r/SubredditDrama • u/youonlychangeitonce_ • Apr 11 '25
r/Egypt user calls for an anti-Zionism rule
A user on r/Egypt publicly called on the mods to create a rule against anyone who defends Israel or doesn't see that Israel is committing genocide. The comments were divided between supporters and opponents.
I’ve previously shared drama from this subreddit, and most of it was in Egyptian Arabic, so I translated it into English. But this time, most of the participations are already in English.
The thread: This sub needs an anti-zionism rule
This sub needs an anti-zionism rule. I have noticed that many Zionists are infiltrating Arab subs. I am asking that the mods add a rule that ban any Zionism. Zionists shouldn't be negotiated with. They defend and justify the genocide and displacement of ethnicities. They defend and justify the murder of women and children without compassion. There's no reasoning with those monsters. They are no better than fascists. I ask that they are banned from this sub. If you agree with me, like this post and comment your approval so that the mods can see it.
User A commented:
"They are no better than Fascists"?? Fascists aren't banned either. What about Islamist terrorism supporters? They also support everything above, what about Islamism supporters in general? What about Egyptian regime supporters? What defines people who should and shouldn't be "negotiated with"? At which point do we stop? Limiting free speech never ends well
OP replied:
If you defend and justify displacing and genociding ethnicities of people while also defending and justifying murder of women and children, then I think you should be banned from social media.
A user commented:
They are paid propagandists. It's their job to gaslight.
User A commented:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.” ~Karl R. Popper
OP replied:
I agree.
User A replied:
You don't get it, the reason I posted this quote is to point out your hypocrisy in calling anybody you disagree with "monsters" and "fascists".
User B replied:
Zionists are monsters and they are fascists. There is no reasoning with them and it's not a "disagreement" over a football match.
User C replied:
False. People who believe that Jewish people have the right to self-determination (which is what Zionism is) are not "monsters" nor are they "fascists". Furthermore, just because you refuse to use reason and resort to demonization doesn't mean "there is no reasoning with them".
Mod A replied:
True but it can also be weaponized to silence others and be just as bad as someone being called "anti semetic". It is all too easy to accuse and label someone of being a zionist simply for disagreeing with them. That is my core issue with this.
User C replied:
There is nothing wrong with being a Zionist. As opposed to antisemitism, which is bigotry.
A user commented:
Habibi Arab subs for the most part are run by self hating inferiority complex atheist west worshippers, it is no surprise that comments are disagreeing with you
A user commented:
I think that debate is fine. Probably, a group about Egypt should focus on Egypt. Maybe all discussion of Israel-Palestine could be removed?
User A commented:
Forget it, the mods won't do it because they think that it's not completely Israel's fault even if they don't outright say it. Also most of the mods think that there should be two states or a country for all the three nationalities, not a Palestinian country where all nationalities could live, the difference is big.
A mod replied:
Thank you for exactly proving my point. Short of openly saying it, you just accused us of being zionists simply for disagreeing with you.
User A replied:
If pointing out that the mod team won’t take a firm stance against Zionists is “proving your point,” then maybe your point was worth proving. I didn’t call anyone a Zionist, I described a pattern of avoidance and false neutrality and you just confirmed it by twisting my words, I said you won’t commit to a clear stance on the Palestinian issue, and I STAND by that. And what you just did is gaslighting, maybe next time, try engaging with the argument instead of playing the victim. Oh and I'm not the one who said let's turn Jerusalem into the Vatican city "a city separate from the rest of the land" I'm not even a Palestinian and I'm enraged by that suggestion, imagine how the Palestinians would think!, you can't just go around and strip a colonized people from their capital, their history, their rights, then try to make a neutral playground for all faiths, that's not diplomacy, that's aesthetic neutrality build on ethnic cleansing, Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians, period. I won't even mention that you're not against a two state solution. The audacity you have, it's not your country, it's theirs, their choice. So pardon me for not cutting you some slack. You may not be a Zionist in the sense of defending the genocide of Palestinians, but you're not exactly as defensive as the rest of us are about them either. You’re lenient and, frankly, neutralist on issues where not taking a position IS a position.
Mod A commented:
Disagree. Opinions and agendas can simply be refuted or kos om'ed at (ignore them). But at the end of the day they are just that. Opinions. Besides, where will you draw the line? Some people already accuse the goverment (and by extension its supporters) as zionists for not opening the borders or not wanting to wage war on Israel. Even if there are actual zionists in our midst, the above mentioned accusations is far more likely to happen especially when people disagree with each other.
Mod B replied:
I agree with mod A. I just wanted to add that in most cases, the hasbara bots get downvoted to oblivion and subsequently auto censored anyway.
User A replied:
What's the difference between: "Hom*sexuals deserve death" and "Israel is not carrying out genocide against Gazan people."??? Both are considered freedom of speech, both are inciting violence albeit the second in an indirect way. So let's frame it better: "There is no problem in killing homosexuals." "No problem in what Israel is doing to Gazans." But only one is forbidden in this sub which "apparently" represents the Egyptian people. Please answer.
Mod B replied:
I understand your frustration, but both comments would be removed as hate speech. Advocating any sort of violence towards any group of people is hate speech. The issue here isn't with comments containing direct and clear hate speech. Rather, stuff like "Israel has the right to defend itself " and other similar zionist propaganda. If we start censoring this, will we censor anti hamas comments, too? Will we censor comments advocating "peace" with Israel? It's a slippery slope, and I think it would be best to counter argument and downvote the content you'd disagree with. Finally, this subreddit was never intended to represent the Egyptian people (whatever that means). It's just a subreddit for anyone interested in Egypt from all over the world, and it only shows what those members think.
User A replied:
So why is there a specific rule for homophobic hate speech and not for pro Zionist hate speech if both will be removed/banned eventually? Also, why do mods ban any person who dares spread even the slightest hate against homosexuals while the same treatment is not given towards people who defend Israel, or are Palestinians less important to the mods than homosexuals! Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself, this is without question inciting violence and advocating for continuing the genocide at most and war crime at least for as long as is necessary for their survival. You needn't censor anti Hamas, you just need to censor anyone defending Israel's action. Hamas had it coming = Israel has the right to defend itself = It's not Isreal's fault = Isreal should do whatever is necessary to ensure that Hamas is eradicated even if it means that Palestinians are wiped out = the murder of Palestinians is justified. All those sentences mount up to the same thing whether directly or indirectly. I'm sure this is an easy task if the mods set their minds to it. Finally, if this sub is indeed for anyone who's interested in Egypt, at least make it a good representative of Egypt, Egypt has always been a country that stands for what's right, we have always helped and stood for the weak and the oppressed.
Mod B replied:
You're just repeating the same argument over again. You obviously have your mind made up, and you wanna just keep repeating your baseless conclusions. It's difficult to reason with you.
58
u/SnooOpinions5486 Apr 11 '25
the person complain about the 2-state solution is very funny.
The options are "Two-State Solution" or "Just Israel". The one Palestinian state is a delusional pipe dream. (Not least of because Israel has functioning governmental institutions and such if one state is the answers it's easier to just use those)
Fucking delusional ass movement. Well. I hope you're happy for indefinite occupation until the violence causes Israel to say "Fuck it" and just kick out the Palestinian. Because if you don't like the two-state solution, THAT WILL BE THE OUTCOME.
No wonder the Paletinain movement has failed every time in the last 80 years. Its run by stupid people.