Skip To Content

In groundbreaking new policy, Facebook says calling someone a ‘Zionist pig’ is antisemitic

Previously, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, had only prohibited comparisons between Zionists and rats

Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, released a policy update Tuesday narrowing the acceptable use of the term “Zionist” on its platform. The new policy classifies some, but not all, use of the term as an antisemitic slur.

Zionist is, however, not inherently a bad word. Plenty of Jews and Israelis self-identify, proudly, as Zionists, taking it to mean a person who believes that Jews have the right to self-determination or a person who supports the state of Israel.

But, as has long been clear, bad actors have also grasped onto the phrase to provide plausible deniability for even the most boldly antisemitic statements. After all, one can freely critique, or even hate, a political movement — as Meta’s statement said, supporting a political ideology is “not itself a protected characteristic” — but expressing violence or hatred toward a national, ethnic or religious group is forbidden.

Meta’s new policy seeks to provide clarity to its moderators so they can differentiate between acceptable political usage of “Zionist” and forbidden antisemitic use. The statement said that the term will be considered hate speech when used “with dehumanizing comparisons, calls for harm, or denials of existence.”

This has, to some extent, always been the case. Meta says that it had already considered “Zionist” a slur when context made it clear that it was a stand in for “Jew,” and when it was, very specifically, associated with rats. The new guidelines expand the animal comparisons to also forbid comparisons with “pigs, filth, or vermin.” In addition, using “Zionist” in the context of antisemitic tropes about controlling the media or government will be considered hate speech.

Overall, it’s a decent policy; it acknowledges gray areas around, say, accusations of criminal behavior, and strives to differentiate between talking about potential war crimes committed by the Israeli government, which would be valid political speech, or using it more broadly.

But the question is: Why wasn’t this always the standard?

It’s not new to use Zionist as a slur for Jews; antisemitic use of “Zionist” as a synonym for “Jew” has been around basically as long as the political movement of Zionism has. Surely, calling Zionists “pigs” has always, obviously, been antisemitic. The same is true of saying that Zionists are pulling the strings of the global media or government — it is obvious that “Zionists” is a stand in for “Jews” in a well-known, and old, antisemitic conspiracy.

Meta’s Oversight Board, which reviews its policy and moderation decisions, has released numerous decisions over the past several months, attempting to better define policy around hate speech since Oct. 7. It recently opened a call for input on whether “from the river to the sea” should be considered hate speech. 

It also released an opinion expressing concern that Meta’s moderation of the term “shaheed,” or “martyr,” in Arabic,” was “overbroad” and restricts freedom of expression. (Meta said that “it is likely that “shaheed” accounts for more content removals under the Community Standards than any other single word or phrase on its platforms.”) The Oversight Board said that the term can be used to endorse terrorism, but is often also used as an honorific for victims of natural disasters and other neutral or positive cases. It advised Meta to revise its policies to include more context, similar to its new rules for “Zionist.”

At the end of the day, however, the Oversight Board’s policy recommendations, and even Meta’s enacted policy decisions are only as good as their application. And as numerous other Oversight Board cases have made clear, moderators are not particularly consistent in applying them. News stories about world events that simply mention terrorist groups are routinely removed under Meta’s policy against “glorification” of terrorist groups. Meanwhile, actual hate speech often goes unaddressed.

Whether Meta’s new policy on the use of “Zionist” will actually reduce online hate speech remains to be seen. But given that it was already obvious that comparing Zionists to pigs constituted antisemitic hate speech, the new policy doesn’t seem like much more than good PR.

A message from our editor-in-chief Jodi Rudoren

We're building on 127 years of independent journalism to help you develop deeper connections to what it means to be Jewish today.

With so much at stake for the Jewish people right now — war, rising antisemitism, a high-stakes U.S. presidential election — American Jews depend on the Forward's perspective, integrity and courage.

—  Jodi Rudoren, Editor-in-Chief 

Join our mission to tell the Jewish story fully and fairly.

Republish This Story

Please read before republishing

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free, unless it originated with JTA, Haaretz or another publication (as indicated on the article) and as long as you follow our guidelines. You must credit the Forward, retain our pixel and preserve our canonical link in Google search.  See our full guidelines for more information, and this guide for detail about canonical URLs.

To republish, copy the HTML by clicking on the yellow button to the right; it includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to the Forward. It does not include images; to avoid copyright violations, you must add them manually, following our guidelines. Please email us at [email protected], subject line “republish,” with any questions or to let us know what stories you’re picking up.

We don't support Internet Explorer

Please use Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Edge to view this site.