Is Facebook Operating as an Arm of the Israeli State and the US?

Glenn Greenwald

On Democracy Now, January 2, 2018

• Facebook is being accused of censoring Palestinian activists who protest the Israeli occupation. This comes as Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked reportedly said in December that Tel Aviv had submitted 158 requests to Facebook over the previous four months asking it to remove content it deemed “incitement,” and said Facebook had granted 95 percent of the requests.

We speak with Pulitzer Prize winner Glenn Greenwald about his new report for The Intercept headlined “Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments.”

Via democracynow.org

 

 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, we’re spending the hour with Glenn Greenwald. His new report for The Intercept is about Facebook censorship. It’s titled “Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments.” In it, he writes that Facebook representatives met with the Israeli government to determine which Facebook accounts of Palestinians should be deleted on the grounds that they constituted, quote, “incitement.” Alternatively, Israelis have virtually free rein to post whatever they want about Palestinians, and calls by Israelis for the killing of Palestinians are commonplace on Facebook and largely remain undisturbed. That includes a recent Facebook campaign calling for vengeance against Arabs in retribution for the killing of three Israeli teenagers.

AMY GOODMAN: All of this follows President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and as the Israeli right-wing’s push now to doom any attempt at a two-state solution. Today’s New York Times reports, quote, “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party for the first time has urged the annexation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and the nation’s top legal officers pressed to extend Israeli law into occupied territory. In addition, the Israeli Parliament, after a late-night debate, voted early Tuesday to enact stiff new obstacles to any potential land-for-peace deal involving Jerusalem.” Again, that’s in The New York Times today.

Well, for more, we continue our conversation with Glenn Greenwald, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and founding editor of The Intercept. So, your piece is headlined “Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments.” Can you explain exactly which accounts are being deleted and how you found this out?

So, when Facebook decided suddenly to delete the accounts of the head of the state, who had a total of 4 million followers, they didn’t say, “The reason we’re doing it is because he’s an awful tyrant,” who has done all the things I just said. What they said was, “The reason we did it is because he was placed on a list that the United States government State Department manages and the Treasury Department manages, in which he is now the target of sanctions, which means that, under the law, we, Facebook, are obligated to obey the dictates of the United States government and no longer allow him to use our services.”

Now, this rationale is sort of dubious. There are other people who are on the same list, like the president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, and many of his top officials, who continue to use Facebook quite actively. But what the rationale actually means, if you think about it, is that the U.S. government, according to Facebook, now has the power to dictate to Facebook who it is who’s allowed to use that platform to communicate with the world, and who will be blocked and who will be banned. And, you know, you can take the position, on the one hand, that Facebook is a private company, and it has the right to determine who uses its platform, which is true. The First Amendment technically doesn’t apply to Facebook. But Silicon Valley giants have become so powerful and massive—I would say, in particular, Google, Facebook and Apple—that they’re really much more akin now to public utilities, to almost their own private nation-states, than they are to just average corporations that have competition and the like, so that the power to eliminate somebody from Facebook is almost the power to eliminate them from the internet.

And to hear Facebook say it’s the U.S. government, the Trump administration, that has the power to tell us who will use Facebook and who can’t is extremely chilling, especially since already last year they proved that they were willing to do the same thing when it came to the Israeli government. As you just mentioned, Amy, there’s an article in The New York Times today detailing that the Israeli right, which basically is the dominant faction in Israel, is finally being open about the fact that their real goal is not a two-state solution or a peace process, but is the annexation of the West Bank. And these politicians who are now openly advocating this are the same ones who summoned Facebook executives in October of last year to a meeting and directed them to delete the accounts of a huge number of Palestinian activists, journalists, commentators. And Facebook obeyed in almost every one of the cases, even though, as you indicated, Israelis remain free to say the most heinous and awful things about Palestinians, including an incitement.

So you see Facebook now collaborating with the most powerful governments on the planet—the Israelis and the Americans, in particular—to determine who is allowed to speak and who isn’t and what messages are allowed to be conveyed and which ones aren’t. And it’s hard to think of anything more threatening or menacing to internet freedom and the promise of what the internet was supposed to be than behavior like this.

Read more…

 

Jan Oberg comments:
Thank God we have Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept! While the whole thing is shocking in and of itself – and spells the dissolution of democracy, openness and freedom of speech in and of itself – this passage was new to me:
“Just last week, Twitter promulgated a new policy, in response to exactly the kind of demands, Amy, that you were just describing. And this is their policy. They said you are no longer allowed to use Twitter to advocate or incite violence, except if you want the violence to be done by governments or military. (JO’s emphasis).
So, you’re allowed to go on Twitter now and say, “I demand that the U.S. government nuke North Korea out of existence.” You’re allowed to go on Twitter and say, “I want the Israeli government to incinerate every person in Gaza.” But what you’re not allowed to do is to go on Twitter and say, “As a Muslim, I believe that it’s the responsibility of Muslims to fight back against aggression,” or, “As a North Korean, I want to be able to defend against imperialism.”
How, in a society that is allegedly a democracy, has it become possible for corporations to grow so fast, to do so systematically what they do and then obey and align themselves with government violence and quell the oppressed, the underdogs, the dissidents?
And how has it all happened with so little public debate?

