“From the river to the sea”, a positive phrase according to Facebook parent

“From the river to the sea” regularly shouted by college rioters who support Palestinian, anti-Israel terrorists like Hamas, is the clearest example of hate speech. But, according to Meta (Facebook’s parent), it is not. It is not, as they say, because it also means other things like “a political call for solidarity, equal rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people, and to end the war in Gaza”. So, they excuse the “encouraging and legitimizing antisemitism and the violent elimination of Israel and its people” because it also includes a message of ‘self-determination‘.

You know, as they say, you can’t make this stuff up.

This is either the height of ignorance or the height of selective political censorship. It is not a decision on free speech. You cannot excuse this obvious genocidal hate speech, yet censor others for a simple statement in support of pro-life, conservative principles, or censoring Trump assassination attempt searches. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said that he was pressured by the Biden/Harris administration to censor Americans, take down posts during COVID and the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Does Meta use these ‘both sides’ criteria before censoring Trump & other right wing voices? No, of course not. In this situation they find a less controversial ‘side’ of the phrase to excuse violent hate speech with which they politically agree. This is very clear. News stories describe these riots in which the rioters use these phrases as ‘anti-Israel protests’.  That sounds benign, I guess.

Our concerns about free speech on the internet are confirmed here.  Only politically preferred speech is free. Actual free speech means everything you say is free to be said, within legal restraints, of course. You can’t threaten people. You can’t organize a plot to kill people.  You can’t participate in human trafficking. You can’t slander or libel people.  Etc.

Meta refers to this decision as a review by ‘experts’. ‘Experts’ is a consistent narrative from Marxists. Un-elected ‘experts’, appointed by some shadowy figures with special interests, are supposed to be experts we can trust and whose decisions we must follow.

Why?. Well, because they are ‘experts’.

In this country our experts are controlled by the public. Elected officials are our expert decisions makers. They are advised by subject matter experts, but our elected officials make the decisions. If we don’t like their decisions, we can vote them out. Experts don’t get voted out. They get supported by special interests, and the public has to follow, or else.

Meta Oversight Board decisions “are considered binding”.

This is what Meta’s Oversight Board is and who is on it.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) notes on its website that the “from the river to the sea” phrase inherently calls for the removal of the state of Israel.

The Anti-Defamation League says the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” fundamentally calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. “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 dismantling of the Jewish state. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland“.

The ADL responded specifically to the Meta board’s announcement in its own statement Wednesday morning, saying the group “respectfully disagrees” with the decision. “From the river to the sea” has been a rallying cry for anti-Israel protesters across the U.S. and the world amid the war in Gaza. “Usage of this phrase has the effect of making members of the Jewish and pro-Israel community feel unsafe and ostracized. 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,” the group wrote.

If an aggrieved party of the left said that something stated on line made them feel “unsafe and ostracized“, do you think that would be censored? Of course, it would, and has been.

One bright spot in this disgrace, there were apparently “a minority of the board disagreed with the decision“. So the entire board are not idiots, a good thing I guess.

More From The Washington Post (subscription required):