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
Thanedar Introduces 7 Articles of Impeachment Against Trump to Halt 'Authoritarian Power Grab'
"Always interesting to see how primary challenges affect members' behavior, though usually it's a bit more subtle than this," one journalist said of the Michigan Democrat.
Apr 28, 2025
Faced with two primary challengers and growing public support for impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump a historic third time, Congressman Shri Thanedar on Monday filed seven articles of impeachment against the second-term Republican.
"Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unfit to serve as president and represents a clear and present danger to our nation's constitution and our democracy," Thanedar (D-Mich.) said in a statement. "His unlawful actions have subverted the justice system, violated the separation of powers, and placed personal power and self-interest above public service. We cannot wait for more damage to be done. Congress must act."
Thanedar explained the seven articles of impeachment included in his resolution in a brief video, which he shared on social media.
As a statement from the congressman's office details, Trump's alleged constitutional violations are:
- Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Executive Power: Including denial of due process, unlawful deportations, defiance of court orders, and misuse of the Department of Justice.
- Usurpation of Appropriations Power: For dismantling congressionally established agencies and impounding federal funds.
- Abuse of Trade Powers and International Aggression: Including imposing economically damaging tariffs and threatening military invasion against sovereign nations.
- Violation of First Amendment Rights: Through retaliatory actions against critics, media, and attorneys exercising constitutionally protected speech.
- Creation of an Unlawful Office: By establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and unlawfully empowering Elon Musk to unilaterally violate the Constitution.
- Bribery and Corruption: Involving dismissing criminal cases, soliciting foreign emoluments, and extortionate settlements for personal and political gain.
- Tyrannical Overreach: Seeking to consolidate unchecked power, erode civil liberties, and defy constitutional limits on presidential authority.
Earlier this month, Thanedar called for Trump's impeachment over his administration's failure to comply with a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling about facilitating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a prison in El Salvador to the United States.
"We must take action now," he said at the time. "Donald Trump and members of his administration are deporting people with limited evidence and no due process to horrific megaprisons in a foreign nation. As a member of Congress, I have a responsibility to uphold the checks and balances that safeguard the integrity of our democracy and prevent a slide into authoritarianism. This must be a red line. Otherwise, we risk Donald Trump continuing to defy the Constitution in his own interest, rather than the interest of the nation."
"Enough is enough," Thanedar declared. "We can not allow this obvious authoritarian power grab to continue. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for the Constitution and the American people and join the call for impeachment."
While Thanedar had expressed support for impeachment prior to Monday, his resolution came as a second primary challenger announced his candidacy for Michigan's 13th Congressional District. State Rep. Donavan McKinney (D-11) joined former state Sen. Adam Hollier (D-2), who has twice tried to oust the congressman and is trying to do so again next year.
McKinney is backed by the progressive group Justice Democrats, whose executive director Alexandra Rojas said in a statement earlier Monday that "Democratic voters in the face of unprecedented attacks on our livelihoods and liberties are fed up with a Democratic Party overrun by do-nothing career politicians who are totally unequipped to lead in this moment. Donavan represents the future the Democratic Party should be fighting: working-class people taking our power back from multimillionaires to deliver for everyday people."
After Thanedar announced the impeachment resolution, Business Insider senior politics reporter Bryan Metzger said on social media Monday that it is "always interesting to see how primary challenges affect members' behavior, though usually it's a bit more subtle than this."
Recent polling has found that a majority of voters disapprove of how Trump is handling his job and would support a historic third impeachment. In response to one survey, Free Speech for People's Alexandra Flores-Quilty—whose group is leading a nonpartisan Impeach Trump Again campaign—declared Friday that "it's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power."
Trump is the only president to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives—though in both cases during his first term, he was acquitted by the Senate. Republicans now narrowly control both chambers of Congress.
While Republicans haven't yet signaled a willingness to stand against the president, U.S. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) told attendees of an early April anti-Trump rally that "within the next 30 days, I'm bringing articles of impeachment."
Axiosnoted Monday that "Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) also privately floated impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard over Signalgate."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren to Trump Treasury Chief: Did You Give Wall Street Execs Insider Info on Trade Talks?
"You owe Congress and the public an explanation for why you and other White House officials appear to be providing Wall Street insiders secret information on the tariffs," wrote Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Apr 28, 2025
Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is pressing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for answers following reports that officials inside President Donald Trump's White House have been providing Wall Street executives with advance notice about potentially market-moving trade talks with other nations, including China and India.
In a letter to Bessent dated April 25, Warren points to a Bloombergstory noting that Bessent "told a closed-door investor summit" that the "tariff standoff with China cannot be sustained by both sides and that the world's two largest economies will have to find ways to de-escalate."
The summit, which took place last Tuesday, was hosted by the Wall Street behemoth JPMorgan Chase in Washington, D.C. Bloomberg observed that the S&P 500 rose nearly 3% after Bessent's comments were leaked.
CNN additionally reported that Bessent's private assessment of the U.S.-China standoff "gave a boost to a Wall Street rally that had taken shape earlier on Tuesday, with all three major U.S. stock indexes hitting their highest levels of the day after Bessent's remarks were made public."
"Chaos, confusion, economic damage, and opportunities for corruption have become the hallmark of President Trump's rollout of his tariff policies."
Warren wrote in her letter that the JPMorgan event "was not open to the public or media" and expressed concern that Bessent "provided a room full of wealthy investors and Wall Street executives exclusive, advance tips about the administration's trade policy, potentially creating the opportunity for insider trading or other financial profiteering by well-connected friends of the administration."
