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
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".
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.
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.
It's okay, I think your comments are reasonable, and if the comments were just from you, I wouldn't feel this way. The totality of this feels toxic to me, other people saying horrible stuff to me. I have good intentions, or want to have good intentions, and I feel like people are being super mean. I don't have a thick skin. I can learn about other stuff. Sorry you wasted your time.