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
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
So we can’t have pro-Hamas content either, which would include wishy-washy statements like “oh, but I also oppose Hamas” while supporting their goals.
That also means you have to tolerate everyone until they do an intolerance. All voices should be heard until they say other voices shouldn’t be heard.
I am pretty sure that this “paradox of tolerance” argument was one of the major factors that led to the takeover of Wikipedia as well. Personally, I would prefer a genuinely neutral platform rather than one that is overly tendentious. Hard-left activists took advantage of liberal sensibilities to push the platform in favor of their own beliefs on Wikipedia.
What makes you believe that wikipedia has bee ‘taken over’?
zionism and anarchism are mutually exclusive ideologies. you cannot be an anarchist and support a ethnocultural supremacist settler state, as solidarity for all people and freedom from oppression is a foundational component of anarchism. it is as you said earlier:
you are simply more accepting of racism and genocide than any anarchist would be.
Does this mean that when Israel dissolves and a primarily Arab state replaces it that I can go there and get married to a bloke without being stoned to death?
Oh, I thought you were scared of religious conservatives, now it’s Arabs you’re afraid of? Did you decide to just stop pretending you weren’t racist?
Yes, I am probably more accepting of discussions around “racism and genocide,” by your standards, than whatever camp you belong to. I believe it is important to maintain open dialogue with everyone, even those you consider evil or those you actively oppose. For example, speaking with a murderer can sometimes lead to a confession. There is always a chance that you, I, or someone else is in the wrong, just as there is a chance that we are in the right. Humans are fallible, and we cannot know everything.
P.S. I am also a Christian who is willing to forgive murderers who repent. They still deserve punishment on earth, but forgiveness is a separate matter.
Well, when a Zionist repents of their sins, then they won’t be a Zionist anymore and we will welcome them.
Until that time, they are anathema.
Maybe I’m a bit too wary of demonizing demons. You don’t necessarily need to welcome people in order to be willing to talk to them, though. Responding to evil, or even perceived evil, with censorship and hate only risks turning you into a variant of the villain you claim to be opposing.
On Bluesky, you’ll see people who would rather kill or punch a Nazi than allow such a person to repent or attempt to make amends; in that way, hatred of evil can itself morph into evil.
My grandad killed actual Nazis with extreme prejudice. People have considered him a hero for the better part of a century
Shut the fuck up loser