Proposed instance policy update on Zionist accounts
We, the admin team, decry all forms of settler-colonialism, and we recognize that Zionism is a pro-settler-colonialist position.
Therefore we propose that should no longer be accepting of any Zionist accounts on our instances.
Please upvote for agree, downvote for disagree.
Note: we only count votes by instance members of dbzer0 and anarchist.nexus, plus a few vouched-for external users.
Hi mateys, I've kept things simple in the above text, for brevity, but in fact it took the admin team quite a while to get to this stage. We have discussed the policy change extensively, and a variety of different perspectives emerged. I will attempt to sum them up below as best I can:
-
The "this isn't that complicated" school of thought goes something like this: If someone is consistently posting comments that mirror Hasbara talking points (e.g. justifying the genocide in Gaza, consistently painting Palestinians as terrorists and Israel as the victim), then they should be instance banned. It's just not acceptable for Zionists to be allowed on our instances.
-
The "slippery slope" / "purity test" school of thought is that banning people for having an "unpopular" political opinion would potentially mean banning half the fediverse, if more and more of these policies were enacted over time. To attempt to mitigate this we are keeping the scope of this rule as narrow as possible, and I also don't think many of our users will be affected. Also, we typically don't have frequent policy changes, and I have no reason to expect that to change moving forward.
-
Another important discussion point was "how do we decide whether someone is pro-Zionist or not?" We can't always be 100% sure of someone's true intentions, we can only go on what they have posted and that is subject to interpretation. I don't feel there is an easy answer to this one, except to say that we would have to be pretty certain before issuing a perma-ban.
-
The "geopolitics don't matter" school of thought is that trying to be on the "correct" side of every issue is kind of pointless because nothing that happens in lemmy chat forums will ever make an ounce of difference in the real world. Don't bother moderating users over political/ideological differences, just let people argue if they want. While I can totally empathize with this sentiment, I can also see the case for taking a clear stance on this topic in accordance with our values and the overwhelming support for the Palestinian cause among our users. Personally, I am advocating in favor of the resolution.
Please add your comments below if you want to provide your own thoughts on the topic, or have any questions.
expiry: 7
Acknowledged governance topic opened by https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/flatworm7591
This is a simple majority vote. The final tally is as follows:
This vote has concluded on 2026-01-02 00:56:51 UTC
Reminder that this is a pilot process and results of voting are not set in stone.
Add a clause stating unambiguously that this does not discriminate against people with the Jewish ethnicity or against followers of Judaism. Just the specific policy of Zionism is affected.
I'm sure we can all agree to that clause. 👍
I believe that's a given to any leftist anti-zionist, but it's good to explicitly state that
To extinguish that specific Zionist rhetoric, absolutely. Great idea
Aye that’ll do it 🤣
I think it might be good to describe what zionism means to avoid misinterpretation, malicious or otherwise. Something along the lines of being against genocide, ethnic cleansing, genocide, apartheid and denialism.
At which point you might as well make the ban more broad. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if someone's making excuses for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians or denying the extent of the Armenian genocide.
Palestinian here, just thanking you for trying to do what you can. <3
Zionism is so innately wrong (and has been for 80 years). Anyone still supporting it up to now is too far gone to be convinced by reading comments by some people online.
I AM NOT A DIV0 USER. DO NOT COUNT MY COMMENT AS A VOTE
Don't worry — votes are based on upvotes/downvotes on the OP. They're counted automatically, and for us landlubbers (people from other instances) it goes into "outsider sentiment".
(And as you said, shall we get a free world for us all!)
Ah gotcha!
I am slowly leaning towards trying a different instance. On one hand, I kinda like all the goofy comments I've made on this account and I don't want to lose them. But on the other hand if I do switch, I also don't want my old account taking up space on a server for an instance I'm not contributing to anymore.
I may be overcomplicating this decision haha
And thank you for your kind words, everyone deserves freedom as long as they aren't doing something that hurts others
As far as I know, old accounts barely take server space; so you can always just leave the old account there, perhaps editing the profile with a link to your new account. It won't be a burden.
That's what I did ~two years ago; I don't regret it, landing in a good instance makes all the difference.
Interesting! You've gotten thoughts brewing in my head
عالم حر لنا كلنا يا رفيقي!
I like it. I think it does really limit the scope and maintains a clear focus.
It avoids the religious BS - there are plenty of Zionists who aren't Jewish and plenty of Jews who aren't Zionists.
If you're a Zionist, then you don't beling here; it's the same with Nazis, white supremacists, et aliīs.
Edit: removed an incomplete sentence.
Unbelievably based. Zionists, like Nazis, shouldn't be platformed.
I will say: on the topic of banning Zionists, I think it would be helpful if someone from db0 or maybe a bot would reply to the comment that caused the ban with the Wikipedia entries for the Nakba, pogroms, and just the entire history of Palestine's enslavement to Israel. Kinda like how YouTube links the Climate Change Wikipedia entry for videos that deal with that topic, or like Twitter community notes.
Free Palestine
Hey, the drones were circling over my fucking Christmas lunch this week. We were cranking up the Bublé to cover the constant buzzing, and the bad/worst part is that the kids seemed used to the sound. The only reason those things were in the air over an area with no militia activity is psychological warfare basically. This was a good 80+ km from the border. People in Santa hats were sticking their heads out of the window and looking up. I struggle to get across how normal we are while discussing what we’re dealing with, and I figure mentioning how it’s affected me filling myself with wine and carving a comically sized bird could help get that across to people who also do this every year, or to who the idea is less foreign than the idea of being constantly surveilled by a hostile expansionist entity. I’m not trying to use my sect to say I’m special and don’t deserve this, I’m just trying to see if it can help bridge a gap to discuss something difficult, to be clear.
That said, my opinion might still come off as a bit too lenient to some of you and I think I should write it out. But I am from and live in Lebanon, and I am directly affected by these crimes.
I’ve got a lot of users (I think literally every single one on German instances lmfao) tagged in my client as “Zionist”. I think most of them just pop into a few threads naturally and make a few reality-denying comments from force of habit. I see them in other places and they fit the typical description of internet dude with opinions on Rust and Linux making interesting comments about random stuff. They’re mostly well-behaved outside of beliefs that are upstream of me being chucked into a concentration camp so the US military’s contractors can make my home a parking lot at an exorbitant cost. When I catch them in a thread about solar panels or something, I’ll even find them making comments that I want to read. Normal people with good insight.
The average person in the West has been fed such a blatantly false narrative that I find myself not blaming a few of the milder opinions. It’s on par for me with progressives talking up and down the potential greatness of the American experiment. I think Zionism is one thing that people can learn about and understand and clearly see that the status quo is not normal or natural or inevitable or even self-sustaining.
