Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has determined that the antisemitic phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” does not violate its hate speech policies.
Advertisement
The slogan has seen a resurgence in popularity amid widespread protests across the country against Israel’s military campaign against terrorist group Hamas.
Meta’s Oversight Board has found that the phrase “From the River to the Sea,” used to express Palestinian support, did not break the company’s hate speech policies.
Critics of the phrase, which refers to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, say that it calls for the abolishment of the Israeli state. The Anti-Defamation League accused the slogan of being antisemitic and a “rallying cry (that) has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas.”
But the chant is also frequently used at pro-Palestinian demonstrations by protesters who say it is to call for equal rights and an independent state for Palestinians. It can refer to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who are restricted in their movements and from visiting Jerusalem.
The Board said it reviewed three cases involving the use of “From the River to the Sea” on Facebook and said that all appeals to remove the content were closed without human review. Those users then appealed to the Board, which exists for users to challenge Meta’s appeals process on Facebook, Instagram or Threads.
The Oversight Board argued that “the three pieces of content contain contextual signs of solidarity with Palestinians – but no language calling for violence or exclusion” and “do not glorify or even refer to Hamas.”
Advertisement
Some on the board acknowledged that the phrase can have multiple meanings, but pointed out that it appears in Hamas’ 2017 charter.
The antisemitic Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) praised the Oversight Board’s decision, claiming that some activists use the phrase to “call for Israelis and Palestinians to live together in one state with equal rights,” and that it “does not inherently constitute hate speech.”
CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper celebrated the decision:
“We appreciate Meta recognizing that the Jewish, Palestinian and other activists who sometimes use this phrase as their way of advocating for Israelis and Palestinians to live together in one state with equal rights are not engaging in hate speech. This stands in stark contrast the official position of the Likud Party and the Israeli government, which calls for a permanent state of occupation and subjugation ‘from the river to the sea’ in its official platform. It is essential that Meta also take action to ensure that voices opposing the genocide in Gaza are not being unjustly censored or banned.”
Despite CAIR’s claims, the slogan has been parroted by pro-Hamas protesters on college campuses and other areas since the war in Gaza began with Hamas’ slaughter of Israeli civilians and others on Oct. 7. It has been used by Hamas and other terrorist entities to promote violence against Jews.
The slogan is a rallying cry typically used to advocate for the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) described the phrase as a classic example of antisemitic rhetoric aimed at delegitimizing Israel’s right to exist.
Advertisement
It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the state of Israel, which would mean the Jewish state being dismantlied. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland.
It is possible that some who use the phrase do not know its history or actual meaning. But most of those pushing the slogan understand precisely what it means–even if they are too cowardly to admit it publicly.
The notion that the phrase does not constitute hate speech is laughable, considering what Facebook and other Meta-owned platforms actually consider to be objectionable. It appears this move may have been aimed at quelling backlash coming from the anti-Israel crowd. But in the end, it only highlights the company’s hypocrisy in its content moderation practices.