February, 23 2021, 11:00pm EDT

50,000+ Petition Delivered to Corporate Offices in 17 Cities Around the World Calling on Facebook to Allow Users to Hold Israeli Government Accountable
WASHINGTON
From Menlo Park to Dublin, Johannesburg to Tel Aviv-Yaffo, activists in 17 cities across the globe delivered petitions with over 54,000 signatures to Facebook corporate offices today. The petitions call on the social media giant to not include "Zionist" in its hate speech policy, as Facebook is currently considering. The COVID-safe petition delivery in New York City was live-streamed on Facebook, during a virtual petition delivery event.
Signed by leading human rights activists, academics and artists, the petition calls on Facebook to ensure that any amendments to its hate speech policy keep all people safe - and connected.
The global campaign "Facebook, we need to talk," co-sponsored by 55 organizations, 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. 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.
The petitions were delivered in-person to Facebook's US headquarters in the San Francisco Bay Area, and to their European HQ in Dublin, Ireland. Petitions were also delivered in-person to Facebook offices in: Amsterdam, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Denver, Johannesburg, London, Los Lunas, New York City, Paris, Seattle, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto, and Vancouver. In Dublin, the petition delivery also included a letter of support signed by over fifty Members of the Irish Parliament, delivered by MP Gino Kenny TD, Vice-Chair of Parliamentary Friends of Palestine.
The virtual petition delivery included live-streamed deliveries, phone and fax actions, and speeches and performances by Noura Erekat, Judith Butler, Remi Kanazi, Le Trio Joubran and Gabrielle Spears.
Judith Butler said: "As Jews, we have the choice to not be Zionist, which is the only possible just position... We refuse the argument that only Zionists are Jews - and Facebook should not claim that our criticism of Zionism is antisemitic."
Noura Erakat said: "As Palestinians, we cannot under-estimate the impact of social media in enabling us to be seen and to actually tell our story. But when I tried to share the story of how my cousin was killed by Israeli soldiers, Facebook took it down. This is why we have to fight."
Voices from petition deliveries around the world:
BRUSSELS, Dr. Anya Topolski, Another Jewish Voice: "We're here today at five Facebook offices across Europe saying loud and clear: Facebook should refuse to cooperate with those who are destroying solidarity between Jews and Palestinians. Instead, Facebook should help us to connect across differences so that, together, we can dismantle all forms of racism, which includes both antisemitism and Islamophobia, as well as all forms of bigotry used to keep us apart."
DUBLIN, Fatin Al Tamimi, Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign: "We must stand together against antisemitism! But instead, Facebook may end up preventing Palestinians from naming the ideology of the state that has colonized and oppressed us for more than seventy years. Here in Dublin, at Facebook's European headquarters, human rights campaigners are demanding that Facebook ensure that we, indigenous Palestinians and our global allies, will not be prevented from holding the Israeli government accountable for its human rights violations."
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, Eve Hershcopf, JVP-Bay Area: "As the home of the Free Speech movement and of Facebook's international headquarters, Bay Area organizations have a particular responsibility to speak up against Facebook's efforts to suppress speech critical of Zionist ideology and Israel's actions against Palestinians."
SYDNEY, Vivienne Porzsolt, Jews against the Occupation: "Here in Sydney, we join the global action to oppose Facebook's support of the efforts of the Israeli government to silence opposition to the actions of the state of Israel. Labeling it 'antisemitic' is fundamentally dishonest. Facebook certainly shouldn't undertake political censorship at the request of the Israeli government."
TEL AVIV-YAFFO, Michal Sapir, human rights activist: "Today, along with a group of Israeli activists in Tel Aviv, I'm asking Facebook to help us hold all governments, including the Israeli government, accountable. I'm asking Facebook not to censor Palestinian and other voices from telling our stories and criticizing the state."
Notable human rights activists and cultural figures such as Hanan Ashrawi, Norita Cortinas, Wallace Shawn, Alia Shawkat and Peter Gabriel have signed the petition, which garnered over 50,000 signatures in a month. The open letter 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.