This might all be downstream of me moderating the way I have tended to handle this stuff on Reddit, my old online home which I’ve spent well over a decade.
My opinion is a two sided thing because I don’t know if this means blocking users from other instances from federating, blocking them from posting or voting on our instance’s posts and comments, or blocking them from signing up.
I think blocking them from signup is very reasonable. Probably morally necessary.
I think blocking them as external users, regardless of the extent of it, might be heavy handed if it’s a one-off comment by a normal human being, often German, who has been propagandized since birth that Jews will all immediately die if Arabs aren’t treated like cattle. I think these people can learn. OTOH there are what seems like dedicated Hasbara accounts that have an RSS feed of every post with “Israel” or Palestine and have to respond to every single one with a comment that would immediately get you banned from literally any webpage with a text box if you swapped the words Jewish and Muslim. If we can block those outright nothing will be lost.
What I propose is a three/five strikes system for external users with a relatively gentle warning message with some good links like someone already proposed here. Probably a little thing in German to get the attention of those with Nazi baggage who are completely delusional and intentionally ignoring reality.
Personally if I was the one writing it I’d also include that, as a Westerner, believing that Jewish people may inherently leave the West for a colonial frontier far away from you is literally anti-Semitism if you think about it for 20 seconds. Nothing says ancestral homeland like having to rename towns and treat the local population like inconveniently located bags of blood.
I’m also in favor of extending the window since a lot of people are not going to be online much this time of year. I hope, at least. For their own sake.
Happy New Year everyone; I hope Natenyahu lets me and all of us see the untold horrors that await us in 2026.
thank u for sharing ur perspective.
i second this proposal.
I don't even know what instance I'm posting on but I just wanted to say that I too am amazed how well you moderate your handling of this stuff.
I completely agree with this. I like to troll badguys, and I can't do that if they're instance banned; I think it should be up to individual users to block people from other instances.
I also like to assume that anyone commenting from a dbzer0/AN account is a good person, and I can't do that if Zionists are allowed to have an account here.
Edit: Unruffled answered this in a comment
Fully support extending window.
Edit: Counterpoint: I live in the west. As a teen during the 00's, I thought 'antisemitism' meant 'opposing genocide'. So of course I proudly identified as that. Had to be corrected by a girlfriend¹.
Its pretty fucking obvious what's going on over there. Especially now. Of was obvious to me as a child 20(fuck) years ago, and I'm clever but I'm not that clever. It's tempting to assume good faith, it's tempting to assume people are basically good, but if an adult still parrots Zionist talking points in 2026, they're clearly motivated by something other than logic. You're not going to talk them into decency. Ostracization, however much or little we can pull off, might have a much better shot.
¹who was jewish, and for some reason I cannot comprehend continued to date me after this.
Zionism is giving yourself permission to kill/oppress people who don’t have the same religious beliefs that you do. That’s bullshit.
Don't see the need to limit the voting to two days, especially during holidays when people are not as online.
I set it to 3 days because we nearly always have a clear outcome by then. But we can extend it if you want.
Can you reset the timer in threativore to 7 days, db0? I changed it in the post but it never picked up the change.
Replying to yourself won't work. You're in luck I noticed this. You're not in luck that I can't actually do that. But honestly I don't think it'll make a diff.
Doh, oh well it's a pretty emphatic response.
It's absolutely worth running the experiment, if nothing else.
I would caution against banning accounts for having a particular stance, as that could be a slippery slope.
Forums have a decades-long running history of banning content, possibly for that reason. Having instance rules that forbid pro-zionist content, propaganda, or news with a zionist spin, makes a lot more sense IMO. From there, it's easy to ban accounts for repeated rules violations, which may be more palatable for both users to report and admins to enforce.
This seems like a reasonable take.
I don't want to share any space, physical or otherwise, with Zionists or their apologists. They add nothing and deserve nothing but the worst.
Kick them the fuck out, thank you.
I want to focus on the structure of the proposal rather than on defending Israeli state policy, which I oppose in many respects.
As written, the proposal does not clearly define Zionism so much as treat a particular interpretation of it as self-evident, namely that Zionism is inherently a form of settler colonialism. That is a position many people hold, but it is also a contested one, and the policy depends on that premise without unpacking it.
If the core concern is behavior such as genocide denial, dehumanization of Palestinians, or the repetition of propaganda talking points, those are concrete harms and seem like appropriate moderation targets on their own. Framing the rule around an ideological label instead of specific conduct risks conflating belief, state policy, and online behavior, which are not always the same thing even when they overlap.
I also share some of the concern about how “pro-Zionist” would be determined in practice. When enforcement depends on interpreting intent or identity rather than observable actions, it increases the risk of inconsistency and misclassification, even with good faith moderation.
I am not arguing against taking a clear moral stance in support of Palestinians. I am suggesting that the policy would be stronger, clearer, and easier to defend if it focused explicitly on the behaviors and arguments that cause harm, rather than relying on a broad and disputed definition of Zionism to do that work.
Question from the peanut gallery:
Can you clearly define the term "Zionist" in this context? Unlike "Nazi", there is no specific affiliation one can point too.
Would the comment "Israel as a state should not be dismantled, but reformed" be considered Zionism because it does not support the abolition of the state of Israel?
What about a comment along the lines of "I think you can't tell Jews they're not allowed to have their own state until you are ready to enforce the same stance on Muslims with countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc"
These types of comments support the existence of the state of Israel without directly encouraging harm. And the dictionary definition of Zionism is simply support for the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel
As I mentioned elsewhere we would need a clear pattern of behaviour over time, to the point we feel we can defend the decision in YPTB if necessary. Wishing for a peaceful political solution is not really part of the problem imo. Justifying the US backed Israeli genocide in Palestine with Hasbara propoganda is the issue we are more concerned about, and folks supporting the settler-colonial mindset of "the locals all want to murder us so we need to tame the savages by murdering them all first". That's the same mindset that leads so many Israelis to be ok with murdering kids.
I'm thinking perhaps it'd make sense to ban people based on terms that are less nebulous than "Zionism"?
For example, how about banning people who:
This should make the rules clearer to both users and moderators, because you can pretty much rely on the dictionary definitions of the terms involved. It'd also make it much harder to argue that the rules are in any way inspired by anti-Semitism.
Moreover, because it gets down to the reasons and thresholds that make a lot of Zionist messages unacceptable, it also covers cases that are unacceptable for similar reasons.
Then maybe that should be clarified in the proposal. This proposal to me seems to not be well thought out. Saying we do not support Zionism could imply you only accept people that want to completely abolish Israel and would be against anyone promoting a peaceful two state solution. I think it would be better to make a general anti-genocide rule and cite Palestine as an example rather than making rules for individual instances of genocide.
