'netanyahu created hamas' is a hasbara talking point that removes palestinian agency and de-legitimizes resistance by framing it as an israeli puppet show.

hamas emerged from the material conditions of occupation and blockade

allowing qatari money into gaza and exploiting hamas/pa divisions is standard colonial divide-and-conquer, not 'creating' resistance.

the 'playing into israel's hands' argument is just more tone policing. colonial powers will paint resistance as terrorism regardless of rhetoric.

respectability politics doesn't stop genocide. if palestinian armed resistance against iof soldiers is legitimate, then saying 'kill zionists' online isn't 'giving israel propaganda', it's just being honest about what legitimate resistance entails.

applying 'war crimes' frameworks to resistance while actual genocide is happening is liberal legalism that judges the oppressed by their oppressor's rules. international law was written by imperial powers to protect imperial interests.

this whole framework of calling on moral realism about death penalty being 'objectively wrong,' insistence on fair trials, tone policing resistance rhetoric, defending zionist family members as 'just misled' is just liberal moralism with anarchist aesthetics. there's nothing anarchist about supporting state institutions (courts, prisons) or prioritizing israeli propaganda concerns over palestinian liberation.

'anarcho anti-realist' my ass

To some extent, none of that matters. There is no justification for calling for the extra-judicial killing of anyone, no matter how much you dislike their politics. That's just murder.

You might say that some people should face trial for their behavior, and you might support the death penalty as a punitive measure, and those statements might be valid and permissible.

Saying that anyone should be killed based on their personal beliefs or political views is fucking heinous, no matter the context.

No they cannot, because Kaplan is on an agenda here. It has nothing to do with the user.

While I agree with you to an extent, I'd like to point out there are many zionist civilians who are active participants in the genocide. How would they be handled? Also I find the idea of a "legitimately conducted war" to be a fools notion. Violence can be a necessary and appropriate response, but it is ultimately corrosive to all involved. War, as they say, is hell. It is devoid of moral righteousness. If you are in a war, fight it, to survive, but know you aren't getting out intact nor clean.

Not attacking you, just my 2 cents.

But those “civilians” are actively killing Palestinians as well. There isn’t really a delineating line here when the politics are aligned across the entire country civilians and soldiers, and the country is utilizing civilians as a mechanism to continue the genocide, through settlers who are committing crimes just as bad as the soldiers are. Why do the soldiers not get a trial but the “civilians” do?

To be abundantly clear, I do not agree with “kill all Zionists” in any way shape or form. But I am disagreeing with the entire premise of this conversation. LW is banning someone based not on what they do or have done, but based on a political call that was in their username. You said it yourself, we should kill Zionists soldiers (not saying I agree with this but it is in the conversation). So what makes your point of view so legitimate but their point of view a reason for complete defederation? Imagine the UN even existing if something like this got you kicked out of the conversation.

If I was regularly chatting with people who call for killing me, I would have a very high blood pressure.

Yes, that's why most sane instances blocked .ml

But we're talking about a single person who lost it, not the entire instance rebelling against lemmy.world or something. You're not just punishing the person who did it, but everyone else on that instance.