggesting the elimination of Israel or the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state is related to disregarding the trauma of the Holocaust. It negates the importance of having a safe place for Jewish people to live.
It is demonizing of an ethnic group. Hamas uses the phrase to mean elimination of Israel as a Jewish state and Hanas’s charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish people.
Please be sensitive to what Jewish people world wide have suffered, to the fact antisemitism is escalating world wide, and the part this phrase is playing in that.
Thank you. Lisa
Here's a revised draft for your response:
---
Facebook's policy on posts that include "from the river to the sea" should be applied consistently. If statements supporting Palestinian rights with this phrase are restricted, similar expressions from any group, including radical Zionists, must also be addressed. For example, when Netanyahu states that "the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea," it is a comparable sentiment.
Labeling the phrase "from the river to the sea" as antisemitism overlooks that Palestinians are also Semitic people, akin to many Israelis. Palestinian language is part of the same Semitic language group like Hebrew.
Both are descendants of Shem (sun of Noah) , as per historical and religious texts.
Therefore, fairness and consistency in policy enforcement are crucial for genuine dialogue and understanding.
This will help a more positive, nuanced and constructive dialogue .
I don’t think this statement incites violence or is a hate speech . It is indeed a hope for people under operation and a hope for people living in extremely worse circumstances. Because all humans are equal and should have equal rights and a free to live in a society peacefully.
I have heard the Phrase from the River to the sea used for both a call for a Palestinian State and similarly from the Israelis, calling for a single State of its own, all within the geography of Palestine / Israel. Most notably it has been used by Israels President Benjamin Netanyahu this year, who uses the phrase in his Speach at 12:40 in this you tube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfAQGceiTJE. I have written a song using these words but it is about reconciliation and Peace, From The River To Sea. I include the lyrics below. It has no hateful content to either Israelis or Palestinians as you can see below, but a call for Peace and reconciliation. When deciding if the words should be allowed by Meta, my concerns are that they could be banned by Meta which will drive international politics. Banning words like these and phrases out of individual context is A huge break with freedom of speach and expression. The other factor which troubles me is the limiting of distribution. Shutting down who can see a post or limiting it is censorship in and by itself for whatever purpose. Meta places bans or limits on posts and accounts and it is widely known and a key driver of making users abandon the platform Facebook in my opinion. The banning of posts with no right of appeal is also contrary to human rights. There should always be a right to appeal any decision and it should be adjudicated by an independent group or court. The fact that the decision by Meta to review 3 cases and that this has from a news perspective “gone global” shows just how much Meta now controls free Speach and political thought in the modern world. Perhaps indeed then , it is time, to stop using certain groupings of words and also stop using certain groupings of social media platforms of private businesses?
Paul Le Claire
From The River To The Sea by Paul Le Claire c 2024
Use within or as part of the context of this submission is authorised
G Em C
If we all come together
G D
We could end this war forever
Em. C
From The River To The Sea
G. D
There’d be Peace for you and me
G. D
Come together let’s forever
C. D. G
live in Peace and Harmony
G. Em. C
Come together weapons down
D. G
All Gods children, safe and sound
Meta is complicit in suspending Palestinian voices and promoting anti-liberation propaganda
The phrase "from the river to the sea" is not hate speech. It is a cry for freedom from an oppresed country living under an apartheid system that denies them full citizenship rights in their own country.
Like all people who have lived under oppression, this cry expresses their desire for freedom. It is not used in any other way, or for any other purpose. Palestinians and their supporters use this phrase because it is the right and humane response to a genocidal oppression.
I'm an Orthodox Jewish Israeli, living in Jerusalem.
I consider "from the river to the sea" to be legitimate speech. It is *not* inherently hate speech or antisemitic.
"Palestine" is one of the legitimate names for the land that lies between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. That same land is also called the "Land of Israel." It also describes the territory controlled by the State of Israel (both sovereign and occupied territory). It is acceptable for a single location to be called by multiple names.
The aspiration for freedom in all of Palestine -- from the river to the sea -- is an entirely legitimate and worthy aspiration.
This could be accomplished in a variety of ways. For example, a two-state solution, a confederation, or a single democratic state could all bring about freedom for both Jews and Palestinians from the river to the sea. While such solutions would transform or even replace the current State of Israel, they would *not* destroy it. Many people use the expression "from the river to the sea" with no intention to destroy Israel or harm Jews, but merely to gain freedom for Palestinians, many of whom currently live under a harsh regime of military occupation, without democratic rights.
Israel is indeed the only state of the Jewish people. However, the population of Israel is about 20% non-Jewish within Israel's sovereign borders, and about 50% non-Jewish within the borders controlled by Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza. It is difficult, or perhaps impossible, to have a democratic country with a specific ethnic/religious affiliation without an *overwhelming* majority who share that affiliation. Jews do not have a "right" to our own exclusive country when that comes at the expense of the rights of Palestinians.
Many Jewish Israelis, myself included, would opt for true democracy over "Jewishness." We are not antisemitic. We wish no harm to Jews; we are Jews. We want freedom from the river to the sea, for both Jews and Palestinians.
I recognize that some people who advocate "from the river to the sea" are indeed antisemitic, and wish for the destruction of Israel. But many people who use this phrase do so as a simple aspiration for freedom, with no ill will to Jews, and support the peaceful transformation of Israel into a true democracy, no destruction involved.
Please continue to permit "from the river to the sea" on Meta posts, and use more accurate and precise criteria to identify hate speech. Thank you!
The phrase "from the river to the sea" does not call for violence against jewish people but seeks to bring light to the senseless violence and devastation that the government of Israel has enacted on the people of Palestine. Palestinian Children and their parents are being massacred, starved, and brutalized in ways unimaginable. You know that this is wrong, and yet instead of condemning the murders, instead of condemning the genocide, you silence those who speak out against it? Disgusting. You are so afraid of the truth of the actions and bloodshed of an evil goverment coming to light that you attempt to associate calls for peace and calls for a ceasefire with terrorism. Thousands upon thousands of little children are dead and starving. To attempt to ban people from even speaking about it is disgusting. From the river to the sea Palestine will be free. Ceasefire now. I cannot believe that I even have to make an argument to convince people that blowing up innocent civilians is an evil thing to do, and that it is also a great evil to attempt to silence people bringing attention to this injustice.
It’s not just river to the sea, tho I have been banned from posting anymore from use of the phrase. More worrisome to me is I’ve been banned for tagging ICJ and International criminal court, or tagging our politicians
I'm just a random Jewish person but I think that the phrase is complicated and should not be censored by itself! It clearly means something to a lot of people - justice and equality in the whole land of Israel and Palestine - that is important and cherised. That some Jews think it means advocating for violence, is unfortunate, and certainly some authors use it that way. But we should err on the side of judging others with generosity that this isnt' their meaning and only take measures to remove this speech if it is explicitly and clearly advocating for violence.