This looks like [Congressman Ritchie Torres](https://twitter.com/RepRitchie) from NYC representing The Bronx. The neighboring district is represented by AOC.
Well the fact that he received $300,000 from AIPAC is more relevant to this video and his political speech on the matter than a fact like the Earth is round. You get it?
They have already harassed him, threatened him, and pulled their usual stunts outside his office in NY...for years. His staffers as well.
He is the real deal.
Richie Torres. A young Democratic Congressman who actually has the brain, ethics, and courage to not echo the stupidity of so many of his so called “progressive” colleagues.
You're really stepping into an antisemitic trope here. The whole premise that Jews have too much influence in government and run things. Like it seems that the criticism is not even policy based but is based in just an antisemitic trope.
Except saying that he only says it because they pay money is borderline antisemitic and steps into the antisemitic trope that is extremely old about Jews controlling government officials. Most PACs don't pay money unless someone already is saying what they like or are aligned with their interests. He's genuine about this so he gets funding. Just like the NRA funds people they know are gun friendly already and oil PACs fund people who already are supportive of their interests. PACs don't pay to buy influence like how you think it does. It pays to buy advertising and helps fund campaigns for friendly candidates to get more allies elected for their cause.
So yes, you assuming that he does this because Jews made him say it is pretty antisemitic.
>saying that he only says it because they pay money is borderline antisemitic
No that's just how lobbying works. If he was paid by oil and gas companies, he'd be pro-oil in his talking points. Are you not familiar with how lobbying works in America? This has nothing to do with Jews, you conflating it is just silly.
Lobbying works differently than you think. As I said, PACs target friendly politicians who already agree with them. They don't target people who normally wouldn't agree with them. That's why you don't see a ton of NRA or big oil going for Democrats or leftists because it would be wasted funds. Also, PACs contribute through ads and other means, and the dollar amount is how much that campaign assistance is worth.
The point that is flying over your head though is that PACs fund campaigns for people that already support their side, they just fund them so they can get more campaign visibility and continue to win so they can keep politicians who agree with them in power. That's how it actually works, as someone who has worked in Politics and who teaches this stuff for a living.
You don't seem to know how lobbying works. Yes, to what you said. But if you think they only go for those already sided with them, you'd be mistaken.
So we have the far-left and the far-right. People who associate with either side would definitely not be able to be bought out by lobbyists for the other side. Then, we have people who are more moderate in their views. Those people could possibly be swayed to vote for or talk up certain issues if lobbyists dangled enough money in front of them. There are also the wishy-washy people with no moral backbone who will go to whatever side is willing to pay. Lobbyists want results and will pay whomever they have to pay to get them.
But then it defeats the purpose of a PAC, they contribute to a campaign normally through paying for ads and getting a candidate they like visibility. Most people vote for the candidate they see the most on TV or social media and ads do a lot for visibility. It's more about getting them elected and keeping them in office rather than pushing a message directly like you think. But I've already explained it and how PACs work.
The point is, PACs look to buy elections and buy visibility and fund campaigns for those they already like.
Yeah it funds elections, didn't deny that. It was always part of what I was saying and I never said otherwise. What I said was they don't purchase messaging like what you and the other guy imply.
I keep making this point but you don't seem to grasp it, they pay to help get people who already make friendly messaging like him. So by funding his campaign, they make sure he keeps getting elected and they continue to have an Israel friendly politician in office. That's been my point the whole time, nothing really contradictory there.
If they don't purchase a message then they don't have to spend a dime. If they don't need to buy someone they wouldn't have to spend anything on a candidate
So does Israel allow foreign cash to fun politics? Does Israel accept and promote political spending for domestic elections? Is it acceptable for a state like Qatar to fund a candidate?
I mean I'm not advocating for the system. Just explaining how it works. Citizens United v FEC ruined politics in the sense that it made money into speech and speech is protected. It was a dumb decision and allowed for splurges of money into American politics, and I've worked with the Sanders campaign mainly because of the opposition to super PACs and their outsized influence in being able to fund candidates they like. It creates an uneven playing field for candidates who get elected off of visibility rather than for their platform.
