this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
45 points (66.7% liked)
Europe
5902 readers
796 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: RT, news-pravda:com, GB News, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller, OAN, sociable:co, citjourno:com, brusselssignal:eu, europesays:com, geo-trends:eu, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess I should have let you do an adversarial review of the post before it went up. Anyhow, "dismantle Israel" sounds like you're intending a violent revolution of some sort. The rest of it reeks of trying to evade the rules as well. I appreciate that this is what people do when you spell out rules but ... that's not really what I posted them for.
Oh that wasn't my intention. I just wanted clarification because calling for a one-state solution is calling for the dissolution of Israel, so I wasn't sure (and am still not sure) what the difference between the two is intended to be. So my question is: What rhetoric is allowed (and, probably more importantly, not allowed) when talking about a one-state solution?
A one state solution can be many things, including a significantly reformed Israel. Sadly a two-state solution with the borders similar to the ones today is about as unrealistic as a one-state solution, as the Palestinian territories alone are not a viable state (and that doesn't even touch the issue of the many Israeli settlers in those territories).
That "how" is indeed an issue here. I don't know what to say there.
Perhaps, in terms of a practical example, Germany did unite peacefully. Granted, technically, the West swallowed the East, and the East adopted the Western political, legal, and economic system, so one of the two states had significantly more say in how it happened than the other. Which wouldn't be a good idea for a Israel-Palestine state, to say the least.
(Fwiw, from what I've seen, I would say you're usually arguing in good faith.)
Really? Is this a language barrier thing?
Edit: reading this back it could sound rude and that wasn't my intent.
Israeli jews are probably not going to do that voluntarily ...
I mean probably none of the solutions to this conflict are going to happen but itβs theoretically possible that they could. Many people across the world have dissolved their own government under certain (usually extreme) circumstances.
I see your point. What about dismantling the current government and systems that allowed it the power it now holds?
Doesn't look like the majority of the population is interested in that, so it's either going to take a revolution led by a minority (definitely going to be violent) or intervention by a foreign occupying force (still probably going to be violent). TBH I don't really see a likely solution to this that's not going to be violent, heavy international pressure could work but the USA are not going to change their policy anytime soon, which also prevents a foreign occupying force; wouldn't even surprise me if they invaded if there was a revolution.
If you follow that line of reasoning:
Because we can't stop Israel without violence, any call to stop Israel is a call for violence against Israel.
And violence against Israel is banned.
So stopping Israel is banned.
So the rules enforce allowing Israel to continue a genocide.
The rules are pro-genocide.
By the same contrived logic you are pro-genocide as calling for the destruction of the Israeli state in an online forum also doesn't stop the genocide.
And anyways, by your logic if the only response to one genocide is another genocide, then yes that is also pro-genocide.
See how pointless such arguments are?
I find all of your comments here deeply shameful, especially since you are representing slrpnk.net, from your own manifesto:
Yet you are using your voice here to defend state-mandated infringement of free speech, of decolonialist speech at the behest of the zionist project. I honestly think you should consider if you can still credibly administer slrpnk or alternatively if it makes sense for you to moderate a comm that is seemingly so misaligned with your professed values.
No, those are absurd statements with no logic.
Yours are, mine isn't.
You could try actually addressing what I say instead of making absurd statements and then acting like you making absurd statements is proof that my statement is absurd.
Yea, see this is the antisemitic version of zionism. Advocating for the liberation of Palestine isn't the same as advocating for a genocide or expulsion of Jews in Israel. It would be like saying WWII was ultimately a genocide of germans, since they were violently resisted in their conquest of Europe.
Yes, the resistance against genocide will almost certainly involve violence - that doesn't mean that advocating for resistance isn't justified, or even that advocating for violent resistance isn't justified. WWII would have been really short if we had rhetorically 'opposed' the holocaust, but banned any speech that even implied violence against Germans (including violent liberation to stop an active genocide).
As you say youself, there is a difference between arguing for equal rights of Palestinians and the expulsion of Jews from the territory that makes up modern day Israel.
The German government has decided that certain slogans commonly used by Arab antisemites are (criminally liable) dogwhistles for calling for a genocide on Jews in Israel. I wish they would apply more nuance but I can see where they are coming from.
What? But you just said it was only against the rules to talk about dismantling Israel if the person didnβt specify equal rights for Jews.
And @NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io explicitly did so.
That's what I thought too, but then again depending on where you put the comma it could be read as it being okay to talk about a one-state solution if you explicitly state that Jews should have equal rights in that one state unless you call for the dissolution of Israel, which to be fair isn't impossible but... yeah.
Ah. So it would be useful is @federalreverse@feddit.org could clarify. Cheers!
Though it seems unintuitive to me that a solution that explicitly guarantees equal rights for jews would be against the rules because it doesnβt include continuity of the Israeli state.
Most specifically, legal issues arise when it can be concluded that you support a violent overthrow or eradication of the Jewish state of Israel. If you make it clear specifically that you do not support violence, I think it should be fine.
In that sense, the way I laid out the rules may lead to some overblocking.