No zionism was clear you can read Herzl writing calling for displacing arabs to create the state. Jews only owned non contiguous 9% of the land meaning pratically ethenic cleansing was necessary
I understand your intent but that is not clear in the proposal as layed out. A clear pattern of behavior of supporting the existence of a Jewish state that is kind, supportive, and charitable towards everyone would still be a clear pattern of zionism, by definition.
I'm not concerned about how the staff applies this rule today when everyone is around for all the context and clarifying discussion. I'm concerned about how the rule gets applied in a year or two by a new moderator/admin
Again, I'm just the peanut gallery, so my opinion means little here. But I think as others have pointed out, there is a clearer, more targeted form of this proposal that goes after hateful content, rather than a term like 'zionism' that has a very specific dictionary definition but is bring used with a certain geopolitical context right now.
I'm not who you were talking with, but this place was founded and is run with pretty narrow and consistent ideals. And governance is not hierarchical (in practice). Slippery slope is much less a concern here than most places.
And with that in mind, the hand-wringing you're describing just isn't merited and feels vulgar. Fuck Zionism and anything that sounds even barely related, there is a genocide happening. Boo fucking hoo if people don't get to discuss wanting some magic utopia that sure sounds like the exact goddamn argument that got us all here.
Setting aside the barren state of historical precedent for the following, why is "special Zionism that totally doesn't include any violence and is just nice!" an idea that's so important we need to hinder our own efforts to block the propaganda whitewashing genocide? It's a bad premise.
Intelligent people can have meaningful discussions about the best way to structure administrative policies without it having anything to with hand wringing or support of a genocidal state.
Fuck Israel. Fuck zionism. Fuck the people supporting this genocide.
Clear enough for you?
I still think rules should be created in their best possible form. It avoids confusion and unnecessary conflict, and sets a clear precedent for other issues in the future. That shouldn't be a controversial stance.
Yeah, no argument from me that rules should be clear and care should be taken to define them.
But I think the combo of wide discretion + transparency about mod actions will serve us much better than trying to narrowly carve out exactly what's prohibited.
If we think of rules as modeling reality, it makes it easy to discuss the concepts in terms of classic modeling tradeoffs. In this case overly precise rules are like over-fitting the model, which can be expected to cause false negatives - Zionist content getting through. An under-fit model (overly broad rules) is expected to produce more false positives - bans for content that only overlaps with Zionist content.
We know that powerful motivated entities want to cause false negatives wherever they can, and that genocide is the aim of such action.
On the other hand, what is the impact and expected frequency of false positives? How many people are going to be mistakenly banned (there is not a military industrial force driving such discussion...) and what are the consequences of banning people like that? And then add in, which has the higher mod burden, wide discretion or precise definitions?
Devil is in the details of course and maybe we agree more closely than warrants this discussion, but as with all modeling we are forced to decide which kind of "wrong model" we want to land on. For me it's a very easy decision, particularly here (both this topic and this instance).
(Edit - since that got wordy - basically it sounds to me like you're saying "just make the model less wrong" where I'm saying "that only works to a point, we need to decide what kind of wrong we want it to be")
This might be a fair point.
If you think that back then it was fair for foreigners to come to someone else land and force a state on them than yes it is really problematic . Nowadays it make no sense to say that all israelis should be expulsed of Israel. Calling from dismantling Israel to have one state solution is fine though since no ethnic cleansing is involved
And the Jews were expelled from the land of Israel by the Romans and the Babylonians, as well as being expelled from many, many Arab countries after 1948. It's always been wrong and it's always been happening, all over the world.
Nobody is right at this point. Everyone has a claim that seems legitimate from one point of view or another.
Are you prepared to dismantle the US for what we did to the native americans? How about Australia? Or huge parts of Africa? How do you think countries are formed, exactly? Are we only to recognize countries that were created through revolution, ignoring the people displaced by the previous rulers?
I think the whole region is fucked and honestly my personal preference is for the rest of the world to take over governance of the region as a global peace operation because neither side has shown the responsibility to govern peacefully and fairly. They both treat each other like shit, with Israel being the worse aggressor recently. Though I'm happy to accept a true two-state solution if we can get there (hint: the last time it looked likely the progressive leader responsible was assassinated by the Orthodox)
You left out the part where Jewish people were expelled by many countries for starting a genocide against greeks and Romans in the jewish-roman wars that left the SE rim of the mediterranean almost completely depopulated in many areas. In the midst of those wars anyone who was not Jewish was murdered for their ethnicity, and a new state of Israel was stood up and a end-times messiah proclaimed. It lasted about 2 years. And then Rome marched back in, crushed it, killed the messiah in battle, tore down their temple, and finally banished Jewish leaders from the region and forbade its practice. You make it sound like the Jews of that time were peaceniks simply minding their own business and were banished for no reason. Be honest about history.
Oh I see. So your argument is that people who are violent deserve what's coming to them when they're displaced from their homeland? I'll keep that in mind with the current conflict 🙄
you reap what you sow, Live by the sword die by it, Fuck Rround And Find Out, treat others like you'd like to be treated, take your pick. Yes, keep those in mind. Its uncomplicated common wisdom to live by and will absolutely help you in the current conflict.
so then you support Israel displacing everyone after the Oct 7th attacks. they fucked around and found out.
thanks for clarifying that for us! Mods should have no problem banning your ass for supporting genocide
"displacing"? You mean murdering innocents, right?
Palestinians has nothing to do with romans and babylonians and even with arabs replying to palestinians expulsions by expulsing jews from their countries. Many jews went to Isrsel by desl between some arab leaders and zionists and some with false flag by israel
Nice way to deflect from the fact that Israel is the occupier and palestine the occupied
Countries can merge , change name, change culture etc if it is done peacefully. Two state solution would make sens if israel didn't ruined it by building settlements. A two state solution mean displacing 700 000 settlers and two millions palestinians from israel
You are just doing some racism here. The other regions also been involved in terrible conflict. Most of the conflicts are in africa fueled by the west, china, russia and arab countries. Europe is responsible for the two deadliest wars, the holocust the worst genocide happened in Europe. The usa the democracy pretender is responsible of the biggest numbers of coups and destroying countries.
The whole world could have stopped the conflict after the nekba or after 67 where gaza and west bank was occupied but decided to back up the settler colonial state
You have completely missed my point. I never said the Palestinians had anything to do with the Romans or Babylonians. The point is that many Jews have a legitimate claim to their ancestral homeland that is no less valid than anyone else's. What they've done with that claim is terrible. It's evil. But the claim itself is not invalid.
And that is exactly the problem. Israel is the occupier now. But this conflict didn't begin 80 years ago. And to insist on only looking at the last X years is naive and exactly how you get to where we are.
