I will stand up for Palestinian human rights and firmly against bigotry aimed at Jews. They are the same job

[Nanjeanne]

WATCH — @bradlander.bsky.social : “You can criticize Israel and not be antisemitic. You can be an anti-Zionist and not be antisemitic. I will stand up for Palestinian human rights and firmly against bigotry aimed at Jews. They are the same job.”

— The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler.bsky.social) 2026-06-24T12:35:04.463Z

WATCH — @bradlander.bsky.social : “You can criticize Israel and not be antisemitic. You can be an anti-Zionist and not be antisemitic. I will stand up for Palestinian human rights and firmly against bigotry aimed at Jews. They are the same job.”

Congratulations Congressman Lander. Excited to see you do the people’s work.

[Chasstev365]

1. In the same vain, a persecuted Palestinian child today no different than a persecuted Jewish child during the Holocaust

[John Farmer]

117. The Jews used to say: Never again!

Why happened to that?

[malaise]

2. K & R

That is all

[JustAnotherGen]

3. All I care about in 2026

Is Black Voting Rights, Civil Rights, and Liberties.

Black Americans? We just got shoved back to 1877. I think the non-Democratic Party Far left is lockstep on Black Americans with the Magapubs.

The Palestinians, white working-class resentment, male loneliness epidemic -

DGAF.

It's 1877. I'm just out for my own people now.

[Ponietz]

4. Priorities: 1) get those 30% of black men who voted for MAGA to reexamine their choices, and

2) the millions who didn’t vote to show up at the polls next time.

[yardwork]

6. What about the 65% of white men who vote Republican?

Are we going to get them to "reexamine their choices?"

Dude. Seventy percent (70%) of Black men voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. The only group who supported her even more strongly was Black women.

In a baseball game winning 7-3 is a blowout.

Black voters are not the problem. If only Black votes counted we would never have had George W. Bush or Trump as presidents.

[Ponietz]

8. What about what about?

SMDH

[paleotn]

29. They're voting for what they think is their best interests.

And for some white males, it is. At everyone else's disadvantage of course. With the systematic destruction of DEI, a return to the unlevel, workforce playing field benefits white men directly. That's certainly how the Pentagon is running these days. And that's only one aspect. There are more. Now, in what universe did 30% of black males think voting for Trump would similarly help them? Show me the logic. You know, Trump wasn't being cagey about his disdain for minorities, yet........

[Bettie]

62. I'd like to get them to reexamine their choices

but that 65% are truly the worst people in the world.

I'm a white woman. I live among them. They are "Hi!" in the grocery store aisle friendly, but as soon as you bring up anything else, they fall into an endless stream of imagined slights, memories of a time that never existed, and a weird belief that if only women were submissive enough and there were no minorities anywhere, they'd be billionaires.

They believe that they are so very downtrodden that they just can't get ahead.

People tell me "they're good people, they just vote differently".

No. They aren't.

They cling to evangelical religion because it tells them that they should be in charge of everything.

They vote for Republicans (esp. Trump) because they tell them that they are worth more than anyone else.

Selfish, self-interest is their actual religion and they are devout.

Are there a few who might be moved? Maybe, but they are so used to being the only voices anyone cares about that it will be a long, arduous process.

[Martin Eden]

94. Some of those 65% are persuadable. Many are not.

There are some hard realities to consider:

The House, Senate, and Presidency will each be controlled by Democrats or Republicans. I wish we had ranked choice (instant runoff) voting, which makes it possible to vote for a 3rd party candidate without swinging the election to a Republican as happened in 2000 and possibly in 2016.

Electing Democrats is the only way to prevent catastrophe and make progress possible.

To win, we must get souls to the polls AND convince persuadable independents to vote for Democrats. The strategy and messaging to achieve one is not always the same to achieve the other, but we need both. Without a large Democratic tent, the fascist camp wins.

[JustAnotherGen]

15. I think you mean 22%

It was 92% of Black Women
78% Black Men
71% of Jewish voters voted for Harris - with 84% of the Reform denomination.

I think we need to be given reasons to vote for Candidates. This thing I'm seeing on Social Media "Vote Blue or you will lose . . . "

JHFC - don't these people realize we are in a Second Jim crow? Black Americans have been through far worse than losing the right to abortion or flock cameras. We, along with our Jewish and Brothers and Sisters have been through a lot in America. We are different from Indigenous Americans - in that were kidnapped and brought here - or were fleeing murderous white Europeans. We have tenacity and intergenerational STRENGTH as a result of that trauma to withstand far worse than what is happening today.

I personally think the Democratic has a white supremacist adjacent problem. Why do poor and lower middle class white people keep punching themselves in the face with the Magapub votes? That's white supremacy. White folks need to solve that problem.

[JustAnotherGen]

16. I think you mean 22%

It was 92% of Black Women
78% Black Men
71% of Jewish voters voted for Harris - with 84% of the Reform denomination.

I think we need to be given reasons to vote for Candidates. This thing I'm seeing on Social Media "Vote Blue or you will lose . . . "

JHFC - don't these people realize we are in a Second Jim crow? Black Americans have been through far worse than losing the right to abortion or flock cameras. We, along with our Jewish and Brothers and Sisters have been through a lot in America. We are different from Indigenous Americans - in that were kidnapped and brought here - or were fleeing murderous white Europeans. We have tenacity and intergenerational STRENGTH as a result of that trauma to withstand far worse than what is happening today.

I personally think the Democratic has a white supremacist adjacent problem. Why do poor and lower middle class white people keep punching themselves in the face with the Magapub votes? That's white supremacy. White folks need to solve that problem.

[LeftInTX]

51. I don't think the Democratic party has a white supremacy adjacent problem, but they do have a third party adjacent

problem. They have been too cozy with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Hell, that's a political party and the Democratic Party needs to come out against them. PSL is trying recruit Democratic voters and Democratic activists in order to destroy the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party should denounce them, just like they denounce the Republican Party.


There are other oddball groups that I won't name.... Most are white in origin.


We need to elect Democrats. That's the party's job. Yes, the party has a platform, but we also need to be careful who we associate and protest with. I see groups like 50501 and Indivisible mingling with some things that I don't think is in our party's best interest. I don't see how blocking the hotel entrance where Erika Kirk was giving a speech helps elect Democrats and mingling with people who say, "We hate them and we want them to hate us" helps elect Democrats. I heard someone from a group that everyone loves here, that I will not name literally say this. "We want them to hate us" If the goal of protesting was to elicit hate in the public, we need to stop that. We need to elect Democrats. We need voters to give us a reason to vote for us.

"We want them to hate us" is not a winning strategy.

[H2O Man]

55. Respectfully disagree.

The PSL is a tiny, insignificant fringe "party" that we can safely ignore. It has three sub-groups: some sincere young people who, like young people from every generation, fancy themselves as revolutionaries; annoying old people living in the past; and a majority of undercover police and the children of the FBI agents Arlo Guthrie spoke and sang about, who are now in the agency. Any focus on them is as much a distraction and waste of time as trying to peel away republican votes was in 2016 and 2024.

