Lemmy.world reportedly bans people for being anti-Zionist. At the same time, numerous human rights organizations have documented that Zionist policies and actions amount to crimes against humanity (e.g., forced displacement, collective punishment, apartheid).
If banning opposition to crimes against humanity is itself anti-humanity, doesn’t that make lemmy.world complicit? How do you reconcile defending a platform that silences critics while atrocities continue?
Lemmy.world bans you then apologizes to the ones promoting and defending what’s happening when you report tos breaking comments.
They are fully okay being complicit
A lot of Lemmy.world users sign up because they believe it to be a “neutral” instance, and just want a drop-in FOSS reddit replacement. The truth is that Lemmy.world is highly partisan, particularly of the establishment DNC variety. Liberal zionism, anti-communism, and more are the mainstays of Lemmy.world admins and moderators, but many users don’t realize it until much later. Further, Lemmy.world defederates and censors communist and other leftist instances, creating a walled garden where their users cannot even see opposition.
It’s really the lack of self awareness that makes it so galling. They genuinely think they’re the neutral default and don’t understand that the ideology they subscribe to has no privileged place.
Yep! Been reading Gramsci lately, and he puts into words this phenomenon really well:
The widespread prejudice that philosophy is something very difficult because it is the intellectual activity of a specific category of specialist scholars or professional and systematic philosophers must be destroyed. To do this we must first show that all men are “philosophers,” defining the limitations of this “spontaneous philosophy” possessed by “everyone,” that is, of the philosophy contained in: (1) language itself, which is a totality of determined notions and concepts and not simply and solely of words grammatically void of content; (2) common sense and good sense; (3) popular religion and therefore also in the entire system of beliefs, superstitions, opinions, ways of perceiving and acting which make up what is generally called “folklore.”
Having shown that everyone is a philosopher, even if in his own way, unconsciously (because even in the smallest manifestation of any intellectual activity — “language” — is contained a definite conception of the world), we pass to the second stage, the stage of criticism and awareness. We pass to the question: is it preferable to “think” without having critical awareness, in a disjointed and irregular way, in other words to “participate” in a conception of the world “imposed” mechanically by external environment, that is, by one of the many social groups in which everyone is automatically involved from the time he enters the conscious world; [3] or is it preferable to work out one’s own conception of the world consciously and critically, and so out of this work of one’s own brain to choose one’s own sphere of activity, to participate actively in making the history of the world, and not simply to accept passively and without care the imprint of one’s own personality from outside?
Note 1: For his own conception of the world a man always belongs to a certain grouping, and precisely to that grouping of the social elements who all share the same ways of thinking and working. He is a conformist in relation to some conformity, he is always man of a mass or a man of a collective. The question is this: of what historical type is the conformity, the mass of which he is a part? When his conception of the world is not critical and coherent but haphazard and disconnected he belongs simultaneously to a multiplicity of masses, giving his own personality a bizarre composition. It contains elements of the cave-man as well as principles of the most modern and advanced learning; shabby, local prejudices of all past historical phases as well as intuitions of a future philosophy of the human race united all over the world. Criticizing one’s own conception of the world means, therefore, to make it coherent and unified and to raise it to the point reached by the most advanced modern thought. It also means criticizing all hitherto existing philosophy in so far as it has left layers incorporated into the popular philosophy. The beginning of the critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, that is, a “know thyself” as the product of the historical process which has left you an infinity of traces gathered together without the advantage of an inventory. To begin, then, it is necessary to first compile such an inventory.
Note 2: Philosophy cannot be separated from the history of philosophy nor culture from the history of culture. In the most immediate and pertinent sense one cannot have a critically coherent conception of the world — that is, one cannot be a philosopher — without being aware of one’s conception’s history, of the phases of development it represents, and of the fact that any conception stands in contradiction to other conceptions, or elements of other conceptions. The correct conception of the world answers certain problems posed by reality which are very much determined and “original” in their actuality. How is it possible to think about the present — and a well-determined present at that — with a philosophy elaborated in response to the problems of a remote and often outdated past? If this happens it means that one is an “anachronism” in one’s own time, a fossil and not a modern living being. Or at least one is “composed” bizarrely. And in fact it so happens that social groups which in certain ways express the most developed modernity, are arrested in other ways by their social position, and so are incapable of complete historical independence. [4]
Note 3: Given that language contains the elements of a conception of the world and of a culture, it will also be true that the greater or lesser complexity of a person’s conception of the world can be judged from that person’s language. A person who only speaks a dialect or who understands the national language in varying degrees necessarily enjoys a more or less restricted and provincial, fossilized and anachronistic perception of the world in comparison with the great currents of thought which dominate world history. His interests will be restricted, more or less guild-like or economistic, and not universal. If it is not always possible to learn foreign languages so as to put oneself in touch with different cultures, one must at least learn the national tongue. One great culture can be translated into the language of another great culture, that is, one great national language which is historically rich and complex, can translate any other great culture, i.e. can be a world expression. But a dialect cannot do the same thing.
