Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is facing backlash for its decision to allow the continued use of the phrase "from the river to the sea" on its platforms—a phrase widely regarded by the Jewish community as antisemitic and a call for the elimination of Israel. The decision came from Meta’s Oversight Board, a body that claims independence but is entirely funded by Meta, raising significant concerns about the impartiality of its rulings.
Oversight Board’s Questionable Independence and Bias
The Oversight Board, described as a group of independent experts, academics, and lawyers, is tasked with navigating complex content decisions on Meta’s platforms. However, this so-called independence is questionable at best, as the board’s operations are fully bankrolled by Meta. This financial dependency casts a shadow over the board's recent ruling that the phrase "from the river to the sea" does not inherently violate the company’s policies against hate speech, incitement to violence, or support for dangerous organizations.
The phrase in question is a slogan often associated with Palestinian nationalistic ambitions that envision the entire territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea as Palestinian, effectively negating the existence of Israel. Despite its clear implications, the board downplayed the phrase's hateful connotations, labeling it as a legitimate expression of political aspiration for Palestinian statehood, equality, and solidarity.
The @Meta Oversight Board released its decision that the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which calls to dismantle Israel, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland, should not be considered hate. We reject this short-sighted decision. Here's why🧵 pic.twitter.com/GDlHw0IFdw
— ADL (@ADL) September 4, 2024
The Dangerous Implications of Meta’s Stance
Meta’s spokesperson, Corey Chambliss, defended the board's findings, highlighting Meta's commitment to balancing free expression with safety. However, this balancing act appears dangerously tilted. Jewish advocacy groups and other observers have decried the ruling, arguing that it provides cover for antisemitism and the glorification of violence against Israelis.
The decision has sparked a broader debate on the boundaries of acceptable speech, especially as Meta grapples with the fallout from the Israel-Gaza conflict. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a brutal attack on Israeli civilians, an act that many on Meta’s platforms disturbingly celebrated. This attack, and the subsequent wave of pro-Palestinian propaganda, has underscored the role social media plays in shaping and spreading narratives. The decision to leave posts with the phrase "from the river to the sea" unchallenged only fuels these dangerous fires.
Meta’s content moderation under fire for allowing "River to the Sea" posts.
— CTech (@Calcalistech) September 4, 2024
Oversight board decision ignites controversy over political speech and online safety.https://t.co/9jY1XvbeVQ
Coordinated Propaganda and Digital Warfare
The oversight board’s ruling neglects the reality of coordinated disinformation campaigns that have flourished on Meta’s platforms. Many accounts pushing pro-Palestinian content are not grassroots voices but are part of organized efforts backed by entities linked to Qatar and Iran. These operations aim to drown out fact-based discussions and overwhelm social media with content that vilifies Israel and Jewish communities globally. The digital onslaught extends to the misrepresentation of casualty figures and the justification of attacks on Israeli civilians, all under the guise of resistance.
A Disregard for the Truth and Context
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is not just a benign call for rights or statehood; its origins and usage are deeply rooted in a desire to erase Israel from the map. The phrase, which in its original Arabic has historically been tied to violent, xenophobic, and genocidal ambitions against Jews, dates back to the early 20th century Pan-Arab movement. Leaders such as Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser and Syria’s Shukri al-Quwatli once echoed these sentiments as part of broader efforts to deny the Jewish people their right to a homeland. Today, the phrase continues to be wielded not just as a rallying cry but as a weapon against the very existence of the state of Israel and its people.
Of course it is you muppet. What do you think it actually means? River to river, Palestine will be Arab
— Zvi צבי #IStandWithIsrael 🇮🇱 (@AmYsraelChai) April 18, 2024
A Platform for Hate Speech Under the Guise of Solidarity
In its review, Meta’s Oversight Board examined three cases where the phrase was used on the platform. Despite user appeals, the content remained, with the board concluding that the posts did not explicitly target Jews or Israelis with violence or exclusion, thereby sidestepping the hate speech guidelines. This decision is not just about a single phrase but represents a broader failure to address the weaponization of language against a vulnerable community.
Meta has come under fire from both sides of the conflict: Jewish groups accuse the platform of enabling a surge in antisemitic content, while pro-Palestinian activists allege censorship of their political views. However, the evidence of widespread manipulation of these platforms by actors aligned with Hamas and other anti-Israel groups suggests that Meta's policies are not merely neutral arbiters of free speech but are being exploited to spread harmful and incendiary content.
This is ridiculous.
— Nile Gardiner (@NileGardiner) September 4, 2024
'From the river to the sea' posts don't glorify Hamas, says Facebook oversight board https://t.co/RsIDl0NyTn
A Call to Action: Demand Accountability and Truth
The decision to allow "from the river to the sea" as acceptable speech is a glaring example of how social media platforms can become unwitting or complicit players in the dissemination of hate. This ruling not only emboldens those who seek Israel’s destruction but also sets a dangerous precedent for how hate speech is defined and tolerated under the banner of free expression. Meta must be held accountable for the real-world impact of its platform’s policies, especially when those policies are shaped by a board whose independence is compromised by financial ties to the company.
For Meta, and indeed all social media giants, the challenge is clear: they must differentiate between genuine calls for human rights and the use of coded language that promotes violence and erasure. Anything less is not just a disservice to public discourse; it is a direct threat to the safety and dignity of people worldwide.