As far as protest rallies go, yes, there are always going to be gadflies at them. Such events attract numerous people. I've seen video of Marjorie Taylor Greene at events supporting the victims of Epstein. Though I have zero interest in ever talking with her, if she is at a rally, I see no reason to flee.

Rather than wasting time or energy by focusing on insignificant tiny groups, we need to be dealing with reality. There are more independent voters today than Democrats or republicans. That is who we need to connecft with.

[LeftInTX]

56. They are a political party with their own presidential candidates.

They merged with the Green Party and Cornel West to encourage voters to vote against Harris. . I believe they are funded by Roger Stone.

They are pretty big where I live. They are big here and getting bigger. And I live in Texas. Enough said. They are not harmless.

The GOP funded one of their aligned congressional candidates who ran in the Democratic primary here. She made it to the runoff. She was predicted to win until it was revealed how crazy she really was. Eventually, the DNC wised up and fought back against her. She said a bunch of anti-semitic things, but she also says plain old crazy things. Like things about chemtrails. She eventually called for opponent to be castrated and wanted to create a concentration camp for "Zionists". I'm glad the DNC got involved, because she was getting away with this crazy stuff and had a bunch of endorsements and quite a following.

[H2O Man]

57. Yeah.

Of course. Thus, they have a losing streak that defines insignificance.

[LeftInTX]

59. They take away Democratic voters, just like the Green Party does. That's not insignificant.

[LeftInTX]

60. If their backed candidate would have won the Democratic primary, it would have been a laughing stock.

She was literally funded by the GOP because she was so crazy. She was predicted to win and won a bunch of endorsements. But once her craziness was exposed, she said even crazier stuff like wanting to castrate her opponent. She did have a lot of support and alot of Democrats are mad at the DNC for getting involved.

She had the most votes in the primary. And polls showed her ahead in the runoff. My friend was going to vote her and hosted events for her. However, the GOP support for her was exposed and her craziness did her in.

ETA: She was also endorsed by Latina groups including Joaquin Castro's mother (Rosie Castro) and other influential women. She had everyone fooled.

[JustAnotherGen]

68. The entire country

has a white supremacy problem.

That does include those on the left. It shows up in different ways than the average magapub.

[Martin Eden]

92. "I think we need to be given reasons to vote for Candidates."

There are ALWAYS reasons to vote for candidates -- even if it boils down to "Vote Blue or you will Lose..."

The VERY REAL potential of losing essential rights and constitutional rule of law being replaced by a facist oligarchy transferring even more wealth to the top, enforced by censorship in a police state, should be a HELLUVA MOTIVATOR for every citizen who gives a damn.

But that is far from the only reason to vote for Democrats in every federal and statewide election. Nearly all the progress on civil rights and legislation which actually helps the majority of Americans has been accomplished by Democrats when we hold the presidency and both houses of Congress. Unfortunately, those windows of opportunity have been few and far between. Republicans obstruct progress.

I've been voting since 1976, and have never encountered a "perfect" candidate. Voting is not like a marriage where you have to fall in love with a candidate to participate. It's more like public transit; get on the bus that takes you closest to your preferred destination. Every candidate has personal qualities and policy positions to be weighed against the others. Choose the one who is going in your preferred direction, or at least is not completely reversing course.

Every election result has consequences that can impact your life and those you love. Deciding not to vote, logically makes no sense. However, I understand that voting is often governed by emotion and/or a long history of being failed by our government. I also understand, as a white male, that I can never fully understand what it must have been like to experience discrimination and lack of so much that I took for granted growing up in a middle class household in an all white (with some Hispanic) neighborhood on Chicago's far southwest side.

Like it or not, politics is an art of compromise operating in the real world of the possible. Sometimes an inspiring candidate comes along and pushes the boundaries of the possible, but even Barack Obama came up against hard realities in office. He and the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act while we controlled Congress for two years. It fell short of Medicare for All, but that was likely a bridge too far at that time. Then Republicans regained the House in the 2010 midterms.

Now the Republican Party under Trump threatens a lot more than obstructing progressive legislation. Democrats have to do whatever it takes to fight fascism at home and give voters good reasons to vote for them. Getting out the vote is essential, as is persuading a majority of independents. Inspiring the Democratic base without turning off persuadable swing voters is extremely difficult. We need both.

VOTE. Just now, I recalled an image from the Civil Rights movement. It was a photograph of a young African American with a four letter word emblazoned across his forehead: VOTE.

[JustAnotherGen]

95. Fear Tactics

This 'fear' tactic - Y'all do realize that Black folks aren't terrified by this. We've had a fascist, racist, authoritarian regime in America. It was in place from 1877 to 1965.

My father, his parents, his grandparents were all born into it.

I put the quality and extent of evil up there with what folks say about Palestinians. Evil, evil, evil America.

We are a nasty, worthless, evil shit hole country.

[Martin Eden]

97. One doesn't have to be terrified of fascism to understand its impact and take action against it.

Were Civil Rights leaders battling Jim Crow employing "fear tactics?"

To defeat an evil requires identifying what it is, how it impacts us, and who is behind it. Fear is an emotion. Organizing to defeat evil requires rational thought, motivation, and commitment.

Simply ignoring fascism is not an option. Focusing on affordability or human rights without discussing and understanding the broader context and our enemies behind economic and racial injustice will almost certainly guarantee failure in defeating them.

Call it "fear tactics" if you like, but I don't think it's possible to defeat racism and fascism without naming what it is, who they are, and how it impacts our lives.

[Beartracks]

83. "It doesn't make a difference, so why bother?" so many ask.

The status quo loves their apathy.

If they don't bother, a difference isn't made.

===================

[yardwork]

5. This white woman is voting with you.

It's a verifiable fact that Black voters have saved this country over and over again. They consistently vote for Democrats, even though most of the time the candidates aren't Black. Black voters don't whine that the Democratic candidate isn't good enough. They don't get distracted by fads or propaganda. They don't sit around complaining and do nothing.

[H2O Man]

40. As is this decrepit Irish rebel.

[Bettie]

65. Older white woman, Black voters,

espeically Black women are the backbone of our party and don't get enough respect or recognition.

Most Democratic candidates are white....around 70% from the sources I was able to find from a quick google and those numbers were from 2024, which is better than the R's 89%.

This is the place I got demographic information from, it was in line with other sources and is easy to read: https://organizations.ballotready.org/research/candidates-by-race

Worked on putting up stuff at our county fair booth yesterday. We've got a wall full of mostly male candidates, all white, but I'm in Iowa and we're in a very white, very rural county (94% white....and only 20k or so people).

And yet, the Democrats in this tiny, white county, skew pretty darned progressive....maybe that's reactive to how nasty the Republicans here tend to be.

[BaronChocula]

81. Not to mention

The great majority of black candidates nationwide (99%?) run as Democrats and there is a reason for that. They know it’s the best place for realizing their agenda. They know where they will find likely allies. I don’t know if I’m a Democrat but I know I’m a solid Democratic voter because I know that the party aligns closely with my values while the other party runs counter to everything decent people (and I) stand for.

[Martin68]

21. So you have no sympathy for Latin immigrants being rounded up and deported without a trial? Unlike Trump and his MAGAts,

real Americans support each other. There is room in our hearts to support anybody who is mistreated and deprived of their human rights. It's not a zero-sum game.

