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
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.
I agree that your points should be debatable. Undoing colonialism is hard/impossible. But whatever peaceful resolution to Palestine/Israel is adopted, Likud controlled IDF should have zero say in what security Palestine sees as necessary, nor have a monopoly on Oct 7th narratives.
Given all these crimes committed by IDF, even before 1948, the IDF should no longer exist.
Who is Hamas is not defined and Zionists have used the Hamas excuse to bomb all of Gaza and kill 70,000 people, half of whom are children under 18.
So basically when Zionists say they want to kill Hamas, it’s code word for saying they want to kill every Palestinian.
Yes you are a massive Zionist.
This does not seem like a reasonable stance to me. There is no peaceful Israel, and zionism is about greed not need. Zionists dont want peace, and zionism is a choice, not an ethnicity. Zionists dont see Palestinians or any other non-jewish person as worthy of basic human rights, as evidenced by their refusal to sign the UN declaration of universal human rights, and their multi-tiered justice system, and their adoption of Israeli basic laws that spell out Jewish supremacy and non-jewish lack of citizenship in lands they control. Their racist supremacy not just an idea, its enshrined in their law, and practiced in their state sponsored, and wildly publicly supported actions.
To support Israel as you do is to support that legally enshrined apartheid, and also who they are now (genociders) and what we all know they will continue to do. They will not change because they fundamentally disagree with the idea of ever changing. Jewish people have another homeland they could have chosen if they really need to rule themselves (a tenuous idea and not a need backed up by facts) called the jewish Autonomous Oblast. Or they are also perfectly safe in the US, or countless countries across the world. There was never a need for a homeland to be in the middle east which was already populated-- just a desire. There was no need for the nakba, which was ethnic cleansing, murder, and terrorism-- nor has zionism admitted that was wrong, or that they will ever make ammends. Balfour stipulated that Jewish settlers would respect the local population and live sperately form them, and zionists unilaterally destroyed that idea with the nakba. There is no redeeming zionism and it is an ongoing crime spree with massive numbers of real victims.
And why should Israel be “entitled” to “demand” a say (your words) in the governance of the Palestinian people they have so brutalized? Palestinians are not your people to make demands of. They are not your subjects or citizens. Your demand is backed by murderous force and war crimes, exercised daily. You display the same desire for brutal reinforcement of your own views that the rest of the zionists do. You should be on your knees begging for forgiveness and reconciliation, not making “demands” that you feel “entitled” to, after innocent Palestinians have suffered a genocide and terrorism at zionist hands. – terrorism which you still openly support, despite your professing to the contrary in your statement.
I think your support for zionisms colonizalism and murder – and your demand to dictate the future of Palestinian governance should disqualify you from remaining on Lemmy, and I find your stance to be appalling and grossly immoral. You cant seperate zionism from terrorism and colonizalism, no matter how well spoken you are. And your demand to dictate the governance of palestine is concrete proof of your not belonging here.
Dezionise Israel like Germany was denazified. Then we won’t need to equate Israel with Zionism by default, and their existence can be justified
This is exactly what insane right-wing fundamentalists in Israel are saying about Palestine.
under 80 years of massive violence and apartheid done by Israelis, you seek to draw equivalence between the two groups?
Fascists projecting their evil onto their victims and trying to muddy the waters via darvo is nothing new.
There’s no difference between wishing Palestine is eliminated and wishing Israel is eliminated. It’s the exact same genocidal insanity. Just as there are peaceful Palestinians, there are peaceful Israelis.
Just shoot Netanyahu and his cohort, shoot Hamas, job done, peace and prosperity achieved.
Zionist freak
Me: “Just shoot Netanyahu and his cohort”
You: “Zionist freak”
…
It is technically Zionism. If you are anti-Zionist, at this point in time, you think Israel should not exist. If you are a Zionist, you think Israel should exist.
Incidentally, I have similar views as yours regarding the ICC and war crimes, and was called “horrible” and “proud” and “shit” among other things.
I’m deleting my account tomorrow. I don’t know if I would be banned for my views, but I don’t feel welcome here. It feels like if I am against war crimes and want ICC prosecutions, but am not actively advocating for Israel to be destroyed, it’s not enough to be here… or even if it were enough, enough people said terrible things to me that I really don’t want to be a part of this community anymore.