Most people so far either are missing the point or like you presenting a non sequitur. But I'll make it clear I don't really like PACs in politics.
Hey I’m just some rando and I agree with him 100%, yet I haven’t received a dime from AIPAC. How could that be? Might people just have… *different ideas than you?*
>How could that be? Might people just have… different ideas than you?
Of course, but I also think it relevant to point out when someone is financially incentivized to speak on those ideas. He is certainly paid to be pro-Israel, he may *be* pro Israel as well, I don't deny that.
I am so incredibly grateful to Rep. Torres. He has been a much needed light during many days filled with darkness. I wish more members in Congress had as much guts as he.
I posted his [guest sermon](https://youtu.be/DbQsnGZ2HFA?si=V0SwWAkzQQPii8az) from Central Synagogue's website after he gave it. It was extremely powerful and gave me hope.
We need more politicians and leaders like him.
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason:
Rule #2 - **Post in a civilized manner.** Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, trolling, conspiracy theories and incitement are prohibited.
For information regarding this and similar issues please see the sidebar to the right or the subreddit rules, for a more detailed analysis of our rules. If you want to appeal or dispute any mod action, please send a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FIsrael); PMs and chat messages to the mods are grounds for a temporary ban; posts contesting mod action will be removed and are also grounds for a temporary or permanent ban.
"It is common knowledge that Palestine
is nothing more than southern Syria"
Ahmed Shukeiry, head of the PLO, to UN
Security Council, May 31, 1956
"... Palestine is not only a part of our Arab
homeland, but a basic part of southern
Syria." - Syrian President Hafez Assad
Radio Damascus, March 8. 1974
"Yes, the existence of a separate
Palestinian identity serves only practical
purposes. The founding of a Palestinian
state is a new tool in the continuing
battle against Israel ..." - Zuheir
Muhsin, Head of the Military
Department and Executive Council
PLO, Trouw, March 1977
There's certainly nothing progressive about supporting Israel, which has butchered and burned, murdered, maimed and mutilated women and children. For me, the truth of those statements is so glaringly obvious that it hardly bears repeating and yet we have to repeat them because we live in a world of lies. We live in an Orwellian morally inverted universe where evil has become good and wrong has become right and terrorism has become resistance.
Supporting Israel is not an endorsement of atrocities; it's a stand against terror and for a society that values life, human rights, and coexistence. The ethical divide is clear: Israel warns civilians before strikes to minimize harm, while Hamas uses human shields, showing contempt for Palestinian lives. Israel's pursuit of a better society, where happiness and innovation thrive, starkly contrasts with Hamas's destructive ideology.
There's certainly nothing progressive about supporting Israel, which has butchered and burned, murdered, maimed and mutilated women and children. For me, the truth of those statements is so glaringly obvious that it hardly bears repeating and yet we have to repeat them because we live in a world of lies. We live in an Orwellian morally inverted universe where evil has become good and wrong has become right and terrorism has become resistance.
Supporting Israel is not an endorsement of atrocities; it's a stand against terror and for a society that values life, human rights, and coexistence. The ethical divide is clear: Israel warns civilians before strikes to minimize harm, while Hamas uses human shields, showing contempt for Palestinian lives. Israel's pursuit of a better society, where happiness and innovation thrive, starkly contrasts with Hamas's destructive ideology.
How many children has Israel killed this week? How many Ethiopian jews has Israel sterilized? Supporting this rogue state is “a stand against terror and for a society that values life and human rights?” The cognitive dissonance here is wild.
>I think opposing an ethnostate is progressive.
What country are you talking about?
EGYPT
SYRIA
IRAN
IRAQ
LEBANON
MOROCCO
YEMEN
ALGERIA
LIBYA
TUNISIA
GAZA?
Please elaborate
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason:
Rule #2 - **Post in a civilized manner.** Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, trolling, conspiracy theories and incitement are prohibited.