[yardwork]

23. FFS.

How will voting for Democrats hurt Latinos? No sympathy?

[Martin68]

25. I'm sorry, I was responding to JustAntherGen " All I care about in 2026 Is Black Voting Rights, Civil Rights, and

Liberties."

[yardwork]

26. You know what she meant.

[Martin68]

28. I don't understand what you mean. "All I care about..." is a very clear statement unworthy of any Democrat.

Leave the single-issue voting to the right wing, please.

[H2O Man]

37. Respectfully disagree.

If a single-issue voter is supporting the Demmocratic Party, I welcome them. It's not that I think the person you mention is actually a single issue voter, as I have known this individual for a long time, and they are one of our community members that I respect and trust at the highest of levels.

If a person's "single issue" is being opposed to the president and his cult, for example, it would not make any sense -- in my opinion -- to react with saying we do not want them on our side.

Reading through some responses to the comment in question, I am reminded of something from 50+ years ago. Our boxing team was visiting another gym we had traveled to for some sparring. The elderly coach there was talking about a family he knew, that was black. He looked at one of our fighters, and asked if he knew this family? By no coincidence, he was asking the one black fighter on our crew, as if all black people knew each other. My guess is that the author of the said post is unlikely to know every black man who voted for the convicted felon fella.

[JustAnotherGen]

71. I'm a Black American before

I'm a Democratic.

I descend from survivors of Jim Crow. My Grandmamma was in her mid 60's before she cast her first vote.

So yeah - all I care about is Black Voting Rights. That's it. That's the litmus test - and it's how I judge candidates.

We have people whose one big issue is Palestine, Abortion Rights, Freedom of Speech, etc. etc. Kudos for them.

All I care about is Voting Rights. It's how I judge candidates, individuals who claim to be allies, etc. etc.

[electric_blue68]

77. Considering what has happened that's understandable....

Was your granmama in The South if she couldn't vote till her 60s? Not that there haven't been problems in The North at times, but not the overall pervasiveness of Jim & Jane Crow.

I've always had a few Big Issues including Equality.

[H2O Man]

50. This is why

I respect and trust you as one of DU's best.

All of my social/political activities at this phase of my life are centered upon wanting a decent world for my itty-bitty grandchildren. There may be some who insist that means I'm a single issue voter. But I have two itty-bitty grandchildren. One is a non-white male, the other a white female. Thus, each will be confronted by common issues, and each with distinct issues.

Those who identify me as a single issue voter might snarl and say I obviously don't care about anyone else's grandchildren. Gracious! Why, of course I do! Indeed, on another internet forum and in real life, I have been organizing grandparents to work for all of the little one's future. Without exception, all of these grandmothers and grandfathers understand where we stand, and why we are standing there.

I would hope that people would have a mind open enough to recognize that without black citizens having rights -- such as voting -- our party could not win the presidency, or the Congressional seats required to restore sanity and human decency in this country.

[JustAnotherGen]

72. You get me H2O Man

The wins since 1966 have been because of the VRA. It's gone.

[KPN]

67. Understandable and acceptable. I feel the same way about

the issue I care most about — the world my kids and their kids live in. There’s absolutely no question that voting for whatever Democratic candidate that appears on my general election ballot is the only viable choice for me. I don’t give a rat’s ass what specific priorities or issues they hold near and dear to themselves when voting in the general election — so long as they are Democrats.

At the same time, my hope would be that they always have the best interests of all of our kids and grandkids in mind at all times and in everything they do in office. To me that means seeking and building equality in everything — rights, security, wellbeing — for all.

[slightlv]

82. I hear the pain echoing in your message...

and I empathize. I also bore witness to the stripping of civil rights and liberties, and bodily autonomy and have felt it acutely. That doesn't mean I'm not empathetic towards other groups, throughout the world, who are living the same type of pain. What we need are bridges between us, to gather unorthodox allies, to defeat the great harm done by those in the government and corporations who work so easily to keep us all down. Just my opinion, but a heartfelt one.

[Wonder Why]

91. Look at all those responses to your posting. We Democratic Party people just love to tear each other down

and that's one of the two main reasons IMHO we lose our advantage. So many people voted for Trump over Harris because they and we couldn't overcome the differences we have. We fail to address the issues of the American people in trying to address the issues of different groups.

The other main reason is that we don't make it clear to all groups what we will do for them on what Americans vote for. They are interested in Security (their country), Safety (themselves and their families), the Economy (their future), their health (medical care) and Education.

I see your comment as actually wanting those five things so I don't consider you a one-issue person. You want what most Americans want.

On the other hand, I see the criticisms as typical of our biggest problem - we criticize each other instead of noticing how we all want the same things. We call ourselves inclusive. The repugs are inclusive - "If you hate, we include you". We don't say "If you support Security, Safety, a good Economy, Health Care and Education, we support you". Instead we say, "If you don't support our complete list of very specific things, you must be one of them so go with the other side." At least that's what it has appeared to me to be the case in my nearly 80 years.

[JustAnotherGen]

96. I didn't read those other responses

DU is not a nerve center of Black Americans - and certainly not Black American women.

I'm letting folks know what is going on right now - under their noses - and behind their backs.

If they don't like or reject it - it's on them. I generally don't share what is said in mutual aid service within the Black community.

[leftstreet]

7. DURec

[harumph]

9. That is the healthy thoughtful attitude.

I think too that right wing religious sects of Judaism - dare I say Jewish Nationalists, within Israel have had far too much sway in politics, as Christian Nationalism does here. For many years (since 1948) Haredi avoided military service. Even though in 2024 the ISC said they can be conscripted - they still manage to avoid it. Yet even though they believe military service is below them, they have been more than willing to "settle" (steal) - land where Palestinians have lived for generations. Non-violence and "Love of the Torah" then isn't the driving force behind avoiding service. I have no desire for closer ties, integration of defense contracting, intelligence services, etc. We have enough of our own fucked up issues to fix.

NYTimes (10302023): Israel Knew Hamas’s Attack Plan More Than a Year Ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html

I keep coming back to those very detailed and documented warnings that Israeli officials had prior to the Oct 7 attack. Never properly addressed. In all countries, there is a hostility that the right wing religious have for their secular neighbors - to the point of dehumanizing. Maybe holding nonsensical beliefs is contrary to a happy and well adjusted society. I'll just leave it there.

[twodogsbarking]

10. Israel has a way with dividing Americans. Was ever thus.

[MaryMagdaline]

11. Well said!

Palestinian rights are HUMAN RIGHTS.
Jewish rights are HUMAN RIGHTS.

[BeneteauBum]

12. Stand against violence......period!

Peace ☮️

[David__77]

13. Good statement.

[Celerity]

14. K & R

[Johnny2X2X]

17. I don't think Anti-Zionism is allowed on DU

Seriously, I think it's against the terms of use.

[Sympthsical]

24. Sometimes it's like watching a klan rally

But they're standing there going, "But we're not burning the cross in a racist way!"

And it's like . . . I don't know who you think you're fooling with all this. It's genuinely baffling.