If you can't admit that both Israel and Hamas et al have done terrible things then I can't have a reasonable conversation with you. That's not racism. That's reality. People on both sides of this conflict have done horrible things over the years. And continue to do horrible things. You won't get me to budge on that sentiment
No group has eternal right to a land. The jews who never left the region has right to the land where they lived for centuries. The European Zionists has zero claim to the land zero. They didn't have any right to force a state on Palestinians that included Jewish and Christian Palestinians. Just like someone descendent from an Arab settler that settled in Tunisia for example can't claim to have any right to the Saudi Arabia land.
Jews only had 9% of the land and was not contiguous so the idea that an Israeli state would exist without mass displacement for Palestinians is objectively not true
BS. The conflict started 80 years ago. You can't simply group all previous conflicts that ended before the israeli/arab war to make it look like Palestinians are just savages that don't want peace
Nobody believes you. You have no problem with Israeli occupation and just use Hamas as an excuse to justify Israel continuation of the occupation and the building of more settlements. I admit that Hamas did many wrong things and war crimes but at the end of the day Israel is the occupier who will continue to occupy palestine after the end of Hamas.
I know that I won't convince you . I just refuse to let your lies and propaganda pass and indoctrinate new people into the status quo
edit: before the creator of israel, the whole land was called Palestine so Israel did dismantle Palestine. You claimed to be against dismantling any state even peacefully yet supporting the settler colonial project over stupid claims
It is definitely racism to a whole region are not responsible so other regions should administer it that have even worse history. Your argument reminds me of americans who said they will liberate Iraq and bring them democracy or how Europeans settler claimed to be more civilized than the indigenous tribes so they stole their land
Nobody believes that Hamas et al have done terrible, horrible things? You're delusional. And I'm done talking with you.
Not what i said. Actually I did say Hamas did war crimes. I said nobody believe that you want israel to end occupation
Ban them all.
I feel the biggest argument against this take is simply that it's unaccommodating for those who are in the groups being victimized. By allowing that to exist on a platform you are creating an unsafe space for magins.
I still don't understand these!
Landlubber flair
Its just a flair based on signup info.
Oh okay. I saw someone else mention that landlubbers are for outside of the instance and their votes don't count?
Landlubber flair on our own users means one did not provide information to assign one of the three affiliation flair (pirate, anarchist, foss) buy also they're not monetary supporters or vouched-for. For voting by our own users, it means your vote is counted but doesn't have as much impact as supporters of the instance.
Or even simpler than that: "the Nazi bar".
I'm all for it. Accounts that are actively posting Zionist views are already breaking rule #4 anyway https://wiki.dbzer0.com/divisions-by-zero/the-golden-rules/
That said I can't tell how much of an issue this has been on the dbzer0 instance up to now.. but I wouldn't rule out Lemmy getting hit with pro-zionist bot accounts now or in the future.
Having a definition of Zionist would probably help?
I think Israel is committing war crimes in Palestine, Netenyahu should be tried by the ICC, and that what is happening in Palestine at present is in fact genocide.
But also, I think Israel should contiue to exist, and should - given the crimes committed against their citizens by Hamas - be entitled to demand that Hamas play no part in governance of a future Palestinian state.
Uncertain whether that counts as a zionist position, or not.
Not here to vote, but I hope more instances and websites follow suit.
You can still vote, it will not influence the result, just the "outsider sentiment"
Already reported for antisemitism, can't make this shit up lol
Edit: and now racism. The brainworms are activating.
Reported... to whom? Where do you think reports go?
Genocide supporters really are exactly as dumb as they seem, huh?
YarrMatey was saying some dumbass reported the post as antisemitic, not that she reported it herself lol.
It's like they're asking to be banned once this gets approved 😅
The Jewish people have a right to rape their victims to death and then eat their children to larp their favorite book. Suggesting otherwise is antisemitism. It's really not hard to understand.
I want to be 💯 clear that it's not Jewish people we are sanctioning here, it's Zionism. You can be a Zionist without being Jewish, e.g. see Trump, Biden, Kamala, Bush, and basically every other establishment US and Western politician. And there any many Jewish folks who agree that what Israel is doing is genocide and speak out againt it. So let's not fall into the trap of actual antisemitism.
Does expressing support for an establishment politician of this sort make one a Zionist as well?
No.
Ok, thank you for explaining.
Sorry, should've added a bit about 'the weak diaspora Jew' or something to make it more clear.
Dude it's not about Jew vs Not Jew, it's about genocide justification. To be clear here, the people on this genocide campaign are the Israeli government, the settlers that support the genocide, and the world leaders that continue to support the Israeli government. Trying to paint this as "Jews Bad" is no different than saying that Americans love Nazis just because we have Nazis in our government -- in actual fact some Nazis are American but not all Americans are Nazis.
So watch out with your broad brush buddy, you seen to be cruising along the slippery slope of eventually accusing Jews of operating space lasers.
Maaaaaybe a bad example. Americans love them some Nazi.
And, um, read that back. I normally don't clarify satire, but this is an admin thread, I was talking in Zionist voice there. Do you think all Jewish people share a single favorite book? One that says they eat children?
I do get it was satire, but sometimes we need to talk very plainly and leave no room for ambiguity,
Hence the clarification.
I've seen enough people espouse insane shit and mean it sincerely that I no longer assume satire when it's unclear to me. Sorry for the confusion.
Zionists. Nazis. Corporationists. Accelerationists.
All are the same shit, and for them, you have my axe, and my willingness to practice axe combat at their necks.
Hopefully congratulations on taking a clear stance and on willing to at least acknowledge that in case of deep questioning one can safely fall back to Rule #0 of the internet ("we'll know it when we see it").
Zionists = nazis.
And I damn well don't want to become a Zionist bar to abuse the metaphor.
I support banning Zionists.
I've always kinda felt silence is complicity. Seconded.
There's definitely a slippery slope, but allowing propaganda from a genocidal theocratic ethnostate that's been a part of like every fucked up thing in living memory seems at least as slippery and way more gross.
And I'm just sick of the bad faith bushit.
I support:
I do not support:
(Any of that is subject to change over time of course and is only valid for present conditions re: instance leadership quality, communication, etc.)
i tell openly zionist people (in the meat space) to shut the fuck up. people posting zionist crap online like to think they are wearing some kind of mask or shield of anonymity, but that just means to me they need to be told to shut the fuck up HARDER.
ban em, boil em.
Stick 'em in a stew!
Generally support this rule, but I'm a bit wary as a Jew
who's been accused of being zionist (I'm not) solely for reminding people that 'globalize the intifada' means calling for a global genocide against Jews and shouldn't be used in support of Palestinians(I was misinformed about the meaning of intifada). A lot of people, especially on the internet, don't seem to understand that not all Jews support zionism/the Israeli government. As long as there's a reasonable attempt to ensure that we're not just promoting anti-semitism (not to be confused with calling out zionist propaganda), I'm for this rule in the same way I support a rule blocking any sort of bigotry.I think it's great you updated your POV with new info and left the original comment. That's the kinda people I want to interact with and I think a good representation of our instance in general.
