I'm only responding here because you're saying "they know what they were arguing and you’re being disingenuous if you try to say otherwise" and because you're making a whole bunch of assumptions about my intent and my ...rationality. Basically, I'm only responding because you're displaying a big degree of bad faith towards me, to the point where you're not understanding what I'm actually saying, especially in the third comment that got me the ban.

The comment with the all caps, mentioning Greece and Ukraine, fine, sure. I tested the line, asking specifically about the TOS and got burned. That's your line. I still think it's a silly line, but that's your line. Fine.

But the comment you banned me for is where I think you completely misunderstood me. Here's the comment:

Death to Israeli apartheid. Death to the institutions that uphold the Israeli Apartheid. Death to the institutions that uphold the occupation, the disposession and the genocide of Palestinians. Death to the structures that maim the humanity of both the colonizers and the colonized.

Long live all the people who live in Palestine from the river to the sea. Long live the children, the life, all children, all life, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, and other. Palestinian, Druze, Bedouin, Samaritan, Mizrahi, Ashkenaz, Sephardic, and other.

“The padrone is dead. But Alfredo Berlingheri is alive and we mustn’t kill him. […] Because he is living proof that the padrone is dead.”

I thought the last line, the reference to the padrone would be making it crystal clear, but it didn't. It's from the movie 1900 and I guess my mistake was believing that this is a classic that everyone has seen. My bad. Here is what goes on: after the revolution, the peasants want to kill the Alfredo character (DeNiro), who is the padrone, the boss. But Depardieu's character, Olmo, makes the case that they should in fact not kill Alfredo, because his role as padrone is dead and Alfredo, no longer being the padrone is just a regular person now. The padrone is dead, Alfredo lives. Imagine if the Jacobins hadn't guillotined Louis-XV, the line would be "the king is dead, Louis is alive and we mustn't kill him, because his continued existence is living proof that the institution of the monarchy is dead: he is now just a dude like the rest of us".

My argument here is that the institution of Israeli apartheid must die, to free the Israelis themselves from the shackles of being "the padrone". That's why I write underneath long live all life, and list explicitly Judaism among the religions and the various Jewish nationalities (Mizrahi, Ashkenaz, Sephardi). They are Alfredo. May they live! And may their continued existence be statement to the death of the "padrone" role, that Israeli nationalism has been ascribing to them.

When I say "death to israeli apartheid" and "death to the institutions and structures that uphold it with all its horrible outcomes" I am not advocating violence against people, I am advocating the destruction of horrific systems and institutions. I am saying the equivalent of "death to slavery", "death to patriarchy", "death to capitalism". And I'm adding explicitly in the people that will benefit from the death of these horrific systems and institutions precisely the groups of people that are currently benefiting from them. I'm not saying "death to the whites", I am saying "Death to slavery and its institutions so that whites don't have to be slavers".

If, despite what I think, you understood all of that and still somehow construed my writing as "repeated calls to violence", I don't know what else to say.

Edit: in fact I think you're also misrepresenting the context of my 1900 comment. It was not a follow up on the Greece/Ukraine comment. Instead, I was responding at a different branch of the thread, below a comment where someone was making the argument that "death to Apple" is not a threat of violence against the Apple CEO and employees. It was already in the context of discussing "death of institutions" vs of people.