When I hear Zionist or Zionism, I make the exact same face as when a white person uses the world "colored". It's not different because they've dressed it up what they think is gentler verbiage. It's just as bad. They're just convincing themselves it's not.

And the giveaway is easy. All they have to say is "We're anti-Likud." Easy. And everyone would understand the scope and the point right away. Anti-Zionism runs deeper. They know what they're angling for - the destruction of Israel and all the consequences for Middle Eastern Jews that would follow.

That's not a bug. That's the feature. Even if they're in denial about it. Qatar and friends didn't plow billions into American academia for no reason.

[mopinko]

32. and we're supposed to b the smart party.

the propaganda has been incredibly successful. it’s cuz we actually are the big hearted party, and they grabbed ppl by the heartstrings.
so fucking cynical.

[Johnny2X2X]

34. I disagree

I think there is more nuance around anti Zionism than just plain anti Semitism. There are people that just take issue with the way the land was given to Israel and what that meant to a lot of the people that were living on that land for generations who were forced to leave it.

But DU's terms of service don't really leave room to debate or discuss that. The debate is the basis for the entire conflict in that region, but DU is apparently not the place for it. So we're not allowed to discuss the reason for the conflict on DU, and that's really fine if it's because that could devolve into racism and other isms. DU doesn't have to be an open message board forum for all sorts of topics it's board don't want on its site. I can think of many topics they also wouldn't allow threads on, it's not a totally free board for discussion of all ideas.

[Nanjeanne]

38. There are many Israeli Jewish scholars like Bartov and Levy who do not believe in Zionism for reasons

they have discussed in interviews and books they have written. I would never accuse them of being self haters. But unfortunately many people don’t want to actually hear from Israeli Jews who are Holocaust scholars because their opinion doesn’t fit in with a very specific and limited knowledge. I wish we could actually have those kinds of discussions on DU. But this board isn’t the right place for it.

[SunImp]

69. Destiny/Ethan Kline fans & those who have a cynical view on nuance definitely don't want to hear from anti Israeli Jews

Add in Maher fans too since all these fandoms seem to have a hate boner for Arab/Muslims & people who are against Israel

[Ponietz]

73. Or the irony of (Ultra Orthodox) Haredim being anti or non-Zionist

[Mossfern]

79. I'm honestly confused by this

Do you mean that Bartov and Levy do not believe that there should be a Jewish State when you say that they don't believe in Zionism?
Does their being holocaust survivors make their views more legitimate than views of other Jewish people?

[Nanjeanne]

80. I'll post their debate and the transcript since it's very nuanced. No they don't believe Israel shouldnt exist. It does.

They are discussing whether the idea of a Zionist state is inherently wrong or doomed. Was the creation of the state not the right direction or did it go bad as it continued to exist. They come from those two positions. It’s quite fascinating.please take the time to listen or read it. As a Jew who has spent much time in Israel with family I sincerely understand their views. But even if I didn’t, it will open your eyes perhaps to another point of view.

Bartov says the early Zionist movement had liberatory intentions, aiming to emancipate the persecuted Jewish minority in Europe and modeling itself after other contemporary ethnonationalist movements. He then argues that while Israel had the opportunity to “become a normal state” and “issue a constitution that would provide equality to all its citizens, would define its borders and create a legal framework” that could also acknowledge and redress the Nakba, it chose another path. Instead of remedying its foundational violence, he says, the modern Israeli state has become increasingly “militaristic, centralized, expansionist, racist and, as we’ve seen since October 2023, genocidal.” Though Bartov does not identify as an anti-Zionist, he says Israel “must discard Zionism, it must put it on the garbage heap of history, and it must redefine itself, going all the way back to 1948.”

Levy, on the other hand, says Zionism has never been reformable, because the movement, from its very beginning, “started wrong, without the belief or the conviction that we can live together.” He contests Bartov’s assertion that early Zionist intentions became warped over the 20th century, and says instead that the violent dispossession of Palestinians is embedded into the premise of the movement. “This very same attitude, this very same policy never stopped ever since ’48,” Levy contends. His latest piece in Haaretz is titled “Zionism Didn’t Go Wrong, It Was Always Built This Way.”

OMER BARTOV: Yeah, that’s a good question. Look, as I was trying to say, I think if you understand Zionism as the claim the Jews made already in the late 19th century that Jews, like all other people, have the right of self-determination, while I myself — and I’ve written two books on that — am not a great supporter of nationalism, if you make that claim, then you have to be consistent. That is, if you support the right of self-determination for Jews, you would support it for anyone else, including, of course, for Palestinians. The one right you do not have with self-determination is to exercise it while oppressing or removing others from the land that you claim to be your own. So, I would not define myself as anti-Zionist, in the sense that I think that all groups, including Jews, have a right of self-determination.

I do think, however, that Zionism, as it has evolved and what it has become now, is no longer supportable. I don’t think that one can reform it anymore. And I think that the state of Israel, if it wants to become again a normal state, if it wants to be a member of the international community, it must discard Zionism, it must put it on the garbage heap of history, and it must redefine itself, going all the way back to 1948. In other words, it has to find a way, together with Palestinians, of how these two groups that live there — 7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians — how they can share the space.

LEVY: The second remark, which in my view is more important, is the belief of Omer that Zionism was very justified and had good reasons, a legitimacy, and Israel has a legitimacy, and then something went wrong, while I’m claiming that from the very beginning Zionism took a wrong direction, because the Jews who came to Palestine, like my parents and Omer’s parents, had no other place to go, and it was for them a real safe haven. It was a real — the only place they can rescue themselves. But this could have been done in a different way. You don’t come to a neighborhood and turn your back to the people who lived there centuries before you. And what Zionism did from the very beginning — not it went wrong, it started wrong — without the belief or the conviction that we can live together. Zionism never really tried to [inaudible] Palestinians. It was always to conquer them, to transfer them, to take their jobs, to take their lives, to take their properties, in order to become the only people who lives between the river and the sea. And here, we really differ, because not something went wrong, something started wrong.

https://www.democracynow.org/2026/5/15/omer_bartov_gideon_levy_israel_zionism]

[SunSeeker]

98. Wow, that is hardly "nuanced." Levy and Bartov are very wrong.

This quote from Levy is particularly troubling:

“Zionism never really tried to [inaudible] Palestinians. It was always to conquer them, to transfer them, to take their jobs, to take their lives, to take their properties, in order to become the only people who lives between the river and the sea. And here, we really differ, because not something went wrong, something started wrong.”

Palestinians live in Israel as full citizens and make up 21% of the Israeli population. Zionism was never about making Jews “the only people who lives between the river and the sea.” That “river to the sea” line is part of a Hamas chant to depopulate the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea of all Jews, it is not a Zionist goal.

[Nanjeanne]

99. Palestinians may have citizenship but they are not nationals which is a big distinction.

. Israel distinguishes between citizenship and nationality. For example, a Palestinian citizen of Israel has an Israeli citizenship (which grants them civil rights), but their nationality is officially recognized as Arab, preventing them from accessing certain privileges (like those reserved under Israel's Law of Return)

For example, you can be a citizen of Israel but be a Druze national, or a Jewish national. Your nationality is determined by your ethnicity and it cannot be changed or challenged. It is relevant because many of the rights accorded in Israel stem from your nationality not your citizenship. Meaning an “Arab” Israeli citizen and a Jewish Israeli citizen, while both citizens, enjoy different rights and privileges determined by their “nationality”.

