This rule is weirdly incongruous with the others, given the anodyne dictionary definition of “Zionism”. Does it serve rather as a kind of ideological litmus test to exclude certain viewpoints - and indeed certain people - from this community? How is that defensible?
I’m a European who believes in tolerance. Having just noticed this egregiously discriminatory statement of values, I’m now thinking that I will not feel at home in this community.
PS: I see without surprise that this is not going to generate worthwhile debate. As a liberal (not Jewish and I generally vote green), I did see the health warning about “left-anarchism” (whatever, there’s overlap). I was pretty pleased to discover this community. But I don’t think I can continue contributing when there’s literally a rule condoning ethnic discrimination. That’s something that fascists do. It’s certainly not the European spirit. Bye.
I belive it originated from reaction to ridiculous decisions of feddit.org admins who decided to ban voices opposing Israeli genocide of Palestinians.
I personally don’t believe in bans unless someone is expressing explicitly racist views or is trying to deny genocide etc.
This is precisely what modern Zionism is, by design.
This isn’t to say anything generalizing about jewish people or jewish (or otherwise) people living in Israel.
Zionism however is a belief in maintaining an apartheid state where Palestinians are treated in a subhuman way, that is what this concept means and it isn’t really up for debate given the mountains of evidence and literal statements released by self proclaimed Zionists who occupy positions of power in Israel.
“Zionism” is a reflection of colonialism, especially of US colonialism, refracted into the middle east and intertwined with older contexts and conflicts, but make no mistake this is the classic european brutal playbook of colonialism and genocide tactics here, it is just shockingly disturbing when it is televised live so we cannot deny what our empire does at the “periphery”.
Thus, as a USian, my opposition to Zionism has nothing to do with being against Jewish people or people living in Israel, Jewish or otherwise, rather it has to do with me seeing very clearly how Israel is walking the same path that has left the US a bloody, broken fabric of traumatized people trying to survive genocide, class war and mass suffering in order to create a brighter future.
When someone says stuff like “Why don’t you believe that Jews don’t have the right to their own state when all the other ethnicities do have their own states” I will gladly discuss and explain errors in assumptions they are making which in turn mean drawing false conclusions.
When someone says “there is no genocide because Gaza population increased” I would gladly ban him, the same as I would ban a nazi denying holocaust.
Both above may fall under “Zionist” definition.
Where I think we differ in opinion (which is ok) is that in my opinion it is a violence to allow people to continually ask questions that in their framing mix up such critically different things and threaten to disguise genocide. It feeds into a story that spreads ignorance and incorrect framings of the world, and I see that as a threat just the same as when people display more openly hostile forms of the same root ideology.
I don’t treat the people the same, it is obviously a continuum, but I think damage is done to the community by pretending this is a question that is productive to have in public in the same way that endorsing a serious public conversation about whether the earth actually is flat and allowing both sides to present arguments the earth is flat or isn’t would actually be very harmful to the scientific literacy of people in general, since it would immediately send the message that yes maybe there is something to the side that thinks the earth is flat… (the round earthers were really prepared so I am sure they must be facing a group of people equally prepared and knowledgable!).
I prefer to hold people to their beliefs, and if you say you are a Zionist I am going to have serious, unrelenting questions about why and why you are ok with the NECESSARY implications of that. In the end though, most of the time humoring these converations feeds into an unintentional or intentional attempt to draw the oxygen out of the conversation about the humanity of Palestinians and how the Palestinian Genocide robs all Israelis of a brighter future, Jewish and non-Jewish alike.
Also, I am a genuine USian leftist who took that part of “I come from a country with no kings” seriously and ALL OF MY red flags go up whenever a government insists on being of a certain ethnicity or makeup of people to preserve or protect something since if there is one thing I have learned in surviving in the hellhole known as the US it is that people who are afraid of the diversity around them are always in the end a danger to said diversity.
You must pick a side between the names for the ideologies that are afraid of diversity and those that embrace it, which isn’t actually picking a side rather it is a choice between picking all of the sides or one very violent side.
Personally I think it is kinder for everyone involved to make this clear upfront with people so they don’t start piling the rest of their ideas on top of Zionist assumptions thinking they aren’t harmful.
I am not arguing for censorship, I am pointing out the reality that questions can often carry a weapons payload intentionally or unintentionally.
Interesting. And I agree, your suggested rule is much fairer.
I too had an issue with an overzealous Feddit Europe mod, which is why I came here.