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.

  • kbal@fedia.io
    10·
    19 hours ago

    For a serious answer I suppose you’d need to read several books about the history of Israel and its relationship with Europe, the semiotic position of the term Zionism in contemporary political discourse, and methodologies for dealing with problematic topics in online communities.

    But in short I’d say that the more evil is done in the name of Zionism, the more the name itself becomes perceived as synonymous with it, and there’s a lot of that going on these days.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.worldBanned from communityOP
      115·
      19 hours ago

      IMO a better serious answer would be for the community not to have a rule that appears to be a discriminatory dog-whistle, or (in this most good-faith possible interpretation) weirdly obsessional. This community is for discussing Europe, not West Asia.

      • JiveTurkey@lemmy.world
        10·
        18 hours ago

        IMO you’re either playing dumb or just simply out of touch with what’s been going on. I think it’s clear without saying the original meaning and intention of the word Zionism is accepted here but it’s most recently used as an excuse or a reason to commit genocide and wage war indiscriminately.

          • rowdy@lemmy.zip
            10·
            18 hours ago

            Ah there you are - this post was never about Zionism, was it? It was about denying genocide in Palestine.

            And now you’ve answered your own question. There aren’t rules explicitly banning other genocidal ideologies because there aren’t nearly as many goobers like you defending them. (Except tankies, but they’re not welcome either.)

          • kbal@fedia.io
            3·
            15 hours ago

            If there’s a sign saying “do not feed the alligators” you can guess that it’s probably because they had a problem with too many people feeding the alligators. There’s no reason to ask if that means it’s okay to feed the crocodiles.

          • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
            2·
            15 hours ago

            There is no apologist of any genocide in the sub. You are the only one who use other genocides as a pretext to deflect about the genocide in gaza.

            The genocide intent in gaza is the most obvious since hitler. The top israel leaders including the prime minister expressed genocide intent. Like netenyaho compared gazan to amalek. The bible say that isrselites was ordered to kill everybody including infants and animals