January, 26 2021, 11:00pm EDT

Thousands of Human Rights Activists, Scholars, and Cultural Figures Sign Open Letter Calling on Facebook to Allow Users to Hold Israeli Government Accountable
Facebook should refuse to cooperate with those building walls to keep people apart.
WASHINGTON
From across the globe, hundreds of activists, intellectuals and artists launched an open letter calling on Facebook to ensure that any amendments to its hate speech policy keep all people safe and connected. The petition garnered over 14,500 signatures in its first 24 hours.
Led by 24 organizations, the global campaign "Facebook, we need to talk" began in response to an inquiry by Facebook to assess if critical conversations that use the term "Zionist" fall within the rubric of hate speech as per Facebook's Community Standards. Facebook may make a decision as soon as the end of February 2021. Zionism is a political ideology and movement that emerged in the 19th century and led to the founding of the state of Israel on Palestinian land; It has been deeply contested since its conception, including within the Jewish community.
Notable human rights activists and cultural figures such as Hanan Ashrawi, Norita Cortinas, Wallace Shawn and Peter Gabriel have signed the petition, which notes that if Facebook restricts the usage of the word "Zionist," it would prevent Palestinians from talking about their daily lives, shield the Israeli government from accountability for human rights violations, and do nothing to make Jewish people safer from antisemitism.
"We are deeply concerned about Facebook's proposed revision of its hate speech policy to consider "Zionist" as a proxy for 'Jew' or 'Jewish,'" the petition reads. "The proposed policy would too easily mischaracterize conversations about Zionists -- and by extension, Zionism -- as inherently antisemitic, harming Facebook users and undermining efforts to dismantle real antisemitism and all forms of racism, extremism and oppression."
This attempt to stifle conversations about Zionist political ideology and Zionist policies -- both of which have real implications for Palestinian and Israeli people, as well as Jewish and Palestinian people around the world -- is part of an emerging pattern of political censorship by the Israeli government and some of its supporters. The most prominent example of these efforts to shield the Israeli government from accountability is the current campaign to impose the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism on campuses and civil society, and to codify it in government legislation. The IHRA definition conflates antisemitism with holding the Israeli government accountable for rights violations, stifling protected political speech that is necessary for healthy, open discussions about foreign policy and human rights.
After 12 hours the petition already had thousands of signers, including: Atilio Boron, Judith Butler, Michael Chabon, Noam Chomsky, Julie Christie, Richard Falk, Amos Goldberg, Marc Lamont Hill, Adnan Jubran, Ronnie Kasrils, Elias Khoury, Karol Cariola, Ken Loach, Miriam Margloyses, Ilan Pappe, Vijay Prashad, Prabir Purkayastha, Rima Berns-McGown, Jessica Tauane, Einat Weizman and Cornel West. (See facebookweneedtotalk.org/petition-text/english for a complete list of initial signatories.)
The campaign was launched by 7amleh - The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, Palestine Legal, MPower Change, Jewish Voice for Peace, Independent Jewish Voices Canada, Eyewitness Palestine, BDS National Committee, American Muslims for Palestine and Adalah Justice Project. (See below for a complete list of cosponsors.)
Rabbi Alissa Wise, Deputy Director of Jewish Voice for Peace: "If Facebook decides to add "Zionist" to its hate speech policies, it will be in order to shield the Israeli government from accountability. This is not an earnest effort seeking to dismantle antisemitism on its platforms. Facebook should be focusing on those involved in white nationalist groups inciting violence, not Palestinians seeking to share their experiences living under Zionism with the world."
Lau Barrios, Campaign Manager at MPower Change: "This move by Facebook would represent them actively siding against Palestinians and those fighting in solidarity alongside them for Palestinian liberation. It would also set a dangerous precedent around Big Tech's ability to further target our movements and harm marginalized communities for sharing their lived experiences. Facebook must stop harming and silencing Palestinians living under apartheid and start cracking down on white supremacist groups -- like the Proud Boys -- that have used their platform as a recruitment site and to push anti-Semitic, anti-Black, and Islamophobic rhetoric for years. That would require looking in the mirror. We hope they finally do so -- and listen to Palestinians and the most impacted communities."