I was misinformed, thank you for the clarification
We can only try our best to be even handed. We just banned someone for antisemitism a few days ago, in fact. No matter what the current Israeli government does, there is no justification for antisemitism as far as I'm concerned.
A lot of people hate Jews completely irrespective of Israel's actions. I'm sorry that that's the case, but the rest of us need to be faithful to ourselves in rejecting racism regardless.
That is not what "globalize the intifada" means! Globalize the intifada is the recognition that Pissrael is the vassal state of seppoland. That it's funded, armed and politically covered by other countries that need to be fought as well since they will not relent on the oppression of palestine especially, and the global south generally, of their own accord.
And I have yet to meet an antizionist on lemmy who buys the hasbara that pissrael represents jews. Usually its the zionists or those on the fence still.
They're not the same, which is why I specifically called out that I'm not talking about Zionist propaganda. I am absolutely not conflating anti-zionism with anti-semitism.
fuck zionists, fuck israel free palestine
Couldn't agree more, fascists deserve no quarter. Why should we accept and tolerate them here.
And to all the people here whining about "freeze peach" what fuck are you doing on an anarchist leftist Lemmy instance? You do realize that hateful and dangerous speech is one of the things we fight against right? Tolerating it goes against what we stand for.
Not a part of the instance, but all the above are coherent arguments.
Summing it up in my own words: Zionists advocate genocide. Genocide is bad. Therefore, Zionists shouldn't be tolerated. It's a pretty clear line.
I think a big part of it is acceptance criteria, and a preference leaning way more towards preventing a permanent ban if there's a reasonable doubt. I think transparent moderation in this type of thing is good in general limiting harmful misinformation, and vote aye.
Devil's advocate: allowing Zionist voices here, also allows members to argue against the points they're making. Better that someone see their talking points discredited in the replies here, than see the exact same talking points go uncontested on reddit, traditional media, etc.
The again, I'm against platforming fascists because they rarely argue in good faith. I am very careful to use the term, but plenty of zionists are actual fascists (especially the terminally online ones you're likely to encounter), so there's a good argument to ban for this reason.
Ultimately I don't care. The whole debate has become so toxic, I'd rather poke myself in the eye with a dried cat turd. Perhaps banning will make things more pleasant.
How well did that work out for vaccines, climate change and all the other malicious propaganda actors being funded by rich people and malicious states?
Not at all, which is what people suspiciously calling for "devil's advocate" tend to conveniently ignore.
I also think it's very important to educate people because a lot of folks are just genuinely ignorant about various topics, often because they're coming out of indoctrination bubbles. But letting someone know why they've been banned is enough to satisfy this need, especially when we can still interact across instances, so it's unnecessary to tolerate harmful rhetoric in one's community.
We dont debate settler colonialists
We shoot them
In my experience it's not always possible to shoot people over the internet.
Skill issue.
How is zionist content even compatible with the golden rules of our instance? To be clear, I'm not against adding it explicitly to the list in rule 4, as it makes for a stronger stance, but I'm surprised this is up for debate.
Hard agree on this, let Nazis into your bar and it becomes a Nazi bar.
Zionist are just Nazis in a different uniform.
I'm an outsider to this instance, so my vote doesn't count.
I'm fine with banning Zionist content and users. I'm starting to see them regularly on Bluesky; they make inflammatory claims, but don't back anything up, and immediately resort to ad hominem when challenged. Even if you thought that some of the claims they made might have a degree of validity, they're still disruptive assholes. So far I haven't run across any that are acting in good faith; the accounts I've encountered sound like Israeli psy-ops.
The Paradox of Tolerance says if you tolerate the intolerant, then you yourself become intolerant by defacto excluding those that the other do not tolerate.
It's like the old saying, if you are in a group with 9 Nazis, that's a group with 10 Nazis. Same with Zionists
Deeply mixed. Pileons online happen for stupid reasons, tone and nuance is hard to convey, purity tests are common, and education is often sidelined in favour of berating.
Otoh lemmy is kinda dogshit and riddled with fucking freaks repeating straight up genocide denial. Opposing state backed mass murder is like a baseline requirement for admission into human civilisation so...
Ban the motherfuckers, I'm tired of seeing Zios post their apologia and propaganda all over the internet anyways. People hand wringing about it in the comments need to shut the fuck up and read the god damn code of conduct.
One thing I'll say is that this'll probably put more load on the admins, so I hope y'all have factored that in. It'll be well worth the effort in my opinion, both to protect our m@teys (did that ever take off?) at large as well as our Muslim, Arab, and Levantine friends.
100% - no place for zionism on our ship!
sorry. peanut gallery here but im curious what spurred it. Im not sure I have encountered anyone with a pro zionist viewpoint on the fediverse. The closest I have seen to pro israel is more im staying out of it either because of the way the whole area is or the ive got problems of my won in my own country and if we fix them then can worry internationally. I will admit I don't click on posts that seem rediculous by the title and I think I have seen some "news" posts were its like. yeah. right.
I saw a post on hexbear about a zionist dbzer0 user. Even made a post in ![email protected] about it. It's likely others saw this post too.
Wonderful move, if a bit overdue in terms of formality. The de facto moderation stance was already cleaning up Zionazi content; so yeah, in massive favour :)
Loving y'all's instance more and more by the day.
IMO this needs to be done.
/0 and the nexus are politically active instances, so there are grounds to decide which political views should be allowed in them. And geopolitics do matter on the internet; when two people interact online they change worldviews, and worldviews dictate if someone will fight or support their government's external policies.
Slippery slopes are a concern, but as long as you stick to why those rules are in place, it should be fine. (Basically: you don't want people here who support genocide, ethnonationalism, and discrimination against a whole group of people.)
"Intentions" and beliefs are a red herring. Ultimately, neither thing matters; what matters is what someone does and says. If someone consistently voices Zionism they should get the chop, no matter if they say "trust me, I'm no Zionist".
So I think the matter here is actually the finer details — to ensure the anti-Zionism policy is applied in a transparent and fair way.
To be honest, I suspect most Zionists are just bots anyway, and I barely ever see comments like that to begin with, so I don't really see any negatives of a policy like this. I'll admit to not being as frequently online the last couple weeks so maybe I'm just not paying enough attention, but yeah I think it's probably good to at least have that all in writing as a rule we can point towards.
Are we talking about banning them from posting/commenting on dbzer0 or banning them so no one on dbzer0 can see their posts/comments on any instances? If it's the former I'm for it, if it's the latter I'm against it.
