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.
There is no right of return. Palestinians are the only group in history treated as permanent, multi-generational refugees. Every other group of refugees in history that cannot return to their country of origin is settled into their host country or some other one. Would you say that refugees of the India-Pakistan partition, or Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia should be allowed to return? What about the descendants of Mizrahi Jews who were expelled from other MENA countries after Israel was formed? Why are Palestinians the only people on earth who must be refugees forever with their own UN agency?
This is factually wrong unless you do not recognize the UN to exist.
If only German, Czechia and Slovakia would join some kind of continental union that allowed them to at least visit their place of origin. If only, if only.
I am a proponent of a world without boarders. Being forced into camps and Gaza which is at this point and for a while an open air prison, is a starting point. If you start somewhere else, expect the internationalist, anti-imperialist Palestine solidarity movement an ally. If you just want to distract from Palestine and do nothing, go fuck yourself.
All countries control their own borders. If you want a one world government, you definitely shouldn't support the creation of new countries.
Can Pakistani Muslims whose ancestors fled India return there freely? Are they still considered refugees today, 4 generations later?
You know that you are on an anarchist instance, right?