What do you think is implied in the right to exist of a state? Looking at other states that don’t exist anymore like the Third Reich (and the first two while we’re at it), the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, the Ottoman Empire, Czechoslovakia: When a state ceases to exist, it can have different implications but not what Zionists seam to think. Israel is a settler colonial project that suppresses the indigenous Palestinian population. If you prefer that over a peaceful coexistence, you might be wrong on an anarchist instance.
I am not an expert on all the ways Palestinians have been oppressed. Do you think having a decent amount of land for Palestinians (without bizarre rules or restrictions) that is fair and UN recognition is still somehow bad? From the little I know of the conflict, prior to the most recent war, Palestinians had land, but they were severely restricted in what they could do in unfair ways that would upset pretty much anyone under similar circumstances. I think someone can want a 2 state solution and ICC prosecutions and support a liberal regime in Israel, and that is technically Zionism, even if it means changes to Israel. I don’t see why that is seen as bad.
You may be right that an anarchist instance is not ideal for me. I really wish that religion weren’t so oppressive of people in general and that more people were Atheists (or didn’t have religious views that advocated hurting non-members or minorities), and that people could just go wherever and do whatever. I really hope one day there is a post-AGI world where people just have UBI and travel and do whatever and there’s no conflict.
A two state solution still contradicts the right to return. Shortly before the foundation of the state Israel in 1948, the Nakba happened. Meaning Zionist settlers killed and expelled thousands of Palestinians from their homelands. Gaza is overpopulated because of that. They are not allowed to return. Some do it over Google Street View because there is no other way. I recently saw a short film about that.
And it’s not like Nakba is long ago and now the genocide in Gaza is unrelated but there is continuity in expansion, domination and dehumanization. On the other hand, Palestinians were very welcoming to the first Jewish immigrants. Their violence started long after the colonial violence of the Zionists. If you want to learn more, I recommend Ten Myths about Israel by Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historic an who says he loves his people but also every other people.
The solution must be a one state solution, maybe binational. Acknowledging the state of Palestine is a step in the right direction. (The best solution in my eyes would be democratic confederation and no state but let’s keep it realistic.) A liberal Israel that gives all citizens the same rights would be as far removed from the Israel state since 1948 as Apartheid South Africa is from today’s South Africa or Nazi Germany from the FRG. It would be a different state in any meaningful sense.
I agree with most of what you said, but I’m a little confused by this section:
Whatever your views of post 1948 Israel, Jews and Arabs were both regularly killing each other in Palestine prior to the creation of Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine
Additionally during the Ottoman empire, when modern Zionism and Jewish immigration started, Jews were moving there fleeing persecution in Russia and Europe. They were a poor underclass when they arrived. Not all Jewish immigrants were Zionist, history suggests most were not. But even those that were, were met with Syrian and Arab nationalists that wished to keep the Ottoman empire Arab. Jews created their own defense very early on in a handful of small farming communities.
The history leading up to the creation of Israel is really not pretty for anyone, Jews or Arab. But you seem to be painting a picture where “loving Arabs opened their arms and welcomed in the Jews only to be betrayed.” That doesn’t seem to be how history is recorded. It seems problematic to paint history through a modern lens, if Israel was never created we would be recounting all of the awful things Jews endured under Ottoman rule and Mandated Palestine.
The problem is really with the creation of 2 states. Most Jews would have likely slowly integrated if Israel was never created. But by creating Israel they emboldened the Zionist nationalists. To me the real issue is with the creation of a Jewish state at the detriment of non Jews living there. We need a 1 state solution.
It’s still a different order of magnitude. Sorry or oversimplifying in a relatively short comment.
True. The first aliyah had the goal to integrate into society (which included learning Arabic). Only after the Belfort Declaration 1917, Zionist movements began. This isn’t to blame all individual immigrants though. They have their reasons as in other settler colonial states as well.
Ilan Pappe describes that diaries of early settlers were surprised that there were people at all (because they were promised “a land without people for a people without a land”) and they were welcomed. Your list starts 1920 which is already during Zionist settlement. I didn’t mean to imply that Zionism started 1948.
I agree with all that you said, but also wanted to add: Israel was created by the exact same UN resolutions that created Palestine as a country-entity. 1-state solution is not possible, because both involved parties want their own independence.