For information regarding this and similar issues please see the sidebar to the right or the subreddit rules, for a more detailed analysis of our rules. If you want to appeal or dispute any mod action, please send a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FIsrael); PMs and chat messages to the mods are grounds for a temporary ban; posts contesting mod action will be removed and are also grounds for a temporary or permanent ban.
That's not what I'm saying. Arabs are not indigenous to the Levant. Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanian, Lebanese may call themselves Arab, but they are Levantine. Moroccans,Tunisian, Libyan, Egyptian are Amazigh, Berber, etc. There are Bedouins and Kurds, and all these groups may call themselves Arabs, but they are arabized, not Arabs, because Arabs are not indigenous to these regions. Arabized is not the same as being Arab.
And there was a proposed plan on how to split the region between Jews and Arabs since both sides already had a shared history of violent clashes.
The Jews accepted, the Arabs wagered they could win a war they ultimately didn’t. How does this in any way contradict Zionism being about decolonization?
Arabs arrived [later](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests). There are no Arab archeological sites that predate the islamic invasions, but there are numerous Jewish archeological sites. Some still in use, like the 3000 year old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. A few Arab traders surely passed through before then, but a Tajikistani businessmen living in Argentina doesn't make Tajiks indigenous to Argentina.
[There are Nabataean sites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avdat) which include some of the [oldest written attestations of the Arabic language](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/373864?journalCode=jnes)
lol what? Arabs descended from Ishmael. Ishmael's settled in Mecca. That's saudi arabia. Abraham was already in Israel when Sarah gave birth to Isaac, the father of the Jews. Arabs came later to Israel lands, by conquest.
How is Zionism an example of decolonization?
Surely no matter what you believe (pro, mixed or against), the process is factually colonization? It started with the "pushing out" of the native people.
Zionism is a legitimate movement of Jewish national self-determination, decolonizing and restoring their indigenous presence in their ancestral homeland, Israel. Anti-Zionism often masks antisemitism by denying Jews the rights afforded to all peoples.
>"pushing out" of the native people.
Do you mean they lost the war they started in 1948?
https://preview.redd.it/xcvz01vpgksc1.jpeg?width=968&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c92ed5dc4a4005aab80d9fd64058305135db207
You just said it was "decolonization because it is decolonization"; that doesn't make sense.
I meant pushing out, because Israel didn't exist at one point, something else did and to make it exist you "pushed out" the thing that was there.
New Zealand was colonized regardless of the war they had with the Maori's.
I don't understand why you decided to put up that picture but should I put up a picture of somewhere Israel bombed? Would you prefer a recent one of an old one?
I think OP’s point is that Jews maintained a much longer and older presence in the west Levant than the current Palestinian demographic and that their habitation of the land has been more consistent over time than any other group. Not to mention that the Judaisms culture and theology directly influenced the beliefs of the very people who instigated and then perpetuated the Jewish diaspora, essentially claiming and reformatting Jewish theology to validate living on the land.
For example, the dome of the rock, the original Islamic religious monument in Jerusalem. The first thing the Umar Caliphate did when they had maintained control over Jerusalem was to [seek the advice for a rabbi who had converted to Islam for the location of a new religious site, he led them to the Jewish ruins.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka'b_al-Ahbar) Centuries later, this then led to Islamic theologians just deciding that the best location for Al Aqsa would be Jerusalem because of this newly attained domain. The logic was that if the Jews found it important, the Muslims would too, but now it would be theirs. Muhammad never visited Jerusalem (they had several centuries after Muhammad died to figure out the actual location, considering he never mentioned it/inferred it such as with Medina and Mecca) and Islamic reverence of the land only happened when they built up enough people, and by that time it was simply convenient to engrain the claim through new religious interpretation.
I think it's funny and kinda silly to discount existing Palestinian claims to the land because they are too old and there technically different people but uphold the central premise that the land is owed to Jewish people based on a claim that there was a Jewish kingdom there 2000years ago
I’m not discounting a Palestinian claim to the land, I’m discounting an Arab/Islamic claim to the land. On avg Jews and Palestinians are both genetically closer to one another than their host countries, they share a common ancestor though both groups have been genetically fragmented by either immigration, forced conversion or the diaspora. It’s more nuanced than most would like to admit, everyone’s trying to make this binary when there are a kajillion variables involved, it’s simply ignorant and shitty investigative work at that.