Nadim Nashif, Executive Director of 7amleh - The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media: "Suppressing critical discussion of Zionism and Zionists on the Facebook platform would be a political act that would severely restrict Palestinians and human rights defenders from communicating about the history and the lived reality of Palestinians."
Liz Jackson, Senior Staff Attorney at Palestine Legal: "The policy Facebook is considering would be yet another tool to silence Palestinians and their allies who are trying to tell the world about the impacts of Zionism on their daily lives. Every year Palestine Legal hears from hundreds of people in the U.S. -- Palestinians and their allies -- who are censored, punished and harassed for speaking out for Palestinian freedom. The vast majority are accused of antisemitism because they criticized the political positions of Zionists, in defense of Palestinian lives. Facebook must resist this censorship, not reinforce it."
To read the full text of the open letter, list of signatories, and background about the campaign, visit facebookweneedtotalk.org. For interviews with petition organizers or signatories, contact Sonya E. Myerson-Knox at sonya@jvp.org or 929-290-0317.
Campaign background
We all want to connect. And social media can be a powerful tool to help us get past walls and share our stories, grow our networks and stand up for one another. But some politicians and governments are trying to turn these necessary guardrails into walls that keep us apart, generating fear and keeping us divided so they can avoid being held accountable for their actions.
Right now, Facebook is reaching out to stakeholders to ask if critical conversations that use the term "Zionist" fall within the rubric of hate speech as per Facebook's Community Standards. Basically, Facebook is assessing if "Zionist" is being used as a proxy for "Jewish people or Israelis" in attacks on its platform.
Facebook may make a decision as soon as the end of February 2021.
This move is part of a concerning pattern of the Israeli government and its supporters pressuring Facebook and other social media platforms to expand their hate speech policies to include speech critical of Israel and Zionism - and falsely claiming this would help fight antisemitism. They are hoping that by mischaracterizing critical use of the term "Zionists" as anti-Jewish, they can avoid accountability for its policies and actions that violate Palestinian human rights. Such a move would do nothing to address antisemitism, especially the violent antisemitism of right-wing movements and states -- which, as recent events have shown, is the source of the most tangible threats to Jewish lives.
Attempts to stifle conversations about Zionist political ideology and Zionist policies carried out by state actors -- both of which have real implications for Palestinian and Israeli people, as well as Jewish and Palestinian people around the world -- are part of an emerging pattern of political censorship by the Israeli government and some of its supporters.
The most prominent example of these efforts to shield the Israeli government from accountability is the current campaign to impose the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism on campuses and civil society, and to codify it in government legislation.
If Facebook does move to restrict use of the word Zionist, this would block important conversations on the world's largest social media platform, harm Facebook users attempting to connect across space and difference, and deprive Palestinians of a critical venue for expressing their political viewpoints to the world. Palestinians need to be able to talk about Zionism and Zionists in order to share their family stories and daily lived experience with the world. That language is essential to clearly distinguishing between Judaism and Jewish people, on the one hand, and the State actors responsible for human rights violations against Palestinians, on the other.
Jewish Voice for Peace is a national, grassroots organization inspired by Jewish tradition to work for a just and lasting peace according to principles of human rights, equality, and international law for all the people of Israel and Palestine. JVP has over 200,000 online supporters, over 70 chapters, a youth wing, a Rabbinic Council, an Artist Council, an Academic Advisory Council, and an Advisory Board made up of leading U.S. intellectuals and artists.
(510) 465-1777LATEST NEWS
In 'Most Serious Test Yet' of Ceasefire Deal, Trump Bombs Iran After Strike on Cargo Ship in Strait
The US attack came as Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a trilateral agreement with Israel and Lebanon, which Israeli forces have bombed and occupied throughout the Iran War.
