Israel pressed – Internal documents reviewed show Israel asked Meta to remove Facebook and Instagram posts about the Iran war—ranging from support for Iran and opposition to Israel to posts mourning Ayatollah Khamenei after his killing on the first day of the conflict. The req
For at least some of the Iran war’s most charged moments, the battle didn’t stay on the battlefield—it moved onto Facebook and Instagram.
Internal documents reviewed by The Intercept show Israel’s government asked Meta to censor social media content related to its ongoing war against Iran. The requests targeted posts expressing support for Iran, opposition to Israel, and depictions of Iranian missile impacts.
The material flagged by Israel included content mourning the death of Ayatollah Khamenei following his assassination by the U.S. and Israel on the opening day of the conflict. It also covered posts supportive of Iran’s retaliatory attacks and Iranian accounts that shared military analysis and propaganda sympathetic to the Iranian regime’s perspective.
In Meta’s records. some censorship requests appear to have been carried out. though the documents do not clearly explain the grounds for each takedown. Meta maintains that it removes content only as required by law or when it violates its speech policies. When asked how many Iran-related takedown requests had been granted since the war began, the company did not answer.
Israel’s Ministry of Justice—described in the reporting as submitting takedown requests to social media platforms—did not respond to a request for comment.
Israel’s lobbying approach is not new. For years. the country has leaned on its relationship with Meta to push for targeted enforcement of the company’s content moderation rules. Israel’s Office of the State Attorney. according to its website. routinely lodges complaints to social media platforms on behalf of state security agencies about content deemed illegal or said to promote “terrorism.”.
But in at least some of the documents reviewed, the requests did not claim the content violated Israeli law. Instead, the office asked that posts or accounts be removed because they were in violation of Meta’s own content moderation rulebook.
Meta designates Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a “Dangerous Organization” and prohibits users from engaging in many forms of positive speech about its actions. That means posts supportive of retaliatory missile launches by the IRGC, for instance, could run afoul of Meta’s policies. The documents describe a different standard for other militaries: no such prohibition exists for users who post favorably about the U.S. or Israeli militaries.
Meta did not answer questions about the Iran war requests. But spokesperson Daniel Roberts provided a statement to The Intercept: “Anyone is able to report content they think violates our rules. Regardless of who or how a piece of content is flagged. we assess it based on our policies. which govern what is and isn’t allowed on our platform. It is wrong and irresponsible to imply that these requests are in any way unusual or improper.”.
The concern for digital speech advocates is how seamlessly government pressure can turn into private platform enforcement—especially during wartime.
Meta’s power and the government influence around it have drawn scrutiny before, particularly in the Middle East. A 2022 audit commissioned by Meta itself found discrepancies in its content moderation practices between Arabic and Hebrew content. The audit said “Arabic content had greater over-enforcement (e.g. erroneously removing Palestinian voice) on a per user basis.” A 2023 report by the company’s in-house Oversight Board described “over-enforcement” of Meta’s “Dangerous Organizations and Individuals” blacklist. with the board describing it as disproportionately composed of Muslim and Middle Eastern entities.
Meta has argued that. as an American company. it is sometimes legally required to remove content tied to certain entities sanctioned by the U.S. including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Legal scholars cited in the reporting say sanctions law offers little to no precedent for requiring censorship of political speech. noting that sanctions regimes focus more on material support than speech.
Another factor raised in the reporting is access: Meta has granted Israel privileged access to its content moderation policy teams. In 2024. The Intercept reported that Meta employee Jordana Cutler—a former aide to Benjamin Netanyahu—served as a dedicated liaison to the Israeli government. The reporting said she advocated for Israel’s interests and helped facilitate the removal of unwanted speech. It also notes that few other countries have a similar dedicated representative within Meta; in 2020. a policy head for India market resigned after revelations that she had lobbied for rule enforcement favoring India’s ruling Hindu nationalist party.
When asked whether Cutler had a role in facilitating Israeli takedown requests related to the war, Meta did not respond.
Evelyn Douek. a Stanford Law School professor and scholar of digital speech policies. said the closeness between Meta and Israel on takedown requests is a longstanding problem. She told The Intercept: “Meta’s close relationship with the Israeli government for takedown requests has been a long-standing issue.”.
Douek added: “Meta’s acquiescence in lots of takedown requests has been a long-standing practice.”
She said the stakes are especially sensitive during war. “Governments wanting to suppress speech that is critical of their war efforts is as old as time,” Douek said. “Allowing governments to claim national security reasons to suppress speech willy-nilly would obliterate the value of speech protections.”.
The documents also include claims about the scope of Israel’s requests during the Iran war. According to a source familiar with the matter. Israel lobbied Meta to implement a blanket rule restricting imagery of war damage within its territory. mirroring an Israeli news media censorship policy that bars journalists from documenting weapon impacts without military approval. The source said Meta has declined to implement such a policy for its billions of global users. Meta did not respond to questions about the status of this request.
Israel’s efforts reached beyond pro-Iran content. The records show Israel pushed to remove content expressing outrage over last month’s storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque by far-right government minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Israel also sought to stifle posts critical of Israeli rhetoric that linked Israel’s recent closure of Al-Aqsa with the ongoing war.
In general, Meta grants the vast majority of Israeli governmental takedown requests. The State Attorney’s Office boasted a 92 percent compliance rate in 2023. A 2025 report by Drop Site News said the overall rate has climbed to 94 percent since the October 7 attack by Hamas.
The documents further show Israel asked for Iran war takedowns using the exact same language evoking Hamas’s October 7 attack that it submitted when requesting censorship of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli speech across the globe during Israel’s war on Gaza.
Douek interpreted that repetition as a warning sign about review rigor. “It suggests that they don’t expect their requests are being reviewed very carefully,” she said.
Douek also argued that wartime censorship highlights the danger of policing speech through processes that stay out of public view. “These companies … have been responsive to their own geopolitical and commercial interests. and have always been more responsive to powerful governments. ” she said. She added: “These platforms have always maintained that they are neutral. or that they are just a platform for people to express their views. but it has long been true that these companies have always presented a particular view of the world and have been responsive to their own geopolitical and commercial interests. and have always been more responsive to powerful governments.”.
With the Iran war as the backdrop, Douek said the structure itself can tilt public debate. “You’re going to end up with a skewed debate,” she said. The reporting describes the underlying dynamic this way: the U.S. and Israel are among the best-represented governments inside Meta. while the conflict’s central target—an Iran deeply sanctioned under the company’s speech rules—faces far stiffer restrictions.
As the U.S. and Iran signaled this week that a ceasefire agreement is imminent. Israel has suggested it would not abide by the terms of a deal. Even as diplomats work on the future. the documents reviewed portray a present-day fight over what people are allowed to say and show about the war itself—one carried out through takedown requests. content rules. and decisions made largely far from public view.
Israel Meta Facebook Instagram censorship Iran war Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Ayatollah Khamenei takedown requests content moderation Dangerous Organizations blacklist