I don't like seeing fuckers like that go unchallenged. If everyone willing to debunk their bullshit is on an instance that bans them and can't see what they write they'll always get the last word, influencing people on other instances.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the proposal, I'm still not 100% sure exactly what an instance ban does.
To clarify, an instance ban means they can't post, comment, vote or have an account on dbzer0 or anarchist.nexus. But they could obviously still join other instances and post there etc.
But will I see their post/comment on .world and be able to respond to their bullshit or will it be invisible to me and everyone else on dbzer0?
We are mostly talking about dbzer0 users or anarchist.nexus users who post Zionist content. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. We really just don't want to host them on our instances as users.
We already routinely community ban and/or remove pro-Zionist posts or comments in our communities from external users. They don't usually get a perma-ban from our instances though unless it's a well established pattern of behaviour, or the content is verging into MAGA / fascist territory.
And you are correct, once an external account is perma-banned from our instance then our instance users can no longer interact with them, unless they use an alt account on another instance. [edit: I think! please correct me if I'm wrong anyone, because I know in actual fact it has some quirks, but can't remember them right now]
Thanks for the clarification. They definitely shouldn't be allowed to have an account on dbzer0 or anarchist.nexus.
It's gone for good, for everyone.
This is also the problem I have with the notion of user-level blocking. So many people say "if what they're saying bothers you, just block them" but that doesn't actually stop the harm; it only stops you from being able to rebut it.
Their arguments are so dumb , better ban them
I like your instance more and more
Yeah let's do this
Unfortunately I can't separately upvote use of cat.
Haven't seen much hasbara activity here... but it's never too early to ban the fuckers.
edit: Ooops... looks like I spoke too soon.
Crap, I voted twice. Didn't realize nexus counted (because I apparently skipped that part the first time I read it) and switched to my db0 to vote.
Which is how I got the reminder, again, that I forgot about the afaq read (damnit self).
Brb fixing stupid/bad reading comprehension.
Lol
It looks like the text of your fourth bullet point got cut off.
Thank you! It didn't get cut off, I just forgot to finish that sentence, oops! Fixed now.
Maybe with a warning before banning them because you can't decide what someone's intentions are, but things like dehumanization, justifying genocide, hate speech, intimidation, and actively spreading misinformation, those are areas where you can create relatively clear and objective moderation rules. I'm deffo for that, let's keep this platform smart and fair
I'm 💯 for this.
Now I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a second here. Are we planning to ban other settler colonialist and or imperialist based accounts?
I'm a tiny bit worried that "zionist" might change over time to "not sufficiently anti-zionist", but... Maybe not, maybe I'm just paranoid.
Was there a specific incident(s) that led to this course of action?
I’m all for it. We don’t need them or their negativity in our life as there is enough bs to deal with.
Ban them.
Votes at 420 upvotes. Niceeeeee
Agree. Now give me a pirate themed picture please.
Governance votes like these are for DB0 instance members.
Thanks!
Agree!
A post like this is the rare time I want to award a post with more than an upvote
Hello! I have a question regarding Zionism.
I've successfully avoided the topic so far, and my opinion is, very boiled down, that both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist, as their own distinct people and states.
Does that make me a Zionist? Would I be banned under this new policy? I'm genuinely not sure, as I've not researched into this topic at all.
Not from this instance as well, but I think the distinction would be as to whether you think that Israel should exist at the expense of the Palestinians (not just Gaza and the West Bank, but the refugee crisis dating back to 1948 and possibly before).
If you recognize that both Israel and Palestine are already here, and that both represent national identities (not necessarily countries) that are, at present, as legitimate as any other one (regardless of their history), I think that’s just pragmatic and wouldn’t make you a Zionist.
Feel free to correct me!
I'm not sure its pragmatic, but it is defensibly naïve if you cite like the oooold borders
I don't quite get what you mean, could you elaborate further?
Zionists can't coexist with anyone, will stop killing only when they're dead, and everything they have is stolen.
"Israel" is an apartheid state that has been genociding palestinians for almost a century now. Putting them both on equal footing is zionist, but I don't know if the db0 moderation sees it this way as well obviously. The land "Israel" occupies is palestinian land. It was stolen from them, it needs to be returned.
More than land, you have to ask what "Israeli" is, and there's no substance there but atrocities. They don't have their own cuisine, not even a conquisine like Thailand, they don't have a real language, they don't have a big sports culture, their music is all about exterminating the brutes, their art is all about atrocities² and how they're cool to do/justified, and all their unique cultural practices are around atrocities. More than giving the land back, even if everyone it could plausibly be given to was dead, the very concept of an "Israeli" would need to go-like their forebears in the confederate States of America and Germany's third Reich, or their brothers in Rhodesia before them³.
³the Confederates and Nazis at least emerged from and were attached to actual cultures, had associated cuisine at the very least. Fried chicken and sweet tea, sausages and beer. Rhodesians and Zionists lack even that.
²seriously I've looked at a lot of art by seriously fucked up monsters, and none of it was as fucked or unable to stay off themes of murder as literally every Zionist artist I've ever seen the work of
¹bullshit conlang bastardizations do not count
Very transparent, Nazi scum
No, israel shouldnt exist at all. It should all be palestine and palestinians must be allowed to return from where they were expelled by zionists. It all should be one state with equal rights for all (ofcourse that includes jews).
They try to portray everyone who opposes Zionism as an antisemitic.
Pretty easy. If they support the existence of Israel they are a Zionist.
Hell yeah
Not an instance member but seems very solid so long as there is a narrow definition for "Zionist".
Every time I go take a dump, I don't think of genocide in Palestine. Does that make me a Zionist? Every time I vote in a local election, I don't look at the perspective that person has had related to Israel. Does that make me a genocide sympathizer and a Zionist? I think the answers to these questions is no.
As long as "Palestinians don't deserve to exist, this all belongs to Israel" is Zionist and "this is horrible stuff AND ALSO (geo-) politics has more than one moving part" is not bannable. I think you've got yourself a winner.
Edit: I would be supportive of restrictions for both Zionist accounts and also accounts who can't even handle discussion and downvote this comment. I don't personally want to interact with caricature accounts of any kind, but it's your instance.
Just take the easy route and ban assholes...
Easy agree.
I’m in agreement here and hopefully, I don’t completely miss the point, but does it matter what *-ism it is?
_________ people better than ________ people.
We’re entitled to / owed …….
There’s a more principle here that is what I believe to be more fundamentally identifying the issue. Somewhat of a Kant, “act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will it to be universal law” but without the selection bias.
I think it's fair to say we were in agreement that it would be best keep the scope narrowly focused on Zionism. Because once you make a general rule, then is supporting the US being pro-settler-colonialist? That's the slippery slope. Whereas with a narrow scope we don't run that risk so much.