Jun 26, 2026
US President Donald Trump resumed bombing Iran on Friday, a day after an Iranian attack on a cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz, elevating concerns about the future of a ceasefire agreement just as Israel and Lebanon signed a related deal.
The Trump administration—which partnered with Israel to launch an illegal war on Iran in late February—and the Iranian government agreed on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) earlier this month. On Thursday, Iran attacked the Singapore-flagged commercial vessel, the Ever Lovely, in the strait, a key trade waterway.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran shot at least four One Way Attack Drones at Ships transversing the Strait of Hormuz," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform Friday morning. "One of the Drones solidly hit the upper deck of a large and very expensive Cargo Carrying Ship. Damage was done, but the Ship was able to proceed on its way. We knocked down three other Drones. Obviously, this is a foolish violation of our Ceasefire Agreement."
Responding on the social media network X, Ebrahim Azizi, who heads the Iranian Parliament's Commission on National Security and Foreign Policy, said: "The reality in the Persian Gulf has changed. The Strait of Hormuz is governed by Iran, so: Respect the rules. Use secure routes. Do not mistake control for escalation. If you do not learn the rules, the Iranian armed forces will teach them to you. This is not a violation of the ceasefire; it is ceasefire management."
Later Friday, US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that "as a powerful response to yesterday's attack on a commercial ship that was transiting the Strait of Hormuz," American aircraft "struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites."
"The unwarranted aggression against commercial shipping by Iranian forces clearly violated the ceasefire," CENTCOM said. "Furthermore, Iran's dangerous behavior undermined freedom of navigation as commerce increasingly flows through the vital international trade corridor."
"CENTCOM forces continue to provide safe passage coordination and support to commercial vessels transiting the strait," Central Command added. "The US military remains present and vigilant to ensure all aspects of the agreement with Iran are adhered to, obeyed, and in full force and effect."
Flagging CENTCOM's announcement, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) pointed out that "this marks the first publicly acknowledged US military action against Iran since the recent ceasefire agreement, potentially representing the most serious test yet of the fragile understanding between Tehran and Washington."
"Notably, the alleged violation of the MOU resulted in military retaliation," NIAC added, "contra coordination via the executive mechanism that was supposed to be established to monitor implementation of the deal."
Al Jazeera reported late Friday that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) released a statement saying it has responded with fire:
The IRGC said its Navy targeted locations in the region where US forces are deployed, without specifying where or providing additional details.
It condemned the US strikes on Iran, saying Washington, "as always, violated its commitments and launched an airstrike” on the Iranian coast.
"According to Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding, Islamabad has arrangements for controlling traffic in the Strait of Hormuz with the Islamic Republic of Iran," the IRGC said.
"However, the US, by inciting various parties, sought to violate this commitment, which was met with the necessary response," the statement continued. "If the aggression is repeated, our response will be more extensive."
As for the administration's supposedly diplomatic efforts, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the United States, Israel, and Lebanon—which Israeli forces have been bombing throughout the Iran War—had signed a trilateral framework that he claimed "builds a realistic path out of endless conflict."
"This agreement establishes a clear and structured process to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty, disarm Hezbollah, and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure, and enable Israel to return to its borders once that threat to its citizens is removed," Rubio said. "It also creates a trilateral Military Coordination Group for Lebanon (MCG4L), facilitated by the United States, allowing the two sides to implement this framework. For Lebanon, this framework provides a genuine pathway out of a long crisis. For Israel, it creates a verifiable path to removing the persistent threat on its northern border."
The framework was met with protests in the Lebanese capital. Lebanon's National News Agency reported that Hezbollah supporters gathered on motorcycles in Beirut to oppose the deal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Good News for Clean Air' as Court Rejects Trump EPA Bid to Ditch Coal Plant Soot Rule
"The court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country," said one advocate.
