Meta announces that it will remove further posts that attack “Zionists,” a term some use synonymously with Jews.

Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, announced a change to its rules to restrict the use of the word “Zionists,” which it said has often become synonymous with hate speech against Jews.

The term “Zionism” is often associated with the political movement that began in the 19th century before the founding of Israel and aimed to create a nation-state for the Jewish people.

But in a blog post Tuesday, Meta wrote that there is “nowhere near a global consensus on what people mean when they use the term ‘Zionist'” and that it has become “a proxy term for Jews and Israelis in the context of certain types of hate attacks.”

The company said it would remove posts attacking “Zionists” if that content uses anti-Semitic stereotypes or threatens harm through intimidation or violence against Jews or Israelis. Meta said it would continue to allow the term in posts about the Zionist political movement, which the company said remains an open topic of discussion on its platforms.

The announcement is the social media company’s latest attempt to draw boundaries for acceptable online speech related to the Israel-Hamas conflict. The company and an independent panel are also reviewing when to allow the pro-Palestinian slogan “from the river to the sea” on Instagram and Facebook. If that happens, the question is whether the phrase is considered hate speech because some people use it as a call for Israel’s destruction.

Meta said the change was made in line with its long-standing policy prohibiting attacks based on protected characteristics such as nationality, race or religion. For example, that policy prohibits content that incites violence against Jews or Muslims.

In April, Columbia University said it had barred the leader of a student protest from entering campus after a video surfaced in which the student said Zionists “don’t deserve to live.”

Meta said it consulted 145 organizations and individuals before reaching its conclusion. The group included political scientists, historians, legal scholars, digital and civil rights groups, free speech advocates and human rights experts.