This is not merely discrimination in practice, but discrimination by law. Adalah have composed a database of discriminatory laws in Israel that disfavor non-Jewish Israelis. For example, the Law of Return and Absentees’ Property Law are but two examples of flagrant racism and discrimination in the Israeli legal system [You can read more about t

There are more than 60 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel directly or indirectly, based solely on their ethnicity, impacting virtually every aspect of their lives, including housing, employment, education, healthcare, and who they can marry. These include the 1950 the Law of Return, The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law-2003, which restricts family reunification between Palestinians in Israel and spouses in the West Bank and Gaza and other countries, and the 2011 law, which restricts the freedom to commemorate the Nakba, are examples of this trend. In 2018, the Israeli Knesset passed the “Jewish nation-state” law as one of the country’s quasi-constitutional Basic Laws.

So it’s pretty nuanced and requires knowing a bit more than googling are Palestinians citizens of Israel. And
Omer Bartov an historian and Holocaust scholar and Daniel Levy, former advisor to the Israeli government with expertise on Middle East and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and formerly an Israeli negotiator as part of the Taba summit and Oslo 2 peace process might know something. Disagree with them if you want. Discussion is great and you can certainly disagree but disagree with more knowledge than “they are wrong” and Google says so.

[SunSeeker]

100. Arabs can vote and serve in the Knesset. Levy is dead wrong, Zionism does not seek Arab removal.

The Arab/Palestinian population of Israel has steadily increased since Israel’s formation. Arabs make up 8.3% of the Knesset, holding 10 of its 120 seats. These seats are won through Arab-majority political parties. Zionism is not based on the removal of Arabs from Israel. Arabs are part of Israel. There is no “nuance” about it. These are facts, your aversion to Google does not obviate that.

Levy’s claim that Zionism is about removing Palestinians is wrong and only serves to foment hate against Jews.

[Nanjeanne]

102. Who said did they couldn't vote? That's not an answer to the laws that discriminate against them because of

the nationalism policy overriding the citizenship question. But you go ahead and repeat they are citizens without reading or learning anything more about actual laws, nationalism vs citizenship etc.

BTW I guess you could say the same about black Americans during Jim Crow. They could vote.

And I'm sure Levy is happy to hear he is wrong. I mean what does he know? He served as an Israeli peace negotiator at the Oslo-B talks under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Taba negotiations under Prime Minister Ehud Barak. It’s true he went into those negotiations as a believer, but came out of them with a very different view of what Israel actually intended. But, my, yes Daniel Levy is promoting hate against Jews.

You can have a different opinion. Even Barton and Levy have different opinions about the purpose of Zionism vs the evolution it. But declaring them wrong based on your knowledge va theirs is a bit disrespectful. Your opinion can’t be based solely on they are citizens without discussing nationalism policies. Or declaring these scholars don’t know the facts that you know.

Thanks for pointing that out with your facts. Who can argue with you when you keep repeating something over and over? Certainly not me. But I’d be happy to continue talking after you’ve had a chance to spend time in Israel talking and working alongside Palestinians both citizens and non.

Have a great day.

[SunSeeker]

107. Zionism has a definition. It is not a matter of "opinion." nt

[Nanjeanne]

108. Okie dokie.

[Violet_Crumble]

123. It's just that simple, Nanjeanne

I've learnt that Zionism isn't a complex and every-changing political ideology, but one simple sentence. Maybe two if things need to get complicated. And academics are to be sneered at as being purveyors of propaganda. No need to talk about its history as that takes up too many sentences. Makes me want to chew on a corn-cob and say 'darn-fangled skool-learning propagandists' a lot. I don't know why.

[AloeVera]

103. Are you sure?

You wrote:

"Zionism was never about making Jews “the only people who lives between the river and the sea.”

Are you sure?

"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable… therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
- First page of Likud Party Platform, 1977

"After we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine... The state will only be a stage in the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine by a Jewish-Arab agreement...The state will have to preserve order not only by preaching morality but by machine guns, if necessary."
-Ben-Gurion, Zionist leader and first Prime Minister of Israel, 1938

Zionism is about taking all of Palestine.

What's happening in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon today is Zionism unmasked. But really, the truth was plain to see for decades. Those illegal settlements or "facts-on -the-ground" were a pretty big clue.

[Nanjeanne]

104. I thought this had been put to bed but I guess

the bat signal was sent out for someone new to respond. It really is amusing. If only it was actual honest discussion!

[SunSeeker]

106. Nothing about the Middle East has been "put to bed."

I am not “new.” I have been on DU since 2011. There was no “bat signal.” And I am trying to have an actual honest discussion. But it seems some here are more interested in hurling personal insults, snark, and silly emojis.

[Nanjeanne]

109. Yup. Exactly. Absolutely. So right. Thanks.

[SunSeeker]

105. Yes, I'm sure. Levy wrongly said Zionism is about removing all Palestinians from "the river to the sea."

It’s not. And none of your quotes supports that assertion.

Netanyahu is not Zionism, any more than Trump is American patriotism.

[AloeVera]

110. Likud/Netanyahu is the version of Zionism Israelis seem to prefer.

Israelis keep electing Likud, a party with a clear mandate of thwarting a Palestinian state by expanding the illegal settlements and exercising sole sovereignty between the river and the sea.

Looks like that's the version of Zionism Israelis prefer - which actually aligns perfectly with Ben-Gurion's call to expand to the whole of Palestine by using the newly-created state of Israel only as a stage, a stepping-stone, to total conquest.

According to polls, Israelis also - by a large majority - want their own Palestinian Citizens of Israel gone, to skedaddle out of their Israel.

Likud is Zionism in its original form pertaining to Palestinians and to claim Likud is an aberration is at odds with reality.

What you are saying about Zionism in essence is that, because the expansion and the expulsion of ALL is not yet complete, then Levy's claim is not true. That's like saying that since Project 2025 is not completed, there is no cause for worry because none of it can be true since all of it has not been fully implemented.

Or like saying since I could only manage the forced removal of 8 of my 10 neighbours and then proceeded to take their property and never compensated them or allowed them to come back home - then it's not true to accuse me of wanting them ALL gone (wink, wink). The fact that I am still working on removing the remaining two is fully ignored as well.

There is a word for that type of argument but it escapes me now. Some sort of fallacy, illogic - or something.

[SunSeeker]

113. Americans keep electing Trump, but Trump is not America.

Levy’s definition of Zionism is not true because removing Arabs from Israel is not what Zionism is. Zionism has not about removing Arabs from Israel. The Arab population in Israel has steadily increased, not decreased, unlike the ongoing accumulation of Project 2025 wish list check offs. Your Project 2025 analogy to Zionism has no basis in reality.

The blame for stalling the Palestinian state falls squarely on Hamas, who decided to slaughter 1200 innocents right when a two state solution was at hand—precisely because a two state solution was at hand.

