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.
But Zionism is not ipso-facto supremacist any more than Kurdish or Catalan nationalism is supremacist.
It is because from all the people that lived in the land they thing they had the most right to it even if the zionist had no proof that they have connection to the israel. Most local population refused foreigners to impose a state on it Israel couldn’t be created without mass displacement.
Even the prime minister who is cinsidered “moderate” claim that jews are the original owner of the land which is false, they was not the first to settle there
Well, perhaps you can still see why reasonable people might believe otherwise.
Or that the context beyond the mere classical definition one might have given 50 years ago has relevance.