Note 4: The creation of a new culture does not only mean individually making some “original” discoveries. It means also and especially the critical propagation of truths already discovered, “socializing them” so to speak, and so making them become a basis for vibrant actions, an element of co-ordination and of intellectual and moral order. The leading of a mass of men to think coherently and in a unitary way about present-day reality is a “philosophical” fact of much greater importance and “originality” than the discovery by a philosophical “genius” of a new truth which remains the inheritance of small groups of intellectuals.
Gramsci puts it perfectly, the smaller the group you are in and the less exposure you have to the broader world the smaller your ideas must necessarily be.
Yep, that’s why language learning is such a useful skill!
On a related note, I thought Dennett makes a really good argument in Consciousness Explained that our minds are basically made of memes in a very literal sense. The wiring in our brains is the substrate, but the memes that get seeded there are what really defines us more than anything.
Interesting, I’ll have to give that a look!
Fuck those guys. I’m new here and super glad I didn’t blindly choose them.
Which is particularly ironic when they go HURR DURR .ml HURR DURR TANKIE AUTHORITARIAN HURR DURR OPPOSING OPINIONS NOT ALLOWED.
Other than the tankie part what do you do differently?
Liberal spaces live and die on free speech theatre. They always have to pretend they’re protecting free speech and allowing open debate. Being perceived as “authoritarian” is their kryptonite, because authoritarianism is the one thing they claim to oppose above all else.
Communist spaces will unapologetically hit you with the ban hammer for defending imperialism, fascism, capitalism, bigotry, etc. and I respect that.
It’s the general problem of defining yourself as being against something and not actually being for anything.
on .ml the bans tend do also tend to be temp ones, unless someone’s seriously harassing. so like people will be complaining about the 1984 censorship regime here but then if you look at their modlog more often than not they got a slap on the wrist for insulting people or doing the laziest anticommunism ever put into text. often both.
And the really angry ones tend to be banned for some flavor of bigotry.
Yep, agreed!
I wonder what happens on .ml when you voice some alternative opinions… 🤔
This is just the nazi “I was banned just for having a differing opinion!”
Like yeah man, don’t support genocide, don’t carry water for genocidaires, most people find it very easy, but the ones who find it hard seemingly can’t stop whining about it.
It’s depend of the “alternative opinion”. Factually wrong get downvote and length response, different opinion just length response, regurgitate propaganda get comment removed, “I’m right because I’m white” is ban.
So, what you’re saying is… It is a drop-in FOSS reddit replacement.
Yes, haha, but in ways more similar than being FOSS would imply. .world isn’t neutral.
As I said when they posted this same thing in hexbear it is very funny and ironic that they are on a piefed instance which was designed to be exactly what .world has become with extra guardrails to ensure it is that.
Yep, that’s a whole other can of woms, haha.
Kinda the same can of worms if you really think about it. The nature of these platforms is that if they don’t have communists in moderation they will inevitably all turn into Nazi bars because liberals can’t even fight fascism in places they control because of their obsession with civility and “free marketplace of ideas” nonsense.
Yep, well-said! That’s why liberalism cannot fight fascism, and instead enables it.
I don’t think a solicitation for an opinion about mod decisions is the kind of question that a general “Ask” sub is for.
When the admins themselves take offense to anti-Zionist slogans without them being directed towards them, you can take their word for it that they are indeed what they are taking offense for
Zionism isnt judaism and acting like it is is a huge red flag.
Instant credibility loss for me.
Is that piece of shit admin still around? If so, then the answer is yes.
Is that piece of shit admin still around? If so, then the answer is yes.
do you know how little that narrows things down?
Lemmy.world reportedly bans people for being anti-Zionist.
