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.
You must log in or # to comment.
I didn’t know about this community until recently, this thread shows me it’s good I do now. :)
for a community concerning Europe
Because european countries are supporting genocide. That’s how it’s related.
I’m a European who believes in tolerance.
You can tolerate people who support genocide and imperialism, but not tolerate people who are against that?
As a liberal (not Jewish and I generally vote green),
Not surprising. I have friends who are jewish and they are staunchly anti-zionist. Who are you to dictate that?
I’m now thinking that I will not feel at home in this community.
There’s always [email protected]
condoning ethnic discrimination
What the fuck? The rule says ZIONIST, not JEWISH. I’ve seen actual anti-semitism on this instance and have shot it down very fast, but i have absolutely no love for zionists.
That’s something that fascists do. It’s certainly not the European spirit
I see you’ve been living under a rock and haven’t opened a history book.
Edit:
I’ve seen your other comments. You just go mask-off with your bullshit. Thank god this community is hostile to zionists.
A supermasist ideology has no place here . Just like you would not allow someone believing in issis wanting to create an islamic state in syria and iraq
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.
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
Well, perhaps you can still see why reasonable people might believe otherwise.
ipso-facto
Or that the context beyond the mere classical definition one might have given 50 years ago has relevance.
I am curious, what do you think Zionism is actually?
I don’t think I can continue contributing when there’s literally a rule condoning ethnic discrimination
The rule against Zionism is literally the opposite of “a rule condoning ethnic discrimination”. This community’s second rule is actually redundant with its first one, but it’s worth stating separately due to the prevalence of misunderstandings about it.
FYI, aside from being predicated on the forced displacement and/or murder of the Palestinian people, Herzl’s Zionism (to which the state of Israel explicitly credits its existence) has also always been rooted in antisemitism.
Hey thanks for identifying yourself as a genocide apologist, makes it real easy to block you =D
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.)
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.
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
It’s not arguable or debatable and China is no better.
It’s not a dog whistle if everyone knows precisely what it means.
Hey, look, it’s the paradox of tolerance yet again.
If I had to guess it’s to differentiate itself from the biggest „Europe” community that is pretty Zionist and to make Zionists feel unwelcome here, which is very based endeavour.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Zionism however is a belief in maintaining an apartheid state where Palestinians are treated in a subhuman way
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.
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.
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.
