Due to a (now former) admin of the instance anarchist.nexus calling for a member of our team, as well as anyone else they call a zionist, to be murdered, the instance has been defederated.
We’re currently discussing how we will proceed with this situation and whether it will affect lemmy.dbzer0.com, which is mostly run by the same admin team, notably excluding the person who used to be on the anarchist.nexus admin team.
We will share further updates once we have them.
Update 2026-04-22 23:25 UTC: anarchist.nexus federation has been reactivated.
We are still discussing this matter, but there is currently no point in keeping anarchist.nexus defederated while lemmy.dbzer0.com is federated.
I’ve got a bit more knowledge of the narrative here so I’ll explain. Luminous, the admin who said kill all Zionists, has voluntarily resigned as an admin in order to try and get anarchist.nexus refederated. But the prevailing sentiment on anarchist.nexus and its sibling instance is that Luminous did nothing wrong.
Personally, as an anarchist, I think we should only be killing Zionist soldiers, not the civilians. So I’m very concerned by this apparent support for what would likely amount to war crimes. Zionism is bad, but I don’t support the death penalty for being a zionist.
Now if you look at the history of Gaza, it gets even worse. Netanyahu funded Hamas in the most recent Gazan election to help them win, because they were more radical and violent than the other parties. Netanyahu wanted Gaza to be governed by people who think killing all Zionists is okay. So I think that Luminous is playing into Israel’s hands, and giving them the propaganda they want. Is defederation an appropriate way to keep this propaganda from spreading? Unclear, I’m still on the fence. But I’m definitely not on Luminous’ side in all this.
‘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
Now, I’m an innocent* bystander normie who’s just wandered in here…
But the way you write is pretty strident(?). I get that this language is developed over time and many interactions that I’ve not seen, and yadda yadda
But you are the FIRST person I’ve seen say “netanyahoo created Hamas”
Who tf sincerely says/believes/promotes that? The comment you replied to sure didn’t. Nowhere in this thread afaik has anyone made a statement even resembling that.
No shit Sherlock opposing interests will try to manipulate their opponents by doing shit like promoting/helping/enabling the “worst elements” in their opposition. That’s not new and occurs everywhere and apparently there is clear and compelling evidence that Netanyahu worked pretty hard to make sure that Palestinians were represented poorly.
So, I guess… Thanks for letting us know that someone out there has that ridiculous rhetoric? But it’s not relevant to the commenter you were replying to, or anything else afaik.
for an innocent bystander you sure seem quick to tone police
i was responding to this:
“israel created hamas” narrative has been an extremely common zionist talking point, just because the phrasing here is slightly different doesn’t change that
‘represented poorly’ is liberal optics framing; they’re a colonized people resisting a genocide; colonizers are going to portray any effective resistance as violent terrorism
the ‘anarcho anti-realist’ i am responding to has a history of claiming extremely radical politics but then regurgitating bog standard liberal zionism, hence my ‘strident’ response
To be clear, I’m pretty sure you and many other folks on Lemmy might characterize me as a “shitlib” overall, and I’m not familiar with language like “tone police” but from context I understand that you feel like I criticized you for being “strident” which I guess is true, and I apologize for that.
It is probably my “liberal” background that makes me think that strident presentation weakens argument, and I thought your point would have been clearer/better/more persuasive without that overriding passion. Anyhow that’s all just style.
Is it not pretty well documented that Netanyahu and company did, in fact, enable/approve a bunch of Qatari money to be funneled to Hamas? And that he’s stated openly that the reason is to keep the PA and Hamas separate and not working together?
I wasn’t aware of the Israel-Created-Hamas drama, but that article you linked certainly paints a pretty clear picture of a lot of early Israeli influence/meddling, despite the aim of the article to say nuh-uh.
“Created” is too strong a term for sure, but it seems pretty obvious that Israel’s policies of ever-increasing oppression/colonization/genocide make a pretty fertile environment for a popular resistance group with an armed/violent component to form.
Did the US “create” ISIS? Not exactly, but they (we) sure did set the stage super-effectively.
Russia did not create the NRA but they absolutely did co-opt and use it to their great benefit to funnel money around to influence US internal politics. NRA today is, very rightly, a discredited and declining organization.
Big-mad defensiveness from criticisms of Hamas over Israeli influence (open, discrete or clandestine) are counterproductive to Hamas’ interest in my opinion. They would be better to take the time to reflect, analyze and ensure that their current decisions aren’t being influenced by Israel.