They ban people for posting “Death to all Zionists” and other calls for violence.
Death to all nazis
They allows people minimizing the nekba and denying the genocide
I have high doubts that Lemmy.world bans people specifically for being anti Zionist.
Context and number of incidents of ban is required.
Obligatory ‘Israel is a piece of shit country.’
Allowing nekba deniers is enough to critisize .world mods
I was banned there for saying Ukraine is just a meat grinder for the rich
Literally banned me for calling Kaplan a Zionist.
And then they unbanned me, unprompted.
Your doubts are unfounded.
deleted by creator
Modlog is public, they were banned for calling Kaplan “Zionist scum”.
https://lemmy.ml/modlog/view?page=1&actionType=All&userId=15127012
Fair enough. I was guilty of assuming their disinterest in the truth elsewhere was part of a larger pattern. Blocked them though so I won’t make the mistake again.
Comedy.
Got it. Next time you’ll do the same mistake with a different user. One person at a time!!
deleted by creator
I’ve found some evidence and posted it here:
Lemmy.world Is Anti‑Humanity. How Its Admins Weaponized Defederation to Silence Palestine SolidarityMaybe I’m missing something, but that post just has a ton of claims and no screenshots or links to what it’s talking about.
this has been deleted. lol
Question. Does it matter which you login to all that much? Many of my subs are not world… but my login is. Has been for a long time. I never really think about it.
It’s just about what you can see, and who can see you. For maximum content and interaction pick one that defederates, and is defederated by, as few instances as you can find.
Some good ones to try: Lemmy.zip, startrek.website, and lemmy.dbzer0.com, but maybe wait until this blows over to commit to dbzer0 unless you’re cool with losing federation to .world, I understand there is a lot of stuff there.
I’m on my ninth Lemmy account, I ditch them after I think I’ve dropped a few to many PII breadcrumbs, I’ve used all of these multiple times and they’re all good.
I started on .world like you, but now that you’re here there is no reason to let .world mods curate your experience.
Also, you can always maintain multiple different accounts.
Bonus question. I am using jerboa. Some people it shows where their acount is from, but others it doesn’t. Is that just a jerboa thing, or is that a lemmy feature that you can hide what instance you are from?
I use Voyager and a lack of instance name, either on users or in communities, means it’s the same as mine.
Do you see any that say .world, or just others?
Federation matters quite a lot, for example you cannot see anything on Hexbear.net or Lemmygrad.ml, because .world blocks communist instances. If you want a generalist instance, lemmy.zip is often recommended and more widely federated. Alternatively, find an instance that aligns with your interests and scroll locally as you like.
But like how would anyone really know what an instance is like? There are soo many people shitting on every instance, and most of it is probably BS lies. The zip idea makes sense though. But can I transfer a user from one to another? Or do I lose all my subscriptions and such?
You can browse an instance without an account to check it out.
Copying over @Marasenna@lemmygrad.ml’s comment, as you can’t see it due to being defederated from Lemmygrad.ml:
You can’t “transfer a user” to another instance but you can transfer your subscriptions (including blocked users, blocked communities, saved posts, saved comments) and account settings. Go into your settings page (probably lemmy.world/settings) and then, on the right hand side above the Delete Account button, you’ll see a section where you can Import/Export your settings as a .json file. Do that, then go to a new instance, create an account there, and then upload that .json file into the import box in the same area (the one that says Browse…) on your new account at your new instance and then hit import.
It’s super simple. I hope I explained it adequately.
I’ll take a look and see if I can find a good neutral instance. I’ll start by checking out zippy.
Gotcha! For what it’s worth, neutrality doesn’t truly exist. What we think of as neutral is really that which conforms to our pre-existing beliefs. Our language, culture, norms, etc. reinforce this idea of what is “neutral,” which in reality is a comparison to these subjects. With that being said, I would think of it more in terms of what you want to see: broad federation, selective defederation, etc., as well as what each instance is like to browse locally. All have their own vibes, Lemmy.zip isn’t “vibeless” just because it is broadly federated.
Just a tip!
What I don’t really get though is that if an instance is well federated, then you aren’t interacting with people who are just on a subset of instances. So how does such an instance have a vibe?
Having a mix of people commenting with different viewpoints already contributes to this, but there’s also many people that scroll locally exclusively. There’s also differences in admins and moderators, their rules and preferences, etc. This itself forms its own culture. It isn’t the absence of culture, but the presence of a unique, blended culture, which isn’t inherently better or worse.
