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?
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.
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.
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.