The creator of Zionism, Teodore Herzl was very clear that it was a colonial project dependent on ethnic cleansing:
> We must expropriate gently the private property on the state
assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back. (Theodore Herzl, 12 June 1895)
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for political/ideological/nationalistic battle, which is not what the site is for. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of what they're battling for or against.
I'm not going to ban your account right now because I noticed at least one comment in your recent history which was on an unrelated topic, but if you'd please fix this, we'd appreciate it. HN is supposed to be for intellectual curiosity, random-access style, not pre-existing agendas, ongoing political battles, or single-purpose accounts.
Yes, it describes ethnic cleansing. As for colonialism it doesn't need to be described, moving en masse to a country inhabited by an indigenous population to settle it is the definition of colonialism.
The actual answer is it was a bit of both, but the majority of it was the rising antisemitism and anti Jewish laws in Arab countries (as a result of the Israel Palestine conflict)
This is blatantly false. Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine. No one is indigenous to Israel, which was created in 1948. Israel is a colony, defined by its non-indigenous population.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological/political/religious battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against.
This is both harsh and untrue. While I've allowed myself to be baited here, I've clearly discussed other topics.
This is (was?) a somewhat new account as well. How big of a buffer should I have before I'm allowed to discuss controversial topics without fearing the ban hammer?
We have no interest in being unfair, and anyone who genuinely wants to use HN as intended should have no trouble getting unbanned.
In this context, the test for whether an account is using HN as intended or not is whether it is primarily using the site for ideological/political/etc. battle. If an account is mostly using HN for the latter, which yours plainly is, then it's not using the site as intended.
I think that answers your question, no? It's not about buffer size, it's about what an account is primarily using HN for. It's supposed to be used for intellectual curiosity in a kind of meandering random walk. It's not supposed to be used for prosecuting fixed agendas, regardless of what the agenda is.
I counted about 20 comments on political topics and 4 on others. That's plainly on the wrong side of the "primarily" test.
If you want to commit to using the site primarily for intellectual curiosity and only secondarily for politics/ideology/etc., we can unban the account.
> We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back. (Theodore Herzl, 12 June 1895)