.world is widely federated, but it also selectively defederates from communist instances, and bans people for being too critical of Zionism. This influences Lemmy.world’s culture greatly despite relatively broad federation.
But can I transfer a user from one to another? Or do I lose all my subscriptions and such?
You can’t “transfer a user” to another instance but you can transfer your subscriptions (including blocked users, blocked communities, saved posts, saved comments) and account settings. Go into your settings page (probably lemmy.world/settings) and then, on the right hand side above the Delete Account button, you’ll see a section where you can Import/Export your settings as a .json file. Do that, then go to a new instance, create an account there, and then upload that .json file into the import box in the same area (the one that says Browse…) on your new account at your new instance and then hit import.
It’s super simple. I hope I explained it adequately.
it is an issue if any of the subs that are outside of your instance are defederated
We need to ask the rationale for the decisions. I am very much opposed to any genocide, whether by direct action, a third party or inaction. If Zionist practices are leading to genocide then I need to call it out. If Israels current practice is to create genocide then I need to call it out. I can do all that and not be Anti-Semitic or anti Israel.
If any Lemmy instance removes the debate, they need to be left in the cold or closed down.The problem is, Israeli far-right groups and Zionist advocates have spent decades turning “antisemitic” into a shield. You call out forced displacement, apartheid, collective punishment—all well documented by Amnesty, B’Tselem, and Human Rights Watch—and they call you an antisemite. It’s an old trick, and it works.
So when a platform like lemmy.world bans “anti-Zionists,” they’re buying into that same smear. They’re not separating bigotry from basic human rights criticism. That means you literally can’t speak out against genocide there without being branded an antisemite. The only way to say “stop the genocide” is to wear that label as a badge of honor. And that’s exactly the point: any platform that forces you to accept a false accusation just to state the obvious is complicit.
I completely agree. There was an analogy used at work some years ago. If we decided to call a dogs tail a leg, would that mean that all dogs have five legs? The answer is ridiculously simple. Dogs have four legs and a tail. The names used make no difference. In this case, if Israel is committing genocidal acts, then that is just a straight fact. Renaming objection as anti-Semitic does not take away the fact of the genocide.
That isn’t limited to right wing or far right groups. Plenty of liberal Zionists who are still hiding behind the anti semitism claim. I guess admitting that you spent most of your life shilling for apartheid and genocide must be tough.
The term is broken and should never be used by anyone outside of their fascist bubble. Arabs are a semitic people too I would add. If they don’t give the exact details of the offense, ignore. And if they do give the details, call it what it is, anti israel, anti zionist, anti fascist, or anti jewish. No country represents a race of people.
It’s all in bad faith anyway, it’s not about the plausibility of the argument, it’s about bullying you, and as such they come hard and fast at the first provokation to dissuade others before an organized resistance can form.
Who gives a shit what they call you, they have no credibility
I don’t think people should join censorious instances either, but if you’re implying something else like defederation then that’s a bridge too far. Interoperability and interconnection are key to federation ever working.
Yup
Is lemmy.world anti-humanity for banning anti-Zionists?
The quick answer is: probably no. You claim this is the case, provide no receipts, and most importantly don’t place these terms into enough context. And context matters.
I don’t know if you’re right. You might be. I’m not excluding that possibility.
No instance is under any obligation to tolerate all opinions. Other admins may defederate, users may move away and block. All moderation decisions are shit. It’s much easier to have principles than to apply them equally everywhere and without fail.
If they have indeed chosen to err on the side of what I’m going to call something like antisemitic caution and remove stuff more broadly than you are comfortable with, it’s not just a question of values. It’s could also be a reflection of their experience with this topic, the resulting workload, and lack of moderation manpower. It’s much easier to ban all boobs than having to differentiate with each post if they’re breastfeeding or not, to put this in the context of past moderation problems. Facebook isn’t opposed to breastfeeding as a function to suckle our offspring but as the proprietors of their platform they can ban all boob related posts. And while this is of course within the realm of apples to oranges comparisons, I don’t think it’s justified to leap to the conclusion you did based on moderation decisions alone.
The last I’ve seen was this, but I remember before lemmy.world’s admin defederated from an entire instance over one user’s “death to all Zionists” display name. That user stepped down. The damage was done.