Today a 1 state solution is impossible, but someday it will have to be possible or the violence will never end, imo. As long as there are 2 states there will always be people that want to take it all for their “side”.
Violence doesn’t care if there’s one or two states because the violence comes from fundamentalism. Fundamentalists will be still killing the “lesser people” or “the enemy”, even if they’re both technically living in one country.
I don’t know enough to really have an opinion on what you said. I know the Zionist claim is that they previously lived in that area and were returning, so have a claim to the land. Fundamentally, it seems bizarre to me that anyone can have a claim on land in any permanent way, but also different cultures have such different values (like some cultures don’t want women to be able to read) that for now, the world being like this seems unfortunately necessary. Maybe in the future everyone will agree that women should be able to read, gays can marry, and people will all just be cool with each other and be able to go wherever they want.
Deborah Feldman once said how she realized how short the ancient Israelites lived there compared to the overall history. Yet they feel entitled to a land that before and after them belonged to others like Canaanites, Romans, Ottomans …
Even if true, how is having ancestry 2000 years ago any legitimation to expel people who live there for centuries? I have a lot of ancestry when I go 2000 years back. That doesn’t give me the right to do shit.
Anyway, I think it’s good to admit that you aren’t educated on the topic. Maybe it’s time to change that. The afore mentioned Ten Myths About Israel is a good start. It’s by a historian who writes against his national interests (and is therefore as unbiased as possible) and is scientific but still easy to read.
They had a nation there 2000 years ago. That’s very different from “having ancestry”, because after the Kingdom of Israel got conquered, most Israelites remained. They started being “a wondering nation” after persecution got ramped up to 11, which was the state throughout most of the 2000 years.
Considering that, historically, Israel existed over 2000 years ago, Palestine existed… well, never, and the entire region’s borders were created in early 20th century by the French and British anyway, I think it’s a fair assumption that both of these peoples should be able to have a nation of their own, with their own borders.
They had a kingdom 2000 years ago which wasn’t Israel but Judea. Israel was destroyed much earlier. Nation states are a recent phenomenon.
True. Most descends of the ancient Israelites and Judahites stayed and later converted to Christianity and eventually to Islam. They still live there, at least before 1948. On the other hand, Judaism spread through Europe mainly through convertion.
Half of them already lived outside Israel in the first century (hence the Septuagint for Jews who didn’t speak Hebrew) which isn’t too surprising in a world without nations and boarders.
National identities developed in Europe during in 19th century. Before that, neither Germany nor France or Italy existed. Palestine identity started to form at the end of the 19th century. As Zionism did. Before that, Jewish was a religious identity. They didn’t identity as a wondering nation because there were no nations.
What about no nations no boarders? Or a binational state? Einstein advocated for the latter by the way.
Like I said, after being called “horrible” and “shit” and in favor of mass murder, I’m not interested in learning more. There’s other conflict in society, other ways to try to make the world better. I’m leaving this instance and learning more about the genocide in Sudan. I’m not really willing to be an ally or learn more if this is how I’m treated. I still hope Palestinians are treated better by the world, but I’m out. This isn’t the only atrocity in the world, even if it is among the worst.
What you said was that you don’t want to be part of this community (dbzer0) anymore. If you don’t want to understand topics you clearly have an opinion about, I totally wasted both our time. Sorry for that.
I wouldn’t delete, if I were you. Extremists on both sides - those who would excuse Israel’s war crimes, and those would excuse Hamas’ atrocities - will certainly insult and belittle you. But they’re a vocal minority.
I like the idea, but I don’t think it reflects the reality of how people feel. People want an echo chamber, and I am not interested in being where I am unwanted. It is what it is.
So you think the Hamas would exist without Israel? Not only is Hamas anti-colonial resistance against Israel, but Israel actively supported Hama’s to weaken secular Palestinian groups and make Palestinian resistance less relatable and less credible. Palestinian resistance in the 70s or 80s was led by educated women. Dehumanizing Hamas is easier. Being anti Hamas is being against the system and the state that created it, which is colonialism and the state of Israel.
Stop with your both sides Zionism. Hamas used their legal right to resist occupation by any means including violent resistance.
Notice how you think Hamas has no right to exist for rightful resistance, but somehow think a genocidal ethnostate literally committing a genocide should exist.