I think actions like this, unfortunately, are a necessary evil. It is too easy for moneyed interests to astroturf in a bid to alter public opinion and the us state dept, the billionaire class, and other various actors have very deep pockets. Whether the users in question are themselves the bad actors or just victims of these campaigns, who knows, but if unchallenged it will just metastasize and the internet becomes just like twitter and reddit.
I doubt there is a perfect solution to combat this - but the solution proposed here seems well considered and reasonable to me.
Agree 💯
agree
Can you explain more about "vouched-for external users?"
Our admins can vouch for external users who we would like input from, and who contribute to our instance in some way.
Could you give examples of how an external user could contribute to your instance?
Maintaining one of our communities and keeping it active. Being very very active in a way that ideologically aligns with the fleet. Etc. Basically we try to give voice to people who maintain the health of the threadiverse in other ways than money as well
I guess I'm for it. I don't have particularly strong feelings about it. I think it's important for people to strongly oppose these ideas when they crop up. But is it better for these to be visibly refuted? Or to be quietly removed? Can't say I know what's better. Banning them is fine with me.
this isn’t that complicated
What is a "Zionist" account? How can you tell?
Are the israelibots really on Lemmy? I haven't seen much if any pro-israel commenting let alone posting.
Fuck yeah. Im .world but it was the first i signed up with. Blame me for poor decisions but it is what it is.
The beauty of federation is that we can try this approach. Unlike centralised platforms, banning someone doesn't ban them from the feddiverse. They can just boot up an account on a pro genocide instance and see how that goes.
If each instance had a strictly enforced code of conduct they would each develop a distinct culture and federation becomes a lot more interesting.
Dead set against.
To expand on that statement, I wholly agree that certain points of view have no place here or anywhere else for that matter. What I am opposed to is codifying what seems to me to be a weak definition of a term. That is a recipe for creating an oppressive tool that can be used to crush discourse.
Do we not already have ample policy in place to deal with the offensive parties without the need for further rules that are primed for misuse?
Additionally, your opening sentences read as very hierarchical and your initial decision to set a short expiry comes across as an attempt to sneak in a change under the radar.
I personally feel that you should take at least a short break as an admin of the instance.
I support this because Zionist supremacist hate is incompatible with democracy, and its rabid belief motivates Zionist first rule over the US, and by chain rule, entirety of west. Because it is more establishment normalized/supported than KKK/nazi supremacism makes it even more special than those ideologies in incompatibility with democracy.
Also you should put "globalize the intifada" as a site tag after this passes.
There is probably a better way to avoid interacting with Zionists than banning any account potentially associated with Zionism. I personally oppose Zionism, so this does not affect me yet, but it could easily turn into a slippery slope. If someone does not oppose Zionism in the “correct” way, perhaps in an anti-hierarchy, anarchist, left-libertarian fashion, they could end up being instantly banned.
Policies like this risk turning the platform into yet another echo chamber, similar to Gettr or Bluesky. I honestly do not think there is any need to ban Zionists, since their ideas are easy to refute in the marketplace of ideas. That said, this may simply reflect my own (maybe) culturally liberal outlook, which does not align with this site’s apparent bias.
Look, I know this is not her number 1 priority, or 100th, but goddamn, that haircut is not doing that girl any favors.
It's intentional, like Javier Bardem's haircut in No Country for Old Men.
How are you defining Zionism?
I am a Zionist based on a literal definition. In a better society, people could go anywhere they wanted, use electronic currency and have UBI, and do what they want.
So I'm a gay person. If there were no borders, I would be concerned that religious conservatives (of any faith) would move to my area and have tons of conservative kids, and then it would be harder for me to be gay without being killed and to marry. 100 years from now, I would hope that religions are less hostile to people who are different.
I also think if there were no Israel, Jewish people would be more likely to be killed. Elon Musk recently did a Nazi salute in America, many conservatives are openly embracing racists like Nick Fuentes, and it's very hard to predict if these are random flukes or if it's a harbinger of neo-Nazism growing in America. And although Europe has become more tolerant of Jewish people since WWII, I can understand some Jewish people wanting to not live there post-Holocaust.
I'm also not okay with war crimes. Many war crimes have impacted Palestinians: starvation of civilian Palestinians as a method of war negotiation, having dogs fuck Palestinians in prison to rape sexually assault and degrade and humiliate them (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8dy8r7lq0go), etc. International organizations have correctly labeled what has occurred a genocide and these organizations are not biased and are telling the truth. I would like Israel to exist and Palestinians to be treated well and have a place to live (that isn't subject to bizarre blockades or harsh unfair rules).
However, based on the technical meaning of Zionist, since I support Israel existing, that makes me a Zionist. I'm willing to leave voluntarily (or you can just ban me).
This might be uncomfortable for you to hear, but the substance of this sentence is a xenophobic. You being concerned as a minority that some other group might move next door and have children is exactly the type of justification used for the state of Israel and their genocide and apartheid, and the reason why Zionism ought be bannable on this instance.
I think when people who struggle with depression and other mental health issues get into arguments online, it can feel like everyone hates us or are specifically being mean for no reason. But when you step back, you realize you talked to maybe 4 people. And that this thread and argument didn't have anything to do with why you were so upset and getting emotional, you were just stressed about something else. And not in the best head space to be talking about these type of discussions. I can only guess that you have been struggling. That sucks. This thread is probably not the best place for you right now and that is ok.
::: spoiler My two cents about this conflict: Israel was created by stealing land and forcibly removing people who were already living there. Israel should not have been created that way. If some european countries felt bad after WW2, they should have donated some of their own land so Jewish people could create some communities there while still mingling with everyone else in a peaceful manner like a melting pot. The hurt begins there and gets worse since Israel insisted on expanding by doing more violence. The founders and leaders over the years were ok with using violence this way.
You wanting a safe place for Jewish people to exist is ok, but conflating that with needing Israel to exist is the problem you seem to be facing. You can say genocide is bad and people need to be prosecuted, but even if Israel stopped, it would need to return the occupied and stolen land. Israel does not represent all Jewish people. Israel is not the answer, it cannot even sustain itself. Israel doesn't even think your views are ok, it would label you an antisemite because it does not think it has done anything wrong and is just "defending" itself. :::
I know you mentioned you consider yourself liberal, we view things from a more leftist perspective. It's ok to ask questions and learn and reflect on ourselves. And also ok to take a break, a breather, and do some self-care.
I'm not a part of your instance, but this popped up in my feed and I thought it was interesting.