This was a political act. When a platform punishes critics of documented apartheid and ethnic cleansing more harshly than it punishes the apologists for those crimes, yes—that’s anti-humanity in practice. Complicity doesn’t require intent, just silence and a ban hammer.
edit: I’ve found more evidence and posted it here:
Lemmy.world Is Anti‑Humanity. How Its Admins Weaponized Defederation to Silence Palestine SolidarityWait, givesomefucks got promoted to mod? I haven’t specifically seen pro-Zionist comments from them, but this is the user that regularly comments trying to convince everyone how the Democratic party has seen ‘major reforms’ by electing a new leader months ago despite us continuing to see them capitulate to Republicans at nearly every turn.
Maybe the account is run by Chuck Schumer and OP here is completely correct.
Just few days after allowing genocide denialism
I got into it with that account too now that you mention it. That person is a tool.
I won’t be quite so harsh toward someone who now has the power to ban me, but I will agree that it seriously calls their judgement into question and they remind me a lot of FlyingSquid who also regularly made seriously questionable claims and was eventually demodded.
I read through that last link and then the first comment is asking why this AI wall of text. There is also very little evidence meat on that bone. A user did this, a user got that. That’s not receipts, that’s just more claims.
The claims of censorship are non sensical to me. You can still post most of that stuff, just not on that instance. An instance isn’t a democracy and no one has the right to be heard there no matter what. Your right is to go elsewhere. It’s a living room sofa problem. If you came to my house and took a dump on my sofa, I’d kick you out too. As it is my house, I get to decide what constitutes a dump. You thought it was just a fart, I smelled a shart - you’re out anyway. You are free to go sit on somebody else’s sofa. Go somewhere else, vote with your feet. Sure, tell others about my tight ass sofa rules. You still haven’t convinced me of your OG conclusion.
I’m still not excluding the possibility that there is something rotten in the state of Lemmy dot world. Maybe that admin is indeed on a power trip. What a decade on reddit and now a few years on Lemmy have shown me is that most bans are not shot from the hip. “I just said maybe Israel isn’t so nice and got banned IMMEDIATELY,” professed the user innocently. And then the admin comes back with three documented community violations including threatening the moderators with violence. Exceptions are rare. If you had a “no violence” rule, then “death to Zionists” would be functionally the same as “death to all little old ladies,” a no-go. You don’t get to decide what constitutes a dump and since the fediverse is larger than Lemmy dot world you’re also not being censored.
This is just a paradox of tolerance moment
Restricting certain forms of speech can be interpreted in two ways: As suppression of legitimate political critique. Or as boundary-setting to prevent generalizations or escalation.
Whether specific political positions are restricted depends not on how you see them, but on how moderators classify them. “Anti-Zionism” is not a single, defined category. It ranges from policy criticism against Israel, to positions that some moderators may interpret as targeting jews.
Give an explicit, specific example of anti-zionism that can be interpreted as “targeting jews”.
First of all, I’d say we’re on the same side. Israel is acting like a disgusting piece of shit. Also, many Israelis are abusing the term “antisemitic” to discredit people that they dont like. But I think we still need to differentiate. Therefore let me answer your question:
If the vanalism is against Israeli officials/buildings/state institutions, thats fine! Like ambassies, consulates, (international) representatives, politicians, economic figures, IDF members, etc… They are waging war and genocide, they deserve our anger + protest.
But If it hits religious institutions, private folks, jewish communities, holocaust memorials, etc. with no Israeli state background or links to the IDF, then maybe dont attack them, because otherwise it really is nothing but antisemitism. And that’s the point. If it was really only about the state of Israel, then why do so many “protests” explicitly target Jewish religious institutions (like synagogues, cemeteries, schools) rather than Israeli ones? It is not even rare thing to happen, thats why I wonder why you are asking. Examples:
Moldova, Kasauti. A Holocaust memorial was vandalized with ‘free Palestine’ graffiti.
Ukraine, Uman. A swastika was painted on a Jewish café.
UK, Glasgow. “Free Palestine” and “Fuck the no really Jews” were painted on a wall.
Italy, Milan. A man shouted “murderers” in front of a Jewish nursing home.
Italy, Milan. An elderly Jewish man, wearing a hat with a Star of David, was walking his dog, when a man tore off his hat, trampled it, and called the elderly man “dirty Jew.”
