Written by :
Meta’s Oversight Board, which reviews the company’s content moderation policies, recently examined three cases involving the phrase “From the river to the sea.” Some pro-Palestinian supporters see it as a call for freedom, while others interpret it as a threat to Israel’s existence.
A Meta spokesperson expressed the company’s openness to the review process, saying, “We welcome the board’s review. Our policies prioritize safety, but we recognize global challenges and regularly consult outside experts, including the Oversight Board.”
On September 4, 2024, the Oversight Board ruled that the phrase “From the river to the sea” should not automatically result in content removal on Meta platforms like Facebook and Instagram.
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) strongly opposed the board’s ruling, which determined that the phrase did not violate Meta’s policies on hate speech, violence, or incitement.
A slogan of destruction
The CEO of CAM, Sacha Roytman Dratwa, stated: “‘From the river to the sea’ is a slogan created with the sole vision of destroying the national homeland of the Jewish people. It is genocidal in intent and meaning.”
The Oversight Board noted that “From the river to the sea” carries different meanings depending on the context. While rooted in Palestinian protests and referenced in Hamas’ 2017 charter, the phrase also appeared in Israel’s Likud party platform in 1977. The Board determined that the phrase itself is not inherently harmful or violent.
Pamela San Martin, co-chair of the Oversight Board, stated: “There has been an unacceptable and deeply disturbing rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia. … Social media companies have a clear responsibility to ensure they do not fan the flames of hate.” She emphasized the importance of context, saying: “Simply removing political speech is not a solution.”
After Hamas’ October 7 attacks on Israel, the number of posts using the phrase increased significantly. However, the Oversight Board reported that research did not find these posts directly inciting violence or supporting terrorism.
The US Constitution’s First Amendment protects controversial speech, including “From the river to the sea,” from government censorship. However, private companies like Meta can set their own content rules and are not obligated to allow all speech. Platforms such as TikTok and Facebook, and institutions such as universities and private companies, often implement stricter regulations, banning expressions that the government permits.
Arsen Ostrovsky, human rights attorney and CEO of the Israel-based International Legal Forum, praised Meta as one of the leading platforms in combating terror-related material and antisemitic content, including Holocaust distortion, and recognizing the misuse of “Zionist” as a proxy for hate speech.
“It is therefore all the more puzzling and bewildering that they would now deem that the phrase ‘From the river to the sea’ does not necessarily constitute hate speech,” he said.
“There can be no equivocation that this phrase, especially in the wake of October 7, is a genocidal call for the elimination of the Jewish state. The fact that some might interpret it differently is irrelevant. Its vast interpretation has come to mean a rallying-call for the destruction of Israel and used to incite violence against Jews abroad, especially on campuses in America. In deeming that not to necessarily be the case, Meta is essentially legitimizing calls for the destruction of Israel and abetting the incitement to violence against Jews,” said Ostrovsky.
He noted that this decision could put Meta in violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, “which explicitly outlaws ‘incitement to genocide’ as a war crime, as well as federal anti-terrorism laws in the United States, which may subject Meta to both criminal prosecution and civil litigation.”
“We need to recognize also that the surge of antisemitic violence abroad, especially on campuses in America, has not occurred in a vacuum. It has been the direct result of a pervasive discourse, demonizing Israel and calls for the elimination of the Jewish state, often under the guise of purported support for Palestinian rights,” he explained.
“I would hope that Meta urgently reconsiders its position and deems that the phrase ‘From the river to the sea’ is indeed a form of virulent hate speech,” said Ostrovsky.
Attorneys Dr. Assaf Derri and Eyal Rifer argued that Meta’s decision to permit content with the slogan “From the river to the sea” conflicts with international incitement and hate speech laws.
“Regarding dual-meaning speech, the law must consider the context and intent behind the speech. In this case, the consistent use of the slogan by groups with a history of violence against Israel and Jews makes the genocidal intent clear. Social media platforms should balance free speech with preventing incitement to violence by drawing the line at speech that directly calls for the destruction of a protected group. “From the river to the sea” crosses that line and should be prohibited,” they asserted.
An expert on the Middle East, international law, and human rights law, attorney Yifa Segal emphasized that the US offers broader protections for free speech, even when it involves hate speech, compared to other Western countries.
“The big question here is: What does American law say about a call for genocide?” Segal said.
“If there was a call for genocide against Native Americans, African Americans, or Palestinians, would such a policy be allowed socially, legally, or constitutionally? I think we all know the answer to that: No. Meta’s decision to look at it as anything other than a call for genocide reflects an economic interest, while many users from the Arab world, antisemites, and neo-Nazis joyfully embrace this genocidal slogan,” she told The Media Line.
“Allowing a call for genocide against Jews can only be described as an antisemitic policy,” she said.
Segal also criticized the immunity given to social media platforms: “These platforms benefit from a type of immunity for the content they host. It’s long overdue for American lawmakers to rethink this blanket immunity. There have been attempts to hold these platforms accountable for promoting violence or hatred, but their immunity always shields them.”
“The American public needs to cry out against this immunity, and it’s time to change that reality,” concluded Segal.
In response to Meta’s decision, Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt stated that the ADL also considered the slogan “From the river to the sea” a form of hate speech.
“It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the entirety of the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the forced removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland,” Greenblatt said in a statement.
The ADL noted that this phrase makes members of the Jewish and pro-Israel communities feel unsafe and marginalized. “There are many ways to advocate for Palestinian justice and rights, including a Palestinian state, without resorting to using this hateful phrase, which denies the right of the State of Israel to exist.”
Greenblatt noted recent polling which shows that many college-aged Americans are unaware of the geographic implications of the phrase “From the river to the sea,” with nearly 70% changing their views after receiving further explanation. A study by the Chicago Project on Security and Threats found that “66% of Jewish college students understand the pro-Palestinian protest chant … to mean the expulsion and genocide of Israeli Jews,” while only 14% of Muslim students share this interpretation. Additionally, 62% of Jewish students who understand the phrase this way report feeling afraid. Among all students polled, 26% interpreted the phrase to mean the expulsion or genocide of Israeli Jews, Greenblatt reported.
“This article was originally published in The www.jpost.com“