I'm not pro-Zionist and I'm not pro-settler, but I often take devil's advocate stances in Israel-Palestine arguments and am frequently mistaken as being a Zionist. In my opinion it isn't pragmatic to approach this argument in a black and white manner. Too often people on Lemmy boil down geopolitical arguments into what is objectively morally right instead of what is pragmatically possible for the leaders of a country. People on Lemmy often also seem to expect immediate results for decades old issues because "It's so simple to solve, just do X." When you don't immediately agree with these answers because they aren't pragmatically possible you get labelled as a Zionist.
People on Lemmy also seem unable to critically assess sources or research and when it comes to Israel-Palestine news they are willing to accept Pro-Palestine media on it's face while they dismiss any and all Pro-Israel evidence simply because of who it comes from. An independent journalist can write an article alleging something happened with nothing but a Twitter post as evidence, Al Jazeera will pick it up and copy the article almost verbatim with barely more than a credit to the original journalist, Haaretz will then pick it up saying Al Jazeera reported (again with almost no changes), and then it pops up on CBS. The next time you hear about it some guy on Lemmy is telling you that it's well known that XYZ happened because CBS, Haaretz, and Al Jazeera all reported it when it was really one guy with a twitter post. On the other hand you present a 500 page Israeli report to the UN on the details of an event and it's fake news because it came from Israel.
I get tired of people posting Israel-Palestine news that holds less journalist value than saying my friend's brother's ex-girlfriend said so. I get tired of people making arguments in bad faith because they care more about things aligning with their views rather than being true. Also, a lot of people on Lemmy don't really know what they are talking about, and this applies even outside of Israel-Palestine arguments; just the other day I had a guy argue with me about what happened in my life because statistically it should be a different way.
At the end of the day many people on Lemmy say they left other places, like Reddit or Twitter, because of the behaviors that they witnessed there, but it feels more like they just want an echo chamber to circle jerk to. I don't think you should ban accounts for engaging in civil debate so long as it is well sourced, researched, and seems to be in genuine good faith, but I would say that that should also go the other way. If all someone has to contribute to a discussion is a low effort and faithless argument, or just mudslinging, then they should be temp banned from posting (however that works) no matter which side the support.
EDIT: I'm the fire starter
Democratizing ethics. Lmao.
This is what a functional democracy looks like. It's nothing more or less than an attempt to formalize what the vast majority of our users already think. If only the DNC would take this approach.
Turbolib alert.
Nice instance mate.
why jewish people need to go somewhere? they should just stay wherever they are?
Nothing like that happens. Jews arent some exception to how other minorities are treated in different countries. This jewish exceptionalism is dangerous. If they are being mistreated maybe they along with other progressive forces of the said nation demand safety and rights instead of going on someone else's land doing bloodshed there.
Well the place I live at also has different kind of minorities who are mistreated horribly. I dont think they should go somewhere else. That just means you didnt fought the hate, you just fled away. This notion that israel is safe place for jews is dangerous as actions of israel can be directly linked to the rise of anti jewish sentiment.
well then youre wrong, go fight for their rights. Educate, agitate, organize. Thats the solution
As a Jewish person what the fuck are you talking about? And who said you can speak on behalf of us?
No, only when responding to bootlickers and reactionaries like you
Those events where they sell occupied west bank land?
Pissrael isn't safe for jews as the lost generation of mizrahi jews and the forcibly sterilized ethiopian jewish women can attest.
Creating a safe place for jews does not necessitate, and in fact is contradicted by, the creation of a settler-colonialist apartheid ethnostate.
Zionists have actually stoked antisemitism in europe in the hopes of forcing them to commit aaliyah. Please read some historical documents like Herzl's "mauscheljuden" article. Please look into why holocaust survivors in Pissrael have died in abject poverty.
Zionism is to judaism, what conquistadors are to christianity. It's "manifest destiny", it's "lebensraum", it's "rhodesia", it's the same settler colonialist type project that the banks of the 17-19th century kept starting all over the globe.
Maybe if the Jewish people need a safe place to go we could voluntarily give them some of our own land instead of stealing it from other people?
Not one Israeli lived there before ~1948, when the land was officially stolen from the Palestinians. That's not so long ago. Are they an indigenous group now?
Palestinians need a place to go. Israel is currently trying to wipe up palestinian from the land
There's a difference between neozionism, those that want to continue carrying out colonialist activities, and postzionism, those that don't. If you don't want to establish a difference between the two, you might as well ban the entirety of American users as well as many other countries. From the sounds of it, you want to focus on neozionist mirroring Hasbara talking points, so you should make the distinction. Otherwise I'm just going to assume you are picking the flip side of the same coin and are really trying to sneak an Israel shouldn't exist stance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY
Frankly, I don't care whether it is Israel or Palestine, I just don't think savagery is solved by savagery from the other guy, and there are plenty of Muslims that march along with plenty of Jews for peace in the region and for Palestinian rights without calling for the toppling the existing state and the bloodshed that would inevitably ensue from it.
One of my favorite hobbies over the past few years is following the internal collapse of online communities that passionately support an incoherent political ideology. There's something entertaining in watching events of the downfall unfold as predicted. This community is going down that road and there's not stopping it.
It's really not hard to see why. Anarchy is a fundamentally incoherent ideology. The ideology goes against human nature. There's a reason why it never worked out in history and never will. Like with all other inherently flawed ideologies, anarchy is too rigid, idealistic, and out of touch with reality. It can't adapt and its inadequacies can't hold up to criticism. Therefore, in order for the ideology to stay intact, authoritarianism has to step in and limit the discourse.
And so the censorship hammer begins to swing. Political censorship always after specific targets rather than specific behaviors, which means that it's designed to be weaponized. This is usually done with the implementation being intentionally unprincipled and vague which removes accountability from the censoring authority, thus giving them the wiggle room to censor whoever they don't like. Which is another thing, political censorship is always framed as a necessary moral purification rather than the liberty erosion that it is. This gives the censoring authority the power to ban any critics of the censorship as being immoral or supporting immorality. It's the same old tired textbook that we've time and time again.
The thing is? It will happen. There's no point in arguing for or against something like this, it will pass with thunderous applause... which is ironic for an anarchist space, but that's just how things go. Once it does pass, it WILL be followed up with a similar proposal soon after and then another and another, and the discourse here will continue to slowly but surely get more limited and more extreme. This will remain the case until the community snuffs itself out and only a shell of what it used to be remains. This community's future is going to be similar to what r/conservative or lemmygrad are like now. If that's how it's going to be, then I might as well as sit back and enjoy the show.
I’m not from this instance but I think this idea is ridiculous. You all have the right to be fascist, that’s up to you, but I think it’s bad. People have the right to believe whatever they want and you have the right not to host their accounts. But this is a terrible idea.
"We're a bunch of losers who got banned from reddit, so we will start our own forum to protect free speech!" "Yeah! Except for those people who believe things we don't like!" this thread happens