Italy, Milan. An Orthodox Jewish man was insulted on his way to a synagogue by an Italian couple who said to him, “F—king Zionist! You kill children!” On his way home he was shoved by a young man who shouted antisemitic epithets at him.
Germany, Oldenburg. An incendiary device was thrown at the door of the Oldenburg synagogue.
Belgium, Fleron. The home of Belgian Holocaust survivors was vandalized with “Gaza Free” and a swastika.
Munich, Germany. A man stood in front of the main synagogue, shouted antisemitic insults and give Hitler salutes.
Montevideo, Uruguay. A doll depicting a Jewish women with a Star of David and a spear piercing her forehead was displayed during a march for International Women’s Day.
Paris, France. A man wearing a kippah was attacked as he left a synagogue.
Babenhausen, Germany. A Jewish memorial column was smeared with paint.
Geneva, Switzerland. “Exterminate the Jews” and “Death to Zionists” graffiti were found in Geneva after a pro-Palestinian rally.
https://newengland.adl.org/resources/article/global-antisemitic-incidents-wake-hamas-war-israel
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2026/02/13/maryland-synagogue-antisemitism-vandalism/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/san-leandro-high-school-lawsuit-22220489.php
Incredibly bad-faithed from you. I would be extremely disappointed given all your blathering about “quality discourse”, but I knew it was not earnest from the beginning. I will ignore the bad-faithed nature of your examples that MidnightPocket already pointed out.
The context of my question was a discussion of whether admins banning anti-zionist speech was anti-human. You replied to this by stating there is anti-zionism that “some moderators may interpret as targeting jews”. With no commentary and plenty of equivocation, this implies that that is a reasonable assessment in some circumstances. The context was decidedly NOT any of your examples.
Give an explicit circumstance.
Moldova, Kasauti. A Holocaust memorial was vandalized with ‘free Palestine’ graffiti.
Potentially your only half-decent example of what was requested by the other user (assuming the act was indeed committed by an anti-zionist).
Ukraine, Uman. A swastika was painted on a Jewish café.
What does this have to do with anti-zionism?
UK, Glasgow. “Free Palestine” and “Fuck the no really Jews” were painted on a wall.
Honestly, seems like the work of a bad-faith Zionist.
Italy, Milan. A man shouted “murderers” in front of a Jewish nursing home.
For all we know, the nursing home committed malpractice leading to the death of a tenant or something. This story is tantamount to hearsay.
Italy, Milan. An elderly Jewish man, wearing a hat with a Star of David, was walking his dog, when a man tore off his hat, trampled it, and called the elderly man “dirty Jew.”
What does this have to do with anti-zionism?
Italy, Milan. An Orthodox Jewish man was insulted on his way to a synagogue by an Italian couple who said to him, “F—king Zionist! You kill children!” On his way home…
For all we know, the man was sporting the Israeli flag. This story is tantamount to hearsay.
Germany, Oldenburg. An incendiary device was thrown at the door of the Oldenburg synagogue.
What does this have to do with anti-zionism?
Belgium, Fleron. The home of Belgian Holocaust survivors was vandalized with “Gaza Free” and a swastika.
Honestly, seems like the work of a bad-faith Zionist.
Munich, Germany. A man stood in front of the main synagogue, shouted antisemitic insults and give Hitler salutes.
What does this have to do with anti-zionism?
Montevideo, Uruguay. A doll depicting a Jewish women with a Star of David and a spear piercing her forehead was displayed during a march for International Women’s Day.
What does this have to do with anti-zionism?
Paris, France. A man wearing a kippah was attacked as he left a synagogue.
What does this have to do with anti-zionism?
Babenhausen, Germany. A Jewish memorial column was smeared with paint.
What does this have to do with anti-zionism?
Geneva, Switzerland. “Exterminate the Jews” and “Death to Zionists” graffiti were found in Geneva after a pro-Palestinian rally.
Honestly, seems like the work of a bad-faith Zionist.
Additional note: Your framing is somewhat binary, relying on a “if you’re not with me, you’re against me” logic. I understand the emotions that come with this topic, but your logic reduces complex positions to two options despite the existence of intermediate views. Nuanced actors might then be pushed into opposing camps, therefore intensifying conflict.
Edit, for context: Damned be Israel for everything they are doing right now. I am just trying to maintain some discourse quality.
Removed by mod