[AloeVera]

116. I see...

Removing Arabs from Israel is not what Zionism is?? Tell that to the 80% of the Palestinians living in what became the state of Israel, who were "removed" in 1947-48 and never allowed to return. Only about 20% of that population was allowed or managed to stay.

Oh right, because not ALL of them were removed, therefore there was no ethnic cleansing and Zionism does not have the aim of removing them, that seems to be your position.

Of course the population of the Palestinian Citizens of Israel has increased. That's what happens to populations over time, it's called natural growth in demographics.

An argument based on ignoring/denying what happened to the 80% and only focusing on the 20% that was never in question and never the issue to begin with....and ignoring what has been happening to the Palestinians in the West Bank and soon Gaza as well... what's the word for that?

If a two-state solution was at hand just before October 7th you might want to let Netanyahu know that he lied about that before October 7th - repeatedly and consistently in numerous statements declaring there will be no Palestinian state. As late as June 2023 he stated publicly that Israel must block the creation of a Palestinian state. You think that might have got the Palestinians a wee bit riled up?

I foresee no further interaction between us.
Peace.

[SunSeeker]

120. You call raping Israeli girls and parading their lifeless bodies to cheering Gazans merely "a wee bit riled up"?

That savagery played right into Netanyahu’s hands, keeping him in office to fight the war, when he would have been on his way out and prosecuted, if there had been no attack by Hamas. The Israeli leadership that would have taken over after Netanyahu’s ouster most definitely supported a 2 state solution.

Hamas was the side who opposed a 2 state solution. Hamas is explicitly committed to the destruction of Israel, and killing Jews “from the river to the sea.” Right before October 7, 2023, the US had negotiated an historic normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, circumventing Hamas. THAT is what had Hamas, as you describe it, “a wee bit riled up,” not Palestinians losing the war of 1948. Political analysts and historians generally view the October 7 assault launched by Hamas as an effort to disrupt this regional normalization process and sabotage any diplomatic movement that sidelined Hamas.

Yeah, I agree, there is no further reason to continue this conversation.
Peace

[Violet_Crumble]

122. They very clearly didn't call it that....

Here's what they said 'If a two-state solution was at hand just before October 7th you might want to let Netanyahu know that he lied about that before October 7th - repeatedly and consistently in numerous statements declaring there will be no Palestinian state. As late as June 2023 he stated publicly that Israel must block the creation of a Palestinian state. You think that might have got the Palestinians a wee bit riled up?'

I've even helpfully bolded the bit you missed.

Now, onto the rest of your post, which was lacking some context.

Hamas was the side who opposed a 2 state solution.

Yes, though Hamas isn't the representative of the Palestinian people. The PA is, and they do support a two-state solution. Likud does

Right before October 7, 2023, the US had negotiated an historic normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, circumventing Hamas.

And was that finalised? Or is it like saying that the US had negotiated a historic truce with Iran? Same sort of thing. Negotiations aren't worth shit if nothing comes out of them.

THAT is what had Hamas, as you describe it, “a wee bit riled up,” not Palestinians losing the war of 1948.

Actually, Aloe Vera said it had Palestinians riled up, not Hamas. It seems to me there's a bit of conflating Palestinians with terrorists in yr posts, which should be avoided fwiw, Hamas's ideology IS rooted in the Nakba, anti-Zionism and occupation. They're also driven by what's going on around them in the region. Hamas isn't some one-dimensional organisation, but has a lot of different motivations, some of which include trying to weaken the PA and working with Iran. It had been in Israel's interest to let them continue doing their own thing until October 7 happened. The Israeli govt did have a habit of not seeing any difference between Hamas and the PA because that's what suited them in stopping a viable Palestinian state emerging.

[Sympthsical]

39. There's not

Because there are plenty of other places in the world where borders have changed, people shifted, and problems occurred. But only Israel ever got this continued hyperfocus the entire time. And don't read that as if I support all that they have done. There's a destructive psychology currently play in Israeli politics.

I'm just not going to pretend obvious things aren't obvious.

If the 20th Century showed us anything, it's that smart people, intellectual people can "nuance" their way into supporting dumb ideologies with dangerous consequences. The fact we still have Marxist-Leninists running around after Mao and Stalin took out 100 million people is amazing. "No no. I mean it different! My MLism is nuanced and better!"

It's trash. It was always trash. Trash that well-meaning people can get roped into, but trash nonetheless.

A lot of this stuff is the ideology of the privileged and the comfortable, to intellectualize barbarism as a noble struggle of the oppressed. People who can look at groups like Hamas and romanticize them as freedom fighters.

That shit is a luxury only Westerners can manage, because they know they will never have to live with the fallout if they ever actually got their way.

It doesn't matter. Social media is unleashing this all into the world again. Lessons forgotten will be relearned at great cost. So it goes. And 30, 40, 50 years from now, no one will have supported it. Same as it ever was.

[Violet_Crumble]

86. Sorry, but there is

Would you seriously claim that there's no nuance involved in the following scenarios?

1. Someone on social media saying 'Fuck the Zionist regime'

And

2. A discussion in a book about the development of Zionism, anti-Zionism and post-Zionism?

Curious to know as I wrote an essay on Zionism long ago when I was at Uni and want to know if I was merely being antisemitic coz after all, there is no nuance.


Also, what other instances are you talking about where a country has occupied another people for decades? I need to know what sort of company Israel's amongst

[Sympthsical]

87. It's simple

If you're anti-Zionist and don't think Israel should exist, you're antisemitic. Because you know full well what would happen to Jews in the Middle East if they were subjected to whims of their neighbors. People never wrestle with that because 1) They know and 2) They're not bothered by it.

If you are against an ethnostate, I'm going to want a full run down of every ethnostate on earth and why only Israel deserves the attention and condemnation. Because there are a lot of ethnostates out there. They're not called that, of course. Only Israel is. Which, again. The bias becomes quickly obvious. Special rules. For reasons.

I don't agree with the occupation of Gaza or the West Bank. But if you don't think China isn't sitting there oppressing minority populations, Russia making its various attempts over the years, and other countries, you're not being honest. Of course, we don't call them occupations. We just think of it as annexation for the most part. Or the Kurdish question (again, that no one cares about). Or pick an African problem at random.

I wrote an essay on Zionism long ago

Oh, I have no doubt. Disproportionate fixation on Israel just makes my case for me, tbh. Someone learning that fixation in academia would be the least surprising thing I've heard this year.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. Could you answer the question I asked you?

It was: 'Also, what other instances are you talking about where a country has occupied another people for decades? I need to know what sort of company Israel's amongst '

I assume the *you* in yr post is not aimed at me? Because if it is, you would be very wrong, and I'd be more than happy to go through it point by point. After the strange response about academia and my studies, I'm not too sure. And speaking of academia, is there an acceptable level of attention that should be given to Israel? I studied ME politics and the creation of Israel, including Zionism is part and parcel of that area of study. You haven't given any rational explanation of why that's a 'fixation' rather than the study of countries in a specific region. I also did a unit of study on my own country and its violent, colonial history of oppression and slaughter of the indigenous population. How is that any different than studying Israel's past? Is there a word limit you'd impose on people so they don't cross over this imaginary 'disproportionate fixation' line? If you need me to explain why there's a lot of Western attention on Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people, then I can do that.

