You are continuing to be narrow and obtuse, now seemingly deliberately.

I simply will repeat that “two-state solution” encompasses a broad and open range of concrete possibilities.

Vagueness challenges the particular, narrow representation you insist is universally accepted.

There is no concrete catalog that affirms which representations are “actually existing”. There is rather open discourse with diverse contributions.

You are being overly narrow.

The “two-state solution” is a vague proposal that encompasses a very broad range of concrete possibilities.

One might say it is a range of different proposals all described under a common phrase.

We should not pigeonhole the phrase into one particular, narrow representation insisted as the one “normally understood”.

Simply, I question the narrowness of your characterization.

As insinuated, an objective of full parity among all current occupants of Palestine, settler and Palestinian, including freedom of movement for Palestinians throughout the entire territory, would seem to be sufficient to achieve a dismantlement of settler-colonialism in the region.

“One of those states is Israel” is not a meaningful argument, because it begs the question of which transformations may have been imposed on Israel and the territory.

It’s why OP was banned from other places.

The purpose of the post and community is for others to appraise the justification for the moderator action, not summarily to assume its correctness and then simply to explain its merits.

The link I posted has numerous people explain that advocating for the liberation of Palestine isn’t the same as advocating for a genocide or expulsion of Jews in Israel.

None if it bears on whether advocacy for a “two-state solution” is necessarily Zionism.

You introduced Zionism into the discussion.

I question that advocacy for a “two-state solution” is necessarily Zionism, whereas your complaint rests squarely on such an assumption. The entire settler population being expelled is not feasible. Zionism should not be represented so broadly as to include everyone who is merely practical.

Your grievances about a thread from nine months ago obviously are irrelevant.

I find your deflections and extrapolations both completely irrelevant and also deeply distorted.

I hope to find peace as I continue using SLRPNK, as it is an instance not federated with Hexbear.

Hexbear users chose to participate in a discussion, community, and site in which such comments are not unwelcome. The comments observed applicable rules. The actions undertaken are quite markedly unreasonable.

When seeking out ever more users to ban becomes an end in itself, an objective of transparency no longer carries any value.

I hope to find my own peace using an instance not federated with Hexbear.

The repeated revisions to the explanation would not have been necessary, except for a complete lack of transparency and fairness in the actions.

I find it deranged that, based on content submitted to communities on other instances, Hexbear targets users not even using the site.

Further, my best understanding is that comments in such communities are being removed on Hexbear, such that they remain on the original and other instances, only appearing as removed from Hexbear. I never knew such a capability was available to administrators of Lemmy instances, and its use strikes me as among the most misguided expressions of censorship.

It seems that the kind of discussion OP wants would be well aligned with the spirit of !actualsocialism101@lemmy.dbzer0.com. However, the community unfortunately seems to be inactive.

I think any realistic outcome would entail an acceptance that the settler population will remain living on stolen land. The objective should be full parity among all current occupants, which is inclusive of the “right of return”, Palestinians moving freely throughout the entire territory.

Is advocacy for a “two-state solution” necessarily in itself Zionism?

I agree with the essence of your objections, but being misguided or misinformed is not in itself trolling, especially if the opportunity remains open for discussion and education.

The reactionary entrenchment in the government, and the oppression of the native population, are directly consequences, and as such, inseparable from, Israel’s nature as a settler-colonial ethnostate.

Israel was established by ethnic cleansing called the Nakba, on a premise of Jewish supremacy. Palestinians were displaced, murdered, and encaged. There is no possibility of such an entity developing along a path that is liberatory or egalitarian.

There is no possibility, either, of an entity that starves children also authentically originating from a premise of self defense.

It seems like a misguided policy, and not particularly consistent with the “Code of Conduct”.

Much of the value of the federated design is lost without the threat of defederation to incentivize good behavior and to isolate bad behavior.

I meant “consideration” in the sense of reaching decisions based on awareness.

I think you simply misinterpreted my phrasing.