Jun 26, 2026
A federal appeals court on Friday rejected the US Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to scrap a Biden-era rule tightening limits on harmful soot pollution spewed from coal-fired power plants and other sources.
In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dealt a blow to President Donald Trump's deregulatory agenda by leaving intact a national soot standard enacted in 2024 that lowers the amount of fine particulate matter from power plants, factories, and vehicles from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter.
"Soot, made up of tiny toxic particles that lodge deep in the lungs, results in severe health harms, including premature death, and comes from sources like vehicle exhaust pipes, power plants, and factories," the legal advocacy group Earthjustice explained.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Administrator Lee Zeldin last year asked the appellate court to invalidate the soot rule, claiming that the Biden administration exceeded its authority and failed to take into account the economic cost of implementing the policy.
“Clean air is not a luxury. We are thrilled these vital air quality standards have been upheld by a federal court,” said Patrice Simms, vice president of Healthy Communities at Earthjustice. “The 2024 soot standard is a critical advancement for public health, projected to save thousands of lives every year. Lee Zeldin’s EPA must stop catering to polluters and must instead fulfill its mission to protect public health. The time for implementing the 2024 soot standard is now.”
Clean Air Task Force senior director of legal advocacy Shaun Goho also welcomed the ruling, saying: "Fine particulate matter standards provide critical public health protections. The court correctly rejected EPA’s about-face on the need for a stronger standard."
Katie Huffing, executive director of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, called Friday's decision "a win for public health."
“Every day in practice, nurses witness and treat conditions made worse by soot pollution," she said. "From asthma exacerbations and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to heart disease and preterm birth, nurses see the real-world health implications of toxic air pollution."
"The science shows stronger limits to reduce dangerous soot pollution provide significant health benefits for Americans, especially for those most vulnerable and those exposed to higher levels of particulate matter pollution," Huffing added. "We now urge EPA to fully implement the strengthened standard to ensure those health benefits are realized.”
Noha Haggag, senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, said that “today’s federal court decision is good news for clean air in America and for the millions of people harmed by deadly soot."
“Soot can cause asthma attacks, lung cancer, and premature deaths," Haggag added. "The court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Unhinged Trump Calls US Progressives Communist 'Animals' Who Will 'Close Your Churches' and 'Kill Your People'
The president complained about primary victories of progressives backed by New York City's democratic socialist mayor, who this week secured a rent freeze for a million units and put $15 million toward gender-affirming care.
Jun 26, 2026
After a series of electoral victories for democratic socialists and legal blows to President Donald Trump's authoritarian agenda this week, the Republican on Friday ranted to a Christian conference that progressives—whom he called "hardcore, godless communists"—are "the most serious threat to our country since its existence, in my opinion, 250 years ago."
Trump previewed his nearly 50-minute speech to the Faith and Freedom Coalition's policy conference with a lengthy post on his Truth Social platform in which he wrote: "I'd be the Greatest Communist in History. I'd give free rent, free houses, free food, everything is free. Unfortunately, after two or three years, the Country where this is taking place would fail. It always does, and then you'll start living in squalor. There will be no food, there will be no housing, there will be no Military, there will be no nothing."
In a signal that he was specifically targeting the left flank of the Democratic Party, Trump said: "They're animals! In many cases, not smart but, in some cases, they are. It's easy for them to get followers because they make promises that they know they can't keep, and the Dumocrats aren't fighting back. In many ways, they're allowing them to go their own way. They’re afraid they will lose their Election, they're afraid of conflict. They’re not smart enough or tough enough to fight this plague."
"These are not social Dumocrats, these are hardcore, godless Communists," the president continued. "Isn't it ironic, we're celebrating a very important Birthday, and instead of speaking about Christ, Freedom, and Victories of all different kinds, we're speaking about yet another threat to the Foundations of America. These ruthless Communists will attack all Religions but, in particular, Christianity—They always do. All Communist Countries attack Religions violently."
