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
I find it odd that this phrase is considered Anti-Semitic, or Genocidal, For the following reason:
The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable… therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty. —Likud Party Platform, 1977
The slogan “from the river to the sea” apparently has great power, so great that it led the US House of Representatives to censure one of its members who invoked it, and Columbia University to shut down two student organizations whose members repeated it, Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine. Other universities have since followed suit.
While these august bodies engaged in deliberations about the grave breaches that mouthing these words entailed, over 100 children per day were dying in Gaza under a rain of tens of thousands of Israeli bombs, rockets, missiles, and artillery shells, many manufactured by American companies in which Columbia University has invested and paid for by US taxpayers.
Meanwhile, Israeli ministers were talking about inflicting “Nakba 2023” on Gaza (an echo of Israel’s 1948 ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians); over 1.7 million Gazans had been forced from their homes; over 14,000 had been killed (nearly 6000 of them children) and 30,000 wounded; most hospitals had been put out of service; and half the structures in the Gaza Strip had been destroyed or damaged. Beyond these numbers—and for many, they were just numbers, for how can you illustrate the names, faces, and personal stories of thousands of dead men, women, and children, especially when their tormentors have turned off the electricity and, at times, Internet and phone communications, and prevented Western journalists from being present to witness their ordeal?—lay some brutal facts.
From the first day of this war, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who said Israel was fighting “human animals,” ordered the cutting off not only of electricity but also supplies of water, medicine, food and fuel, in breach of Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which requires “the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and…all consignments of essential foodstuffs.” While President Biden has called for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Gaza, the United States has so far done little to make it happen, beyond persuading Israel to allow entry of a tiny trickle of relief supplies (excluding fuel), as if the US has no power to do anything more.
I think that if anything, this slogan needs to be discussed in light of the genocide which is being perpetrated by Israel on the Palestinian people. The fact that Zionists find this kind of language threatening, yet refer in similar terms to Palestinians is definitely something that needs to be brought to the light of day.
After all, "Never again" is a meaningless phrase if we are taught to ignore it when ANY genocide is being perpetrated. The mechanisms to prevent genocide cannot be selective. They must be universal and respected or they are meaningless.
The oversight board must consider if calling for a single state solution, where everyone in the Palestine territories has equal rights constitutes hate speech.
One of the repeated claims in this discussion is that the phrase "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" calls for wiping Israel off the map or something to that effect.
The dramatic use of 'wipe' is meant to confuse people. The main opponents of the phrase believe that calling for a single state solution with equal rights for everyone is 'destruction of Israel'.
In in fact, a single state solution with equal rights for everyone is a very humane and just. Demanding otherwise, that is, demanding an ethnic state where certain races are subjugated is hate. We should consider which terms and words demand this hateful situation (for instance, Zionism at its core calls for this).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this phrase, and it has been chanted for decades without anyone questioning it or being offended. This is just yet another tactic to silence Palestinians and put them down. We have seen Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike all chant this during marches, hand in hand.
I used Facebook from its beginning as thefacebook but hardly ever used my instagram account (<2 posts a month) and lost my instagram account forever for the following comment in reference to the young women currently held hostage for over 200 days by Hamas: "Not just sexual assault but also forced pregnancy and likely forced birth, making this situation so much more fraught and dangerous." My comment resulted in my losing my account forever including losing my appeal and thus being unable to appeal to the Oversight Board which requires an active Instagram account. My comment is extremely likely to be true, as we saw in the Christian Nigerian girls who were kidnapped and have by now given birth to multiple children with their kidnappers.
It seems like a strange double standard that I would lose my instagram account forever for stating a fact, which isn't even hate speech, and yet a statement that arguably advocates genocide "from the river to the sea" would be allowed and the users would be allowed to keep their accounts.
Losing my instagram account forever means that I am no longer be able to see my children's camp photos or my children's school photos, which was the reason that I joined in the first place. It seems further a double standard that I am not allowed to state a true fact that the women held hostage are very likely pregnant, possibly in the third trimester, with pregnancies by their rapists and kidnappers, and they will be giving birth as soon as 80 days from now for a full term pregnancy 280 days.
Either we have free speech or we don't. I am allowed to see my children's camp and school photos on instagram only if I agree not to state the obscene truths about the women hostages who are constantly raped, chained, pregnant and will be giving birth in as soon as a few months. That seems extremely unfair.
"From the River to the Sea" is simply a liberation slogan. It implies the “the need for equality for all inhabitants of historic Palestine”.
There are three main parts of this
1. Freedom & equality on Palestinian land: Equality, dignity, and self-determination for Palestinians. The ability to live without occupation, siege, and ethnic-cleansing, which they have been denied for over 75 years.
2. Freedom & equality for Palestinians living as refugees in other countries: The right of return for Palestinians that have been displaced by illegal occupation to be able to return to their homeland. The advocation for their rights, even for those who seek refuge in other countries.
3. In the case of either a two-state solution or one-state solution: the ability for Palestinians to live without the Apartheid system and to be considered completely equal citizens, deserving of respect, dignity, and representation.
This slogan's controversy has been fabricated and has been maliciously misinterpreted to create division. One group's freedom should never imply the destruction of another. Those who are misinterpreting the slogan usually belong to the group that benefits from the other's oppression.