 

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

PART 1 — Media, Culture and Information Sovereignty By Jan ObergTFF co-founder and director January 20, 2026 This is the first of four TFF-created idea portfolios designed to curb the global reach of the United States and, in both the short and long term, help catalyse a worldwide nonviolent resistance to what many observers describe as the Trump administration’s uniquely confrontational, destructive and world-threatening policies. These portfolios outline what governments and citizens across the world can do through dynamic diplomacy, creative initiatives, and strictly nonviolent means. They are typical TFF works in that we do not only tell what the problem is and how bad it will go – as 90+% of all commentators, experts and scholars do – we tell what we think can be done, inviting you to think of what you think you can do. It seems painfully clear to me that the current political dynamics in Washington increasingly resemble the most...
Officially, the drones were not identified. By simply thinking critically – which journalists and selected experts no longer do – there may be a good reason for that. And this article will never be mentioned in Denmark… Drones over Denmark. No damage. No trace. No answers. Yet the headlines scream “Russian threat,” and Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen speaks with a certainty that defies logic: “We don’t know they were Russian—but we know Russia is the biggest threat to Europe.” It could be nobody else – unless you make an interest analysis which I did two days ago. This is not security policy. It’s theatre. And the audience is being played. Let’s rewind. These drones—unphotographed, untracked, unclaimed—appear and vanish like ghosts. Airports shut down. Panic spreads. Military budgets swell. And the narrative hardens: Russia is behind it. But what if that’s not just wrong but deliberately misleading? Here’s a hypothesis for...
Drones over Nordic airports. No damage. No trace. No answers. Most assume Russia—but what if that’s not so? Why is there so much we are not told? This article explores the strategic ambiguity behind recent drone incursions and asks: Who else might benefit from sending drones into NATO airspace? From Ukraine’s surprising drone supremacy to Russia’s possible signalling, the silence itself may be the loudest message. These are the kinds of questions decent, intelligent investigative journalists and commentators could easily research. Why don’t they? Did you, dear reader, know or think of this? That the most powerful weapon in today’s conflicts might be the one that leaves no trace – and no answers. Just enough fear to justify the next move? Recently, drones have repeatedly appeared over Nordic airports and near some military facilities. They cause no damage – for which reason the designation “hybrid attack” is misleading but serves a purpose. These...

Recent Articles

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.

TFF on Substack

Discover more from TFF Transnational Foundation & Jan Oberg.

Most Popular

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Read More
Screenshot-2026-05-15-103534
Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Screenshot-2026-05-12-104023
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (2)
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (1)
Jan Oberg, TFF director April 28, 2026 In this third TFF Peace Pulse, I make the important distinction between the violence and the conflict that violence is a symptom of. If you want peace, focus on the underlying conflict because that is the key to resolution, peacemaking, and a better future for the parties. The West is obsessed with violence, just look around you – and 90+ per cent of the public debate is about military issues and other violence – totally wasted for peace. These Peace Pulses will only be published here a few times. You will also not find them on YouTube and Vimeo because both platforms have blocked TFF and me; you know, peace is dangerous these days. Most TFF’s videos since 2007 are now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551
In contrast to most, we’ll bring alternatives, solutions, hope and strategies for a better future. Times are dangerous, yes, but that only intensifies the need for constructive thinking and action! Jan Oberg, TFF director April 13, 2026 The new TFF Peace Pulse uses video messages in a new way: Max 3-5-minute-long comments, ideas or perhaps mini-lectures, all about peace – positive peace. We launch them today on April 13, 2026 with a carefully crafted visual aesthetic fitting the content. We hope to publish them regularly from now on. We launch Peace Pulse (PP) – for a number of reasons. The world is in chaos, and there are countless reasons to feel concerned, frustrated, even angry. The atmosphere is saturated with doom and gloom, with negative energy and rear‑mirror thinking, while vision, imagination, alternatives, strategies and genuine future‑mindedness remain in short supply. And without them, we simply can’t save the world. Looking at problems from a hundred angles will...
IMG_5165 (1)
PART II — Publishing Peace in a System That Prioritises Militarism Jan Oberg, TFF director April 10, 2026 How TFF Maintains a Daily Voice in a Digital World Built for Noise This article is part of the series “TFF at 40″ and it invites you to learn about Four Decades of Publishing Peace. It takes a look at how a small, people‑financed peace foundation has communicated across four generations of technology — from wax stencils and fax machines to mass email and Substack — and why TFF continues to publish every single day in a system that rewards noise, conflict, and militarism. ◆ What it means to publish peace every single day in a digital system built for 24/7 news and other noise, confrontation, and militarism. How TFF’s independence, continuity, and global readership defy algorithms, donor cycles, and Western media censorhip — and why the Majority World keeps listening. When the...