"As you know, we recently struck Nigeria, and largely ended the slaughter of their Great Christian population," he added. "They know that if they go further, the attack will be far greater and, in that, they don't want to get involved. I am saving Christians throughout the World, even though we are not in those various Countries, by hitting these Terrorists violently and hard. They will close your Churches, they will kill your people. This is what they're about."
During the actual speech, Trump specifically took aim at "the communists elected in New York City recently," who he claimed "want to completely destroy the traditional American way of life," an apparent jab at a slate of candidates who won their Democratic primaries earlier this week: Claire Valdez in New York’s 7th Congressional District, Brad Lander in the 10th District, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in the 13th District.
By contrast, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a democratic socialist who ran for president in 2016 and 2020, called the trio's victories proof that Americans "are sick and tired of status quo politics" and "want to end the corrupt campaign finance system, which enables billionaires to spend huge amounts of money to elect candidates who will represent their interests and go to war against working-class people."
All three campaigned on progressive policies including more affordable housing, Medicare for All, stronger union protections, and an end to US military support for Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestinians—and they were backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who continued delivering on his campaign promises on Thursday, when the NYC Rent Guidelines Board approved a two-year rent freeze affecting roughly a million apartments.
While Trump complained about that NYC development in his Friday speech, others have celebrated it. Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, which advocates for universal single-payer healthcare, said that "the real threat Zohran Mamdani poses is to the career politicians who've spent decades making promises, then making excuses, then telling people to vote harder next time. He's showing people that elected officials can actually do things that help them in their everyday lives."
Shortly before Trump's swipe at the New York progressives running for Congress, he claimed that left-leaning Democrats "want to resume the transgender 'mutilization' of our children." In addition to attacking lifesaving gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth, the president has restricted abortion access and signed legislation that's already led to millions losing insurance coverage.
Meanwhile, Mamdani on Friday announced a $15 million plan to expand access to gender-affirming care for youth and adults across the city, which includes a direct care access fund, a call and text line, and funding for research. He said that "as the federal government attacks transgender people and attempts to intimidate patients, families, and providers, New York City is stepping up."
Despite Trump's claim that the Democratic Party establishment isn't fighting back against ascendant progressives and democratic socialists, Axios reporting from Thursday suggests centrist Democrats are, in fact, gearing up to do so—and over a dozen have endorsed the "Promise to America" manifesto, emphasizing their support for capitalism, "fiscal discipline," and law enforcement.
Ripping the manifesto, D'Arrigo said: "'Centrism' is just performative compromise devoid of critical thinking, policy, or ideology. It’s a political vehicle that gives permission to do nothing in service of protecting a status quo that benefits large corporate donors and special interest groups who fund both parties."
In addition to serving the corporate interests that bankrolled his return to power, Trump has also served himself during his second term, growing the wealth of his family by billions of dollars and even accepting a luxury plane from Qatar.
Trump has also made a range of other moves that demonstrate his contempt for US law—from pardoning donors and other supporters, including insurrectionists who stormed the US Capitol, to weaponizing the Department of Justice against his enemies, to carrying out multiple illegal military actions, such as his invasion of Venezuela and abduction of its president, the ongoing war on Iran, and deadly bombings of boats his administration claims were trafficking drugs.
The president's violent and authoritarian agenda has faced some setbacks in court this week: Federal judges ruled against the administration's policy pushing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests at courthouses, as well as a pair of Trump executive orders that attacked voting rights.
However, those cases are ongoing, plus another federal judge issued lengthy prison sentences for a group of activists who protested outside an ICE detention center and were falsely accused by the administration of being members of a nonexistent "North Texas Antifa Cell." Trump has also continued his assault on voting rights this week, scrapping plans to sign a bipartisan housing bill in a bid to pressure Congress to pass the so-called Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.
With the November elections just over four months away, Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch, also took Trump's Friday Truth Social comments as a threat, saying, "This sounds a lot to me like Trump laying the groundwork to steal the midterms."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