The banning of this phrase will ultimately contribute further to the villainization of the Palestinian freedom movement and deny them of their own phrases and meaning that they've placed behind them to advocate for their own freedom.
I do not believe the saying from the river to the sea is anti-semetic. In addition, Nethanyahu's own son uses the phrase in his public twitter profile.
The phrase "from the river to the sea" is a political phrase that has been used in various contexts, and its meaning and connotation can vary depending on the context and perspective.
In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the phrase "from the river to the sea" has been used by some Palestinian activists and organizations to refer to the geographic area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which includes the territory of Israel and the Palestinian territories. Some people interpret this phrase as a call for the elimination of the state of Israel and its replacement with a single Palestinian state.
However, it's important to note that not all uses of the phrase "from the river to the sea" are anti-Semitic. Some people use the phrase to refer to the geographic region without any political or ideological connotations.
It's also worth noting that criticism of Israel's policies and actions towards the Palestinian population does not necessarily constitute anti-Semitism. However, anti-Semitic rhetoric and hate speech are never acceptable and should be condemned.
It's always important to consider the context and intent behind the use of this phrase, and to be mindful of the language we use and its potential impact on others.
I agree on the decision of keeping the voter containing from the river to the sea. We can't just call any phrase that advise for Palestinian equal rights from the river to the sea to be antisemitism. Zionism ain't antisemitism, criticising a government ain't related to religion similar to criticising Saudi Arabia's government isn't criticism Islam criticising United Kingdom isn't criticising Christianity. Many other nations in Africa, Asia and America where subjected to genocide not only the Jews while weather these nations should have their own land/country is valid discussion only Israeli regime is not. Israel can't be ethno democratic this by default = apartheid. So let's end the apartheid and have state where ALL people Jews , Muslims, Christian's and atheists have equal rights and live with dignity. It's aim impossible many countries have a great faith diversity and all people live in harmony under equal laws.
This phrase originated in the region from Arab speakers stating from water to water Palestine will be Arab. When translated into English it has been sanitized to seem more politically correct. However it’s roots are in regards to ethnically cleansing half of the world’s Jews from their own land.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free is a call for the freedom of the Palestinian people in their own country. To suggest otherwise is to admit that the opposite is true. Calls for freedom are not calls for genocide, and those that equate Palestinian freedom with ethnic cleansing only say that because the reverse is true. Israel understands that they want to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from the river to the sea so calls for Palestinian independence and freedom is taken in the same tone they themselves imply. If one persons freedom threatens you, it’s because you benefit from their oppression.
If you claim that this is hate speech it’s because you understand this. My freedom as a Palestinian is not hate speech. And to equate the two is racist and hateful in and of itself.
"from the river to the sea" is an expression that means the necessity of all people, Palestinians or juifs, have the same rights. That means the Palestine will be free, because people have rights and justice. Now the situation is oppression of Palestinian by the Israelian.
So I think "from the river to the sea" is a statement completely correct to affirm the universality of human rights and democratic government.
The "from the river to the sea" slogan is a translation of the Arabic "from the water to the water Palestine will be Arab". It is an obvious dog whistle to Jew haters calling for the genocide of Jews. At this point, people at hate rallies are chanting the Arabic version in both languages. They are telling you who they are. Listen to them. This isn't a chant for "freedom" it's a chant for the murder of Israelis.
‘From the river to the sea’ is a phrase that should not be banned or regulated by Meta. This is because it is a statement calling for freedom within the region from the river to the sea. Comments that attempt to paint this as violent are inaccurate and engage in bad faith — posters who emphasize ‘from the river to the sea’ are calling for freedom from oppression, cessation of violence, and peace from the river to the sea. This does not infringe any of Meta’s guidelines — moreover, it sends a message of peace and equality for all peoples living from the river to the sea and nothing else. Many bad faith actors attempt to taint the phrase by stating that it implies something else when it does not. To be successful, Meta must operate without bias towards language and without stifling free speech that is not violent.
The call “from the river to sea” calls for the Palestinian occupation of all lands between the Jordan River, which constitutes the border between Jordan(the country) and the Mediterranean Sea. That territory includes the State of Israel. Calling for its occupation implies that it will be destroyed and its citizens will be killed or subjugated at best. The most likely scénariste another genocide of millions of Jews in the hands of the blood thirsty terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and the like. Equally probable is the killing spree that will follow by significant elements of the Palestinian population determined to avenge the creation of the State of Israel. It is inevitable that another Jewish holocaust will ensue while the rest of the world will watch from a distance. The call is antisemitic and genocidal, period. Calling for the establishment of a single Palestinian state in all that territory is calling the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of its people. It’s a call for extreme violence, the ultimate violence that can be perpetrated on a designated nation with roots in the land that goes back to Biblical times.
The phrase "from the river to the sea" says nothing about hurting anyone, it simply refers to a unitary democratic state in historic Palestine, with equal rights for all. This after all is the modern democratic standard, a secular state with equal rights for its citizens. Now, Israel is constituted as the "state of the Jewish people", a race-based construct that needs systematic discrimination to subjugate Israel's Palestinian citizens, and great violence to subjugate the Palestinians of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Zionist and Israeli history are full of pronouncements of territorial ambitions, from the Nile to the Euphrates. People who complain about "from the river to the sea" are defending their power and privilege.
This phrase is a clear call for end of a state with a Democratic government and and end of its people. It is not a call for peace but a call for murder and statelessness.