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.
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 55 co-sponsors.)
Rabbi Alissa Wise, Deputy Director of Jewish Voice for Peace: "Across five continents, Facebook users brought a simple and urgent message to Facebook: A move to equate "Zionist" and "Jew" in your hate speech policies would harm Palestinians and Jews. In 17 cities, we brought the over 50,000 names of those across the globe who are urging Facebook to not accede to the Israeli government's demand to shield them from accountability, and undermine our shared commitment to dismantle antisemitism."
Linda Sarsour, Executive Director, MPower Change: "Over 52,000 people from varying faith and cultural backgrounds across the globe have come together to urge Facebook: don't make a special exception limiting the speech of Palestinians and their allies. Facebook won't crackdown on white supremacist groups using their platform to push antisemitic, anti-Black, and Islamophobic rhetoric -- so they are targeting a marginalized people living under apartheid instead. I wish this pattern weren't all too familiar to me as a Palestinian-American woman and committed activist. Let's make sure they don't set this dangerous precedent."
Nadim Nashif, Executive Director of 7amleh - The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media: "Having 50,000+ signatures delivered to Facebook offices in more than a dozen cities around the world shows that there is public support for the freedom of expression of Palestinians online. 'Zionist' should not be part of Facebook's hate-speech policy - and the Israeli government does not get to dictate what we can and cannot say."
To read the full text of the open letter, list of signatories, and background about the campaign, visit facebookweneedtotalk.org. For interviews with the campaign organizers and activists who delivered the petitions, contact Sonya E. Meyerson-Knox at sonya@jvp.org or 929-290-0317. Footage of the petition deliveries is available upon request.
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.
Launched just a month ago, an open letter calling on Facebook to not include "Zionist" in its hate speech policy already has over 50,000 signatures. The petition reads: "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 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."
After 12 hours the petition already had thousands of signers, including: Alia Shawkat, 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.)
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.
###
Facebook, we need to talk campaign co-sponsors:
- 7amleh: The Arab Center for Advancement of Social Media
- Action Center on Race & the Economy (ACRE)
- Adalah Justice Project
- American Friends Service Committee
- American Muslims for Palestine
- Association France-Palestine Solidarite
- BDS Berlin
- BDS France
- BDS Mexico
- BDS Movement, International
- AROC (Arab Resource & Organizing Center)
- CAIR
- California Scholars for Academic Freedom
- Center for Constitutional Rights
- Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)
- Codepink
- Color of Change
- Defending Rights and Dissent
- Disciples Palestine Israel Network
- docP Netherlands
- European Legal Support Center
- EyeWitness Palestine
- Falistiniyat
- Fight for the Future
- Foundational for Middle East Peace
- France-Palestine Solidarite Association
- Free Press
- Free Speech on Israel
- Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA)
- Independent Jewish Voices Canada
- If Not Now
- Jewish Voice for Labour
- Jewish Voice for Peace
- Jews Against the Occupation Sydney
- Kairos
- Los Otros Judios
- Massachusetts Peace Action
- MediaJustice
- Mijente
- Movement Alliance Project
- MPower Change
- National Lawyers Guild
- National Students for Justice in Palestine
- Palestine Legal
- Palestine Solidarity Campaign (UK)
- Palestinian Youth Movement
- Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism (QUIT!)
- Rabet
- Rethinking Foreign Policy
- Sada Social
- South African BDS Coalition
- Therapists for Peace and Justice
- Tree of Life Educational Fund
- US Campaign for Palestinian Rights
- US Palestinian Community Network
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
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over 'Cowardly' Responses to Trump War on Iran
"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
Mar 01, 2026
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he "implored" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next."
"Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon," he added, "but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home."
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that "Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region."
"The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East," said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.
No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that "as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
"Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war," Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
"The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms," Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue "uninterrupted" even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that "the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions."
"This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic," said Ocasio-Cortez. "This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
"Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president," she said. "But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


