Last week, readers contacted The Jerusalem Post to suggest that we investigate claims that Facebook and Instagram were maliciously biasing the social media war against Israel, guided by powerful figures inside the company.

According to the claim, people pressing “report post” on blatantly antisemitic or anti-Israel content, or posts with false information about the recent military campaign, were told that the post “doesn’t violate our community guidelines.”

Reporters investigated a particular Instagram employee, a Muslim woman who has posted several pro-Palestinian images on her personal Instagram account, who activists said is one of the people who decide what is and isn’t in line with the social media giant’s community guidelines. “If the heads of these companies support these views themselves, why is it even surprising that no one sees our side?” one Jewish activist asked.

After investigating the matter further and speaking with a number of Facebook executives, the Post concluded that the accusation wasn’t strong enough to pursue. But an article published last week in Buzzfeed News made a similar accusation- from the Arab side.

According to the article, “Facebook is losing trust among Arab users,” because during the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict, “censorship – either perceived or documented – had made Arab and Muslim users skeptical of the platform.” The article went on to list the same claims the Jewish activists had made, that their posts were being censored while the other side’s were not, and that powerful people inside the Facebook organization were making deliberately biased calls about what meets the company’s community standards and what does not.

The article quoted heavily from The Jerusalem Post’s September 2020 profile of Jordana Cutler, Facebook’s Head of Policy for Israel and the Jewish Diaspora, who was named one of the year’s most influential Jews. The article saw proof of Facebook’s pro-Israel bias in Cutler’s statements like “My job is to represent Facebook to Israel, and represent Israel to Facebook.” Facebook’s former head of policy for the Middle East and North Africa region, Ashraf Zeitoon, was quoted as saying he was “shocked” after seeing that interview.

Zeitoon, who left Facebook in 2017, shouldn’t have been so shocked though. Facebook maintains public policy teams in every country it works in, tasked with interfacing between the needs of the social media company and the legal and diplomatic needs of the local government.

“Jordana’s role, and the role of our public policy team around the world, is to help make sure local governments, regulators and civil society understand Facebook’s policies, and that we at Facebook understand the context of the countries where we operate. Jordana is part of a global policy team, and to suggest that her role is any kind of conflict of interest is entirely inaccurate and inflammatory,” a Facebook spokesperson said.

Israel, like other countries, expects Facebook to remove content that violates local laws, even if it meets Facebook’s own criteria. On that matter, Israel’s intervention during the Guardian of the Walls military campaign was relatively limited. Data from the cyber department of Israel’s Attorney-General shows that from May 8-26, Israeli officials made 608 requests from Facebook to remove posts, with 54% accepted. On Instagram, there were 190 official requests for removal, with a 46% acceptance rate.

The number of Israelis reporting hate speech and incitement through the platform seemingly had a far greater impact. According to Buzzfeed News, Israel, with 5.8 million Facebook users, reported to Facebook 550,000 posts violating policies for violence and hate speech and 155,000 posts for terrorist content during one week of fighting. During the period, Israelis reported 10 times more terrorism violations and eight times more hate violations compared to Palestinian users, Buzzfeed said, citing a company employee.

Zeitoon, in a different interview given to CBS News, attributed that gap to Israel’s organizational superiority. “Israel has hacked the system and knows how to pressure Facebook to take stuff down,” he was quoted as saying. “Palestinians don’t have the capacity, experience and resources to report hate speech by Israeli citizens in Hebrew.”

Others, however, note another difference: Hamas is recognized by many governments as a terrorist organization, and Palestinians posted in far greater number than Israelis direct calls for violence, hate speech, and content glorifying terrorism. Ignoring that aspect of the “Palestinian voice” that those like Zeitoon say is being suppressed is irresponsible and dangerous, they claim.

Israel is justifiably quite concerned about the clear and present dangers posed by social media. Reports in the Hebrew press suggest that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even proposed blocking social media sites completely in Israel as the recent conflict began, in hopes of quelling incitement. Many have referred to the recent uptick in violence as the TikTok Intifada, a reference to the video-sharing social media network that is particularly popular among a younger demographic, and is widely seen as the source of some of the most intense incitement activity against Israel.

Facebook, as well as TikTok, categorically asserts that its automated content removal tools and human content moderators show no systemic bias toward any political cause or movement.

On that post by the Israeli activist mentioned above, Facebook Israel communications manager Maayan Sarig responded sharply. “We take criticism very seriously, but false claims against specific employees are not acceptable. Our policies are conducted globally in accordance with our community rules and there is no content that is independently approved or removed by individuals. So let’s try to avoid conspiracy theories.” That sort of statement is echoed throughout the company’s internal and external communications.

TikTok likewise has told the Post that “Safety is our top priority and we do not tolerate violence, hate speech or hateful behavior.”

It is not surprising that people on both sides of the conflict accuse social platforms of being biased against their cause. But, as is often the case online, the nuances easily get drowned out by strong emotions.