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.

States generally are formed when a belligerent group enters a region, enslaving the population and installing itself as rulers. In such a case, the ruling ideology develops to affirm both classes as of the same nation. Under imperialism, a ruler sends conquerors and colonizers to an established nation. If the nation has its own internal class division, then its rulers are forced to accept vassalage to the imperialist power. The imperialist power installs an ideology of its own national supremacy, by which the two nations are maintained as separate in identity and stature.

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 naturally agree with the basic premise that the issue is oil not drugs.

I question that deficit spending is either threatening or threatened within the US. Further, I find it a tenuous case that US companies are not eager to restore the control of Venezuelan oil that they maintained preceding nationalization, such eagerness being more than sufficient to account for the motives of US action against Venezuela.

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.