Unfortunately for Palestinians, I don’t think the Hamas organization is very good at this, but it’s not a huge surprise — Israel is extremely effective with these kinds of operations, and not only in regards to Hamas. USA is their most important target.
“Liberal Optics Framing” is another new phrase, but it’s not as clear to me as tone police.
When I said (without a lot of thought) Hamas has “represented poorly” I was assuming that Hamas has been supported/funded/enabled by Netanyahu et al because the policies/actions they expect Hamas to take will be a better outcome for Israel than the policies/actions of the PA had they won the election.
I’m pretty sure you understood that. And I’m pretty sure the assumption is reasonable.
Is your objection of/to liberal optics framing because the implication is that Hamas is more violent than the PA, and it’s very clear that Israel WANTS more Palestinian violence to continue to justify their own violence?
The violent terrorism we have seen from Hamas hasn’t exactly turned out to be “effective resistance” at all.
TBH I don’t know what would even count as effective resistance at this point.
Maybe the most effective thing they could/can do is continue the social media appeals / influence campaigns which do generate discussions like this one, but does that even count as “resistance”
Anyhow this is already too long and rambling, and I do thank you for taking the time to engage. I read stuff around here because I want to understand the left (left-er?) better.
for what its worth i appreciate the good faith engagement and the apology.
on ‘liberal optics framing’: for me this is shorthand for ‘what looks good to western observers’. you said hamas was ‘represented poorly’, this centers how palestinians are perceived rather than material reality of occupation.
even if israel does try to create a ‘strategy of tension’ (ie provoke/allow funding of violent response to justify crackdown) that doesn’t mean the oppressed are wrong for resisting. it’s just part of the standard playbook for colonial powers because it allows them to paint themselves as simply defending against unreasonable actors.
the logic of ‘don’t resist violently because that’s what they want’ leads to: don’t resist at all, because any resistance will be used to justify more violence. that’s paralysis, not strategy.
colonial powers will use any resistance, be it violent or nonviolent, to justify violence. the great march of return (2018) was explicitly nonviolent and israel still shot medics, journalists, children, all of them unarmed protesters. they’ll justify crackdowns regardless.
from my perspective the question isn’t ‘does resistance give israel pretext’ (it always will), it’s ‘does resistance materially challenge occupation and build toward liberation.’
armed resistance does that: it makes occupation costly, ties down military resources, and demonstrates that colonization won’t be accepted peacefully.
calling palestinian armed resistance ‘violent terrorism’ accepts israeli/US framing. armed resistance to military occupation is legitimate under international law. the framing ‘terrorism’ vs ‘self-defense’ is itself colonial, resistance to colonization is treated as terrorism while state violence is treated as legitimate.
on netanyahu/qatar money: yes, it’s documented that he allowed qatari money into gaza and exploited hamas/pa divisions. but my issue is that the framing surrounding ‘israel created/funded hamas’ removes palestinian agency and treats resistance as israeli puppet show. hamas emerged from material conditions of occupation. netanyahu exploited existing divisions for divide-and-conquer, a standard colonial tactic
your isis comparison isn’t wrong either, the US didn’t create isis but created conditions (iraq invasion, destabilization) that enabled it. they also helped fund it. israel also supported isis as it was a useful wedge to destabilize syria
on what’s ‘effective’: resistance isn’t just one front. it requires action on every axis. armed struggle adds material cost to occupation. BDS and legal challenges such as ICC/ICJ adds economic/diplomatic pressure. countering propaganda shifts societal opinion against the occupation. the goal isn’t just military victory, it’s making occupation unsustainable politically, economically, diplomatically.
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.
Why should the state have the monopoly on killing? They clearly do a horrible job with it and use it to kill innocent school girls to defend genocide.
What’s legal is not what’s ethical. Legal systems have no basis for justice.
Well, killing soldiers in a war is extrajudicial, and I think there are valid reasons to kill soldiers in a war. I want us to go to war with Israel and blow up their military bases, which would certainly cause the deaths of some soldiers. But soldiers sign up to put their lives on the line for their country, so there’s a measure of fairness. Israel’s draft complicates that argument a little bit, but not by much.
But I remain opposed to the death penalty. In a war, death is the only way to remove someone from being able to harm others. When we have other options, we should take them. If we manage to get Netanyahu into government custody, we should be keeping him alive so he can face trial for his war crimes. And then he should be put in prison for life.
Unless you believe that the admin’s comment was made in the context of suggesting that “Zionists” (unspecified - generally?) should be killed while in combat (specifically), I think all of that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Given all of the discussion around this incident, it seems clear that the admin was proposing murder, not warfare.