The power of Jewish orgs. working together when fighting antisemitism

Some antisemitic posts easily fall into these categories and are removed, but the lack of a clear definition of antisemitism allows too many antisemitic posts to remain on the platform.

By DOV LIPMAN
CONTENT THAT promotes the idea that Jews control the banks and the media do not directly attack anyone, and thus do not fall into Facebook’s ‘hate speech’ category. (photo credit: DADO RUVIC/REUTERS)
CONTENT THAT promotes the idea that Jews control the banks and the media do not directly attack anyone, and thus do not fall into Facebook’s ‘hate speech’ category.
(photo credit: DADO RUVIC/REUTERS)
An amazing thing happened this week, when 128 Jewish and pro-Israel organizations worked in unison to address the issue of antisemitism on Facebook. All 128 signed an open letter calling on Facebook to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “Working Definition on Antisemitism.”
Why did so many organizations work together to sign the letter?
Facebook tries hard to remove hate speech on its platform. The Civil Rights Audit reported that in March, Facebook succeeded in removing 89% of hate speech before anyone could see the posts and report it. The European Union has data that shows 96% of the time, Facebook responded to reports of online hate within 24 hours and removed 87.6% of the posts that were reported.
The problem is Facebook’s policies, which state: “We only remove content that directly attacks people based on certain protected characteristics. Direct attacks include things like: Violent or dehumanizing speech – for example, comparing all people of a certain race to insects or animals; statements of inferiority, disgust or contempt – for example, suggesting that all people of a certain gender are disgusting; calls for exclusion or segregation – for example, saying that people of a certain religion shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”
Some antisemitic posts easily fall into these categories and are removed, but the lack of a clear definition of antisemitism allows too many antisemitic posts to remain on the platform, from where it can be shared worldwide.
For example, content that promotes the idea that Jews control the banks and the media, and are a threat to society – aka the antisemitic tropes based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – do not directly attack anyone, and thus do not fall into Facebook’s “hate speech” category. This has allowed posts to spread that incite antisemitism among the masses.
The IHRA working definition says antisemitism includes “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”
If Facebook were to adopt this definition, it could then remove these posts and prevent the spread of this mendacious, hateful and hurtful rhetoric. As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, the IHRA definition “can serve as a basis for law enforcement, as well as preventative policies.”
The Gila and Adam Milstein Foundation reached out to the 128 organizations about this issue and coordinated all of them sending a letter to the Facebook board of directors and launching a unified social media campaign, all on the same day.
They got Facebook’s attention.
Monika Bickert, Facebook’s vice president for content policy, wrote a long response to all 128 organizations in which she explained that the company is constantly reassessing its standards and policies to combat hate speech, and acknowledged that the IHRA definition of antisemitism will serve as one factor in their fight against antisemitism. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg wrote to Milstein after receiving the letter and made the same commitment.
One of my priorities when I served in the Knesset was getting all the Israel advocacy organizations to work together. As a member of the Diaspora Affairs Committee, I applauded the many wonderful groups for their impressive work, but implored them to consider working together to dominate social media. I asked them to consider the impact if every group agreed to post the same material on certain days and times – and yes, sharing materials created by other organizations. It would both generate a social media buzz and increase the reach of our pro-Israel message way beyond the collective reach of any individual NGO.
Though I did not succeed in this effort, I am thrilled that the 128 organizations came together for this current effort. The impact was immediate, and the buzz accomplished its goal.
Israel has long suffered from ineffective public relations, and the pro-Palestinian side has been more effective in spreading its narrative. This week’s impressive determination should serve as a basis for many more such collaborative efforts among Jewish and pro-Israel organizations, and herald a change in Israel advocacy and education.
The writer served as a member of the 19th Knesset and works as senior manager – community outreach for HonestReporting, one of the organizations that signed this joint letter to Facebook.


Related Tags
Hate speech