Off to dust off some of my old books written by post-Zionists. Or is post-Zionism seen by you as antisemitic as well? After all, it's all soooo fucking simple, right??

[iemanja]

88. Except it's not just Likud anymore

Not only are there more radical, right-wing parties, but many if not most Israelis cheer on the deaths of Palestinians. Even children do. They are taught to hate. They do not believe Palestinians are human beings. That is a serious problem.

I myself don’t use the word Zionist because I believe Israel has a right to exist. What I don’t support is the ever encroaching conquest of the region that sees no end in sight. That a country exists does not give in the right to expand and exterminate entire populations in its wake.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Yep, they are taught to hate, and that hate is also encouraged by the US

I read somewhere that a lot of Americans moved to Israel and promptly headed to the West Bank to steal Palestinian land.

I get sick to the back teeth of those who complain about Palestinians being taught hate. Take a look at Israel. They're no better. It's a deeply ingrained problem that will take generations, if at all, to resolve.

I hear you about not using the word Zionist, though I think it's possible to not be a Zionist and believe Israel, like every other country, has a right to exist. I just think Zionism started off with good intentions, and has been hijacked in the past few decades by ultra-nationalist types. I know the mere mention of the word can send some into a frenzy, so I tend to only use it when Zionism itself comes up for discussion. It's a political movement, and I do like talking about political movements. But using the term does distract from far more pressing issues, like the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the ongoing abuse and murder going on in the West Bank, abetted by Israeli troops.

[mopinko]

31. it is in my mind, but

the way juries work is- if i agree w the statement, i’m not going to take it down.
and too many ppl agree.

[Johnny2X2X]

35. It's also in the wrong forum

There is an Israel-Palestine forum where all of these threads belong, but I don't report stuff like that because I really don't care about which forum people use.

[mopinko]

46. the rule used to b that it was allowed in gd when there was a significant news story.

but yeah, since oct 7 it seems to b permanent news.

[Johnny2X2X]

49. Yeah

Frankly, I'm not a rule follower, I don't care about where things go and think that DU enforces things so strictly takes away from the forum. But I'm not running things, DU runs there website how they see fit.

I'd like for DU to be able to discuss Zionism more thoroughly and without name calling, but that's not the way the people running DU see it. I think a discussion among Democrats would help the party, but again, not my call.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. I don't think that it is against the terms of use

It is, I think we all agree, a political position. While the Democratic Party's position is clearly in favour of the continued existence of Israel as a sovereign state, I don't think that automatically means "anti-Zionism" is not allowed - we see the arguments about what that word currently means (some may use "Zionist" to mean a position in favour of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, for instance).

[mopinko]

47. words mean things.

or at least, they used to.
zionism just means that israel has a right to exist. u wd think the fact that it does wd consign the term to the dustbin of history. but for 2 many ppl, it’s still not settled history.
sadly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. No, it doesn't just mean that

A typical dictionary says "now supports the development and protection of the state of Israel". And that gets into recent and current policies and actions of the Israeli state.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/zionism

Obviously, the support of Israel is not "settled history".

[Mossfern]

111. Is there really an issue with

"The development and and protection of the State of Israel?"
Which one of those is a negative aspect to you?

Isn't that the mission of any developed nation?

[muriel_volestrangler]

112. For nearly 60 years, "the development of Israel" has meant, in practice, colonialism

and laying waste to neighbouring areas.

[Mossfern]

114. Neighboring area that attack?

Please don't take my post as supporting the settler movement.
Land was taken in the 1967 war when Arab nations attacked - no?

AI Overview The 1967 Arab-Israeli War, often called the Six-Day War, was a brief but intense conflict fought between June 5 and June 10, 1967, by Israel and a coalition of Arab states consisting primarily of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. It resulted in a decisive Israeli victory that significantly altered the geopolitical map of the Middle East.Key Causes of the WarRising Tensions: Frequent cross-border skirmishes occurred throughout the 1960s, particularly between Israel and Syria over water resources and Palestinian guerrilla attacks launched into Israel.Escalation by Egypt: Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered the withdrawal of United Nations emergency forces from the Sinai Peninsula and blockaded the Straits of Tiran, which cut off Israel's primary route for oil and shipping into the Red Sea.Arab Coalition: Egypt signed a mutual-defense treaty with Jordan, while other Arab nations like Iraq, Kuwait, and Algeria mobilized troops, and leaders openly declared their intentions to destroy Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

121. Let's be accurate. The 1967 war began with Israel attacking.

Before I ask the question that's really bugging me here, I do want to point out that Muriel was talking about the past 60 years, not that one moment in time nearly 60 years ago. Would you dispute that Israel has been indulging in blatant land grabs in not only the West Bank and Gaza, but also parts of Lebanon, as well as the Golan Heights? I think that's what they're referring to.

Now for my question. I see yr using AI to get info to post here. But I'm curious to know what AI it is, and what you're asking it to come up with the answers. Usually an AI answer will provide the sources it's using, but I haven't seen you post them.

[Crunchy Frog]

115. Some words can have a range of meanings and I believe that's always been the case.

I'm not sure I agree with the view that any state (including my own) has an absolute right to exist. I generally think that existing states should continue to exist but with certain caveats. I would prefer that Israel continue to exist, but not as an ethnostate where a significant part of the population are legally defined as 2nd class citizens. I'm even less supportive of it existing in a form in which territories it has sovereignty over (like the West Bank) are divided into groups of people with full citizenship and full rights, and those with no citizenship and no rights.

So whether or not I support Zionism is highly dependent on how one defines that term.

[mopinko]

118. israeli arabs have full civil rights.

they vote, they serve in the knesset, they can practice any profession.
what r u talking about?

and ethnostate? what, exactly, is the problem there? how do u define that? there r israelis of many, many nationalities. and there r a great many “ethnostates” in the world, if by that u mean an ethnically homogeneous country. like poland. ukraine. rly, most of the countries that arent like us- built up of immigrants.

[Crunchy Frog]

119. Whatevs. 🤷‍♀️

I don't agree with your fundamental view of the situation, but I doubt that will change through any further discussion.

Ethnically homogeneous states may develop organically due to geographic and historical factors, but that's not the same thing as establishing a state for one kind of people on land that's already inhabited by other kinds of people.

If Ukraine were an ethnostate, they wouldn't have a Jewish president and they wouldn't have a population of Muslim Crimean Tatars, among others.

Hope you have a good night.

[Eko]

74. I dont see anything in the TOS saying that .

[Blue Full Moon]

18. Look up Yitzhak Rabin and Yeshayahu Leibowitz

[patphil]

19. You can't critciize Israel and not be anti-semetic? That's pure bullshit.

That's how Israel controls the narrative.
It's like saying criticism of what Trump does is anti-American.
The actions of the government of Israel are despicable, and must be called out as such.
Otherwise you're just rubber stamping the carnage in Gaza, and Lebanon.
Over the decades I've had many Jewish and Arab friends. It's not the people, it's the people in power who are doing this.
Living in the United States, I can see how a well organized minority with no ethics or honor, but plenty of money can take over a government and use their power to do despicable things.
Right now I'm not seeing much difference between Netanyahu and Trump. Both have used their control of government in ways that are the antithesis of what their countries believe in.