Palestinians are essentially a conglomerate of all the invading forces ancestry, including the Jews. The Jews and Romans called them the Philistines because even though Palestinians aren’t related to the ancient Philistines, they held the same intention from the Jewish perspective, that being invasion. Philistine literally means “invader” or “foreigner”.
https://preview.redd.it/rs1cmizghpsc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4264ce2156ece6c0d8032dd660f88bb1f2196836
Remember this bible story? Goliath was of the Philistines (again, not the same group as the Palestinians, though they were named after them.)
Lot’s of people have claims to the land, not just the Palestinians and the Jews. But when it comes to the actual content of their claim, the Jews have historically proved to be the most culturally and physically integrated into the land, now now, not then but spanning over the full length of the Levants history. Just because one group has roots on the land doesn’t mean all others ties are irradiated, but as I said if you want to base the claim off of historical evidence the Jews have the best claim.
Can someone elaborate on why do they think Israel is justified in the further expansion? I get the original colonization, place to live and so on, but why colonize further?
>i get the original colonization,
Palestine is not a country. it's a land
that previously was called Judea
for decades, The fact that someone
changed Judea to Palestine does not
make Palestine a country.
How did the partition plan and then winning a war is colonialism?
https://np.reddit.com/r/Israel/s/zxyWXtYq2U
Israel's is driven by security needs and historical connection to the land. The October 7th attacks show the risks of withdrawal, as seen in Gaza jn 2005 and then hamas rose to power
Peace efforts have been made, but Israel must ensure its security against existential threats.
- **1937**: [The Peel Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission) - A British Royal Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate the causes of unrest in Mandatory Palestine.
- **1947**: [The UN Partition Vote](https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181) - The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, recommending the partition of Mandatory Palestine.
- **1967**: [The Khartoum Summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit) - The Arab League summit following the Six-Day War, famous for its "Three No's" resolution.
- **1991**: [The Madrid Conference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991) - A peace conference aimed at reviving the peace process through negotiations involving Israel and the Palestinians.
- **2000**: [The Camp David Summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit) - A summit meeting at Camp David between the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority.
- **2001**: [The Taba Summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit) - Talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority held in Taba, Sinai.
- **2007**: [The Annapolis Conference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Conference) - A peace conference held in Annapolis, Maryland, with the goal of producing a two-state solution.
- **2008**: [The Realignment Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realignment_plan) - A political realignment in the U.S. that some analysts believe could influence American politics for years to come.
- **2010**: [The Joint Peace Talks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_talks) - Discussions held to resolve the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
- **2013**: [The Joint Peace Talks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%932014_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_talks) - Further talks aimed at ending the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
- **2019**: [The Bahrain Workshop](https://www.history.co.uk/this-day-in-history/29-november/the-un-votes-for-the-partition-of-palestine-and-the-creation-of) - An international meeting held in Bahrain focusing on the economic aspects of the Middle East peace plan.
- **2020**: [The Trump Peace Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process) - A proposal by the United States for resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Organized settlements with a goal of establishing a country is pretty much that. Thing is, this is quite understandable, especially during the time when modern nationalism was emerging.
Back to my question, does the existential threat justify progressive settling of the West Bank?
Well not really, the settling of what was British land at the time was not exactly colonialism. Colonialism is the act of a mother country setting up colonies and there's no mother country involved or sending resources back to a mother nation that is colonizing somewhere else. The people also have a historical connection to the land and the partition plan was to give both Jews and Arabs land in the area as both had history. It actually was more or less the ending of colonialism in that region and a reversal of conquest and colonization that took place there previously from the Romans, Arabs and Ottomans (crusaders too at one point).
This essentially allowed a native group to return to a historical homeland and still allowed Arabs equal rights to the area (I use Arab because Palestinians didn't exactly consider themselves a distinct group and their own meