this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
58 points (61.9% liked)
Lemmy.World Announcements
31192 readers
40 users here now
This Community is intended for posts about the Lemmy.world server by the admins.
Follow us for server news ๐
Outages ๐ฅ
https://status.lemmy.world/
For support with issues at Lemmy.world, go to the Lemmy.world Support community.
Support e-mail
Any support requests are best sent to info@lemmy.world e-mail.
Report contact
- DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport
- Email report@lemmy.world (PGP Supported)
Donations ๐
If you would like to make a donation to support the cost of running this platform, please do so at the following donation URLs.
If you can, please use / switch to Ko-Fi, it has the lowest fees for us
Join the team
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't agree. I don't think people should have usernames of the form "kill all [certain type of people]".
If someone condemns Israel's actions against Palestinians then okay. But I don't think it's right to call for the deaths of people you disagree with. Even the worst criminals should arguably not be killed with the death penalty, but instead imprisoned for life.
During an active military conflict, killing isn't applying the death penalty just for disagreeing with someone, it's typically the only remotely viable way to stop them committing whatever act they're in the middle of. When that act is genocide, killing them is almost universally the only moral action as anything else, even if it still stopped them, would take longer and in doing so let more genocide happen.
If they've been stopped by other means, e.g. economic sanctions make genocide too expensive to continue, then many genocidal acts carry the death penalty under international law. That's ethically dubious, but it's far from the biggest problem with anti-genocide law given that it's blatently not actually preventing genocide. If the username were just apply international law to zionists, then it'd still be promoting killing people.
It's also misleading to reduce zionists to certain type of people, as it conjoures up ideas based on inherent identity that are obviously bad to persecute before more directly comparable types of people like murder enthusiasts actively committing murders and refusing to stop despite pressure to. No reasonable person would say armed police were unjustified in shooting someone who was stabbing someone else after they'd been already told to drop their weapon. Not all zionists are actively killing people, but they are all calling for it to be allowed to continue, otherwise they inherently wouldn't be zionists.
Surely it isn't necessarily true that every single zionist supports bombing Gaza. "Zionist" apparently means:
Surely some people within that definition support the existence of Palestine alongside Israel, and they oppose any harm done to Palestinian civilians. For example there is an Israeli charity, B'Tselem, which apparently supports Palestinian rights, although I don't know much about them.
Supporting the state of Israel, at a time when it is actively committing a genocide, is supporting the genocide. Genocide should be a red line that forces people to stop supporting its perpetrators, and anyone who doesn't withdraw support once a genocide starts must be, on some level, okay with it.
Existing within a state doesn't automatically imply support for it. Most people have at least something they want their state to stop doing, and that can and does include existing. It's hard to say that a charity issuing statements that Israel is an "apartheid regime", "no longer a democracy" and "committing genocide" supports the state of Israel.
There are also plenty of people who, if asked, would say they support the state of Israel, but wouldn't support genocide, and not see that as contradictory because they're under the impression that Israel isn't committing a genocide. What they're supporting isn't the state of Israel, it's a hypothetical alternative state of Israel that doesn't exist. If (pretending for a moment that the USS Enterprise wasn't decommissioned in 2017 and was currently in the Strait of Hormuz) someone who mistakenly believed the United Federation of Planets was real expressed support after hearing in the news that the USS Enterprise had fired on other ships, it'd be most reasonable to just ignore them rather than assuming their opinion of their imaginary state was relevant to what their opinion of the real United States would be.
There are probably people who support the existence of Israel without supporting what Bibi and his government have done. Opposition politicians in Israel, for example.
Surely in any country there will be people (such as opposition politicians and activists) who oppose the current government's actions, without wanting the state itself to be dissolved. Even in very authoritarian countries like North Korea there might be such people, although of course they would have to keep their views private, due to near-certain persecution otherwise.