I will continue to call them out for what they are...evil people who don't mind committing acts of murder and mayhem to suit their purposes.

[chowder66]

27. Lander says in the video "You can criticize Israel and not be anti-Semitic".

[NoRethugFriends]

33. This post seems to be inconsistent with it's subject line

Unless I'm missing something

[sarisataka]

41. Words are easy to say but do actions match the words

I have seen plenty of people say they are not antisemitic then the next words are but Jews have loyalty to Israel/ if Jews weren't so "Jewish" they wouldn’t be harassed/ if Jews don't want to face antisemitism they just need to keep it a secret that they are Jews/ they keep bringingup the Holocaust, can't Jews just get over it...

I have no reason to doubt the candidate's words and fully expect he will live up to them. I hope I am correct.

[Initech]

42. I will also stand up against brutal dictators like Netanyahu and criminal oligarchs like Elon Musk and Larry Ellison.

They can all go get royally fucked. I will choose freedom and democracy every time.

[patphil]

61. Sorry about that, I mis-read the post, but my comments are still correct.

[enid602]

43. Food

“I will stand up for Palestinian human rights and firmly against bigotry aimed at Jews.” Hopefully the Gazans will soon be able to eat again.

[mopinko]

52. they're eating now.

never in the history of warfare has a country gone to such lengths to feed their opponents in a war.
much of the shortages come from hamas hijacking aid, selling it on the black market, and diverting it to their fighters.
and they’d b feeding themselves by now if they hadnt ripped up the ag infrastructure that israel left behind when they evacuated in ‘05, and diverted international aid to tunnels and weapons, instead of the ppl.
for the most part, aid is getting in now.

[enid602]

58. Aid

https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/05/19/gaza-israel-curbs-aid-kills-civilians-during-ceasefire

[AloeVera]

63. Sadly, facts don't seem to matter.

The gaslighting and propaganda has worked very well on some people. It's hysterical that they accuse US of being propagandized!

But human suffering should always matter. That it doesn't seem to, not when it comes to Palestinians - that's the part I just can't understand - or accept.

[AloeVera]

75. Those are the disproven, gaslighting talking points of lying war-monger Netanyahu.

I wonder why you believe Netanyahu over the scores of humanitarian and international agencies that have documented in lengthy reports the systematic, deliberate obstruction and withholding of food and life-saving necessities? Perhaps you have not read them. Perhaps you did not know that even the Biden Administration concluded that the "Hamas stealing aid" rationale for the starvation was bullshit.

Same goes for the "they destroyed the Greenhouses!" excuse for the systematic, deliberate destruction of Gaza's agriculture, fishery, manufacturing and overall economy - by Israel. Again, there's lots of research and documentation out there on that too.

"They are eating now". Yes. Barely. They were not eating for a long time. And as per the article another poster sent you, the obstruction continues, as does the suffering.

Do you know what they are eating? No fruits, vegetables, meat/poultry (oops, they have no infrastructure so no refrigeration), not nearly enough nutrition. Do you know what severe/acute malnutrition of nearly 3 years does to the developing mind and body of a child? No education for that matter? No access to medical care? The trauma of being trapped in a war zone?

As for Israel patting itself on the back for "feeding" Palestinians in that disgusting talking point starting with "never before"? Israel did not provide a crumb of bread or heaven forbid, a piece of fruit to a Palestinian child. Israel, however, was obligated by international law to ENSURE that the people it trapped with no escape in a war zone had food to eat - simply by facilitating the entry of food aid generously provided and paid for by OTHER countries and NGO's. Seems like a basic humanitarian, HUMAN, obligation. Yet it failed, not out of ineptitude, but out of sheer ill-will and a deliberate policy of using food as a weapon of war by withholding it.

I'll just leave you with one final thought in the form of a question. If these were American or Israeli children - do you think some people would be as dismissive of their suffering or as quick to believe self-serving lies about the cause of their suffering? What would be the difference?

[PatSeg]

44. Very well said

Why is it so hard for some to understand this? I get so tired of people getting offended when others oppose Netanyahu's government and its policies.

[gulliver]

45. I am for the human rights of any Palestinian...

Last edited Wed Jun 24, 2026, 03:19 PM - Edit history (1)

...(or anyone) who is not Jewphobic, homophobic, patriarchal, homicidal, racist, intolerant, autocratic, or theocratic. I apply that test, equally and fairly, to any group, be they Palestinians, Americans, Europeans, Israelis, whoever. The people who pass that test, the good people, deserve not only human rights but respect.

Anybody who fails the test (or supports someone who fails the test for any reason) deserves only to be shunned, ignored, and if they are criminal, punished. They get human rights, but nothing more. The whole rest of the moral, legal, and ethical book library must be thrown at them. In effect, they have excommunicated themselves from the company of the good.

On Edit: It was pointed out to me that I might be saying I am not for the human rights of Palestinians who "fail the test." My second paragraph has a line that basically says they (like anyone) deserve human rights. But you have to say what you're not saying these days or people assume you're saying what you aren't.

Redemption is still possible for them. Many were young and foolish, as we all were once. Many were programmed by people who were themselves programmed. The world is largely on autopilot, and stupidity and rottenness can appear good to even the good-hearted among the lost.

[AloeVera]

66. You seem to contradict yourself as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which btw has no such caveats.

It's based on the principle that all human beings are equal and have equal human rights. Period.

You say that you are for the human rights of Palestinians - except for those who don't meet your criteria.

Then you say that those who don't meet your criteria, Palestinian or not, ONLY get human rights, no respect.

Which is correct? I hope it's the latter!

I'm wondering too if you would add "supremacist" and "genocidal" to your list of human beings you consider unworthy of respect?

[gulliver]

70. True, I'll add a line to be clear.

Human rights are for any human. Respect is for people who pass the test. Thanks for pointing it out.

I don't want to include "genocidal," because I think it's covered by "homicidal."

"Supremacist?" I'm not sure what that means. It seems like some kind of Nietszche or Foucault or "Our God is better than yours" religion-esque thuggery (or it could just be preferring the group Diana Ross abandoned so long ago when she went solo).

[AloeVera]

76. Since you don't seem to know what a supremacist is..

Then perhaps you would consider adding to your list of shitty human beings (with which I fully agree) those that ignore, deny and withhold the human rights including the right to life to a group they don't like, want gone - or feel superior to?

What can we call such people? Hmmm...

[yellow dahlia]

48. Brad Lander's interview w/ Antonia Hilton was excellent.

He is rational and demonstrates a moral compass.

[MustLoveBeagles]

53. Kick

[KPN]

64. Hear hear!

[MineralMan]

78. I'm uniformly indifferent to all religions

and to nations dependant on them. I see zero benefits from any religion.

So, I'm about equality of people, individually.

Leave religion and its prejudices out of it.

[Cheezoholic]

84. 1000% n/t

[walkingman]

101. I would love to live in a more secular world.

[Iggo]

93. Never Forget.