"Chaos, confusion, economic damage, and opportunities for corruption have become the hallmark of President Trump's rollout of his tariff policies," Warren continued. "President Trump's opaque decision-making on tariffs and frequent, seemingly random changes of course have created a scenario where wealthy investors and well-connected corporations can get special treatment, receiving inside information they can use to time the market, or obtaining tariff exemptions that are worth billions of dollars—while Main Street, small businesses, and America's families are left to clean up the damage."
"You owe Congress and the public an explanation for why you and other White House officials appear to be providing Wall Street insiders secret information on the tariffs, while withholding that information from the public," the senator added, demanding that Bessent answer a series of questions—including who attended the event and how much time passed between his private remarks and press reports on the event.
Warren sent the letter a day after Fox Business correspondent Charles Gasparino reported that unnamed officials inside the Trump White House have been "alerting Wall Street execs they are nearing an agreement in principle on trade with India," heightening concerns that the administration is effectively encouraging insider trading.
Trump told reporters Friday that he "can't imagine" anyone in his administration tipping off Wall Street executives about nonpublic trade developments.
"I have very honorable people, that I can say," the president said. "So I can't even imagine it."
On Monday, a group of congressional Democrats warned the White House of "potential violations of federal ethics and insider trading laws by individuals close to the president with access to nonpublic information."
The Democratic lawmakers pointed specifically to a spike in the volume of call options—essentially bets that a stock price will rise—shortly before Trump announced a partial tariff pause earlier this month.
"We therefore urgently request a full accounting of the periodic transaction reports for all senior White House and executive branch employees since the start of the administration, and we ask for your commitment to transmit all reports to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) to be made public, as was done during the first Trump administration," the lawmakers wrote Monday. "By failing to take these steps, the administration would be withholding critical information from the American people regarding potential violations of federal ethics and insider trading laws."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The American People Do Not Want Oligarchy': Poll Shows Trump's Approval at Historic Low at 100-Day Mark
A whopping 72% of respondents said that they believe it is "likely" that Trump's policies will cause an economic recession in the short term.
Apr 28, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump nears the 100-day mark of his second term, a recent ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll shows that his approval rating now sits at a historic low of 39%, a nadir that prompted one prominent progressive to remark that the negative public sentiment comes as "the resistance is just beginning."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has mounted a highly successful "Fighting Oligarchy" tour across America in recent months, highlighted the findings of the poll on Sunday and wrote: "The American people do not want oligarchy, authoritarianism, or attacks on Social Security, Medicaid, or the VA," speaking of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
The poll, which conducted a random national sample of 2,464 adults in English and Spanish between April 18-22, found discontent among voters when it comes to Trump's handling of multiple policies issues, particularly on the economy.
A whopping 72% of respondents said that they believe it is "likely" that Trump's policies—such as sweeping tariffs—will cause an economic recession in the short term.
What's more, 53% say the economy is worse since Trump took office and 62% said that the prices for things they rely on have gone up.
Trump's overall approval on immigration policy, one of his core campaign issues, is also less than 50%. When it comes to his handling of immigration—an area where Trump has moved to roll back birthright citizenship, deported U.S. citizens, and invoked a rarely used wartime authority to deport Venezuelan nationals to a megaprison in El Salvador, among other measures—his approval rating sits at 46%, according to the ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
Additionally, over 55% of Americans say Trump is "going too far" when it comes to seeking to expand the power of the presidency, closing federal agencies, laying off federal employees to reduce the size of government, and taking measures agains this political foes.
Overall, his approval among Americans has dipped from 45% positive in February to 39% positive on the eve of the 100-day mark, which is on Tuesday.
According to The Washington Post's analysis of the poll results, Trump's approval at 100 days in both of his terms is lower than any other president's at or near the 100-day mark "since polls began." Polling data on this question stretches back to former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's (FDR) third term, per the Post, when his approval rating was at 68% at the 100-day point. ABC News' write up of the poll results says that "Trump has the lowest 100-day job approval rating of any president in the past 80 years."
Some have drawn parallels between Trump and FDR, whose first 15 weeks in office in 1933 were dominated by a push to work with Congress on economic recovery and relief for working people, the first phase of what's known as the "New Deal." However, historians have noted that in substance the two could not be more different.
In reporting piece published Monday, the Post noted that Roosevelt's push in the first 100 days led to major new laws, while Trump largely relies on executive order.
"Roosevelt spent an awful lot of time trying to craft constitutional justifications in legislation, and draft it in such a way that the courts might accept it," Anthony Badger, a historian and author of FDR: The First Hundred Days, told the Post. "He wasn't trying to do it by executive order."
The historian and author Eric Rauchway toldCNN recently that substantively Trump's policies are the "opposite of the New Deal."
Trump "seems to be taking apart regulatory mechanisms. He seems to be drawing down public investment in a variety of areas, including the arts and so forth. He seems to be, as far as I can tell, diminishing resources sent to the Social Security Administration, which of course is the central piece of the New Deal’s proto-welfare state," Racuhway told the outlet.
In a similar vein to Sanders, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote Monday that Trump's actions in his first 100 days serves as a call to mobilization and to "loudly and boldly sound the alarm."
"The U.S. Constitution is in peril. Civil and human rights are being trampled upon. The economy is in disarray," wrote Reich. "At this rate, we won't make it through the second hundred days."
Reich suggested that that answer is for Americans to speak out and urge lawmakers in Congress, both chambers of which are currently GOP-controlled, to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump.
"Americans must be mobilized into such a huge wave of anger and disgust that members of the House are compelled to impeach Trump (for the third time) and enough senators are moved to finally convict him," he concluded.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular