I was banned from patriots.win for pointing out a political figure's (Jewish) background.
(Jewish) power has such control over the national dialogue AND methods of communication that even referencing a political figure's connections to (Jewish) heritage results in a ban. Think about that. Merely stating facts ends the conversation and results in permanent ban - from right-wing conservatives! NOT from woke liberals!
This is coming from Patriots.win, the SAME group that left reddit.com over censorship - now they enact tyrannical censorship at even the reference or HINT of (Jewish) power.
Why is this? Probably because the MODs are Jewish. Perhaps because Patriots.win is run by Israeli interests. This is telling example of the extend that (Jewish) power reaches to and it's ability to dominate the dialogue.
When you told me and others that palestine isn’t a “real” country and you refuse to consider the possibility that israel is genociding them.
When you banned me for calling attention to this reality.
When you told the forum that you’re a Shabbos goy who worships jews, etc etc
See, OP is about there being two sides to accusations.
Palestine wasn't a state of any kind for a long time since Syria Palaestina, 390. Until recently we could talk about it not being a nation just like the Holy See is not a nation but a nonmember observer state; but this year Palestine became a "nonmember observer state with extra condiments". But given that novelty and instability, it's simpler to use shorter words like nonnation.
I told you I was considering the possibility Israel is genociding them. I let you publish maxed-out articles on the subject. I believe I also told you that "genocide" is a weasel word invented by a Jewish lawyer that is doublespeak to mean whatever the speaker wants. One race-based meme counts as genocide. So I don't use the word lightly or really at all.
When I mod, no one is banned for calling attention to realities, facts, truths, or even opinions. They are banned for published behaviors that break the golden rule. Without reviewing the record, it was primarily your illogical misstatement that went far enough beyond the truth, without evidence (such as the above appears to be), plus your overt disrespect for our rights to present you contextualizing evidence. (If you think a mod misbehaved you need to appeal cognizably instead of complain vaporously.) If you keep calling me Zionist without either defining your term or pointing to things I've actually done, that's illogical, and as long as one don't realize and continues doing such at honor-code forums, one gets disciplined.
I tell everyone I worship exactly one Jew. That has shut up everyone; nobody takes that one on directly. If Jesus is Jewish, we worship a Jew; if he isn't, then we have no right to be called real Jews either and other claimants for the title arise.
I never said I was a shabbos goy, I get accused of being Jewish more often than being goyish. What I do (didn't I just say) is to defend the biggest board's big rule "no racism", and then for some reason my defense ends up disproportionately in favor of those races that people are racist against the most. (I could reaffirm No racism against Afrikaners or Zulus! but there's not reason to, is there?) But, having discovered that "racism" is a weasel word coopted and popularized (not invented) by a Jewish doctor that is doublespeak to mean whatever the speaker wants, I am getting away from using that word too. Instead we can speak of not punishing the innocent with the guilty, which has shut up everyone.
TLDR: If you don't have (a) a definition of Zionism and (b) a proof that I have said things that meet the definition, there's more to the story.
He can't.
Just like "genocide." As he uses it it's nothing but a weasel word; there's certainly no intellect involved when he uses either.
He's just upset his family picks fights they lose.
Perfect example of your zionist bias in the first sentence, thanks for making it so easy for me and obvious for everyone else:
The fact that you think this is a valid argument is laughable. Israel didn’t exist until 70 years ago. Whatever you think of Palestinian statehood, their claim to the land is undeniably stronger than some hook nosed European terrorists who only started squatting there yesterday.
You disqualify yourself from being capable of talking about bias, with just these words quoted here.
You have nothing but bias; no rationale, no reason. You lack the sense you were born with. Hopefully that remains confined to just this one issue, of which you have no understanding.
(Yap Emoji)
"States" are relatively easily cognizable entities. Why yes, Israel wasn't a state of any kind for a long time since Judaea Province, 135. But peoples are much harder to cognize, and the chains from Judaea to Israel, and from Palaestina to Palestine, are both hotly contested and so I don't make presumptions about them or their claims as you do.
It may well be that a limited-recognition member state disacknowledged by 28/193 members has certain disadvantages over an observer nonmember state disacknowledged by 47/193 members. A member state can get judged by the ICC, for instance. There's a good case for moral equivalence, which is what I've sought to uphold. I don't know how to judge land claims without both parties agreeing to a mediator or to war.
Two questions again. What is Zionism? How have I met your definition? You seem to be defining Zionism and land claims along lines as subjective as those people, whom I name, who defined "racism" (Hirschfeld) and "genocide" (Lemkin).
Zionism is ethnonationalism for jews (aka Ashke-nazism), and yes you have met the definition because you’ve explicitly supported the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the locals