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.

  • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
    5·
    18 hours ago

    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.

    after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine

    • zionist leader and first prime minister ben gurion

    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

    Here, in the land of Israel, we returned and built a nation. Here, in the land of Israel, we established a state. The land of the prophets, which bequeathed to the world the values of morality, law and justice, was, after two thousand years, restored to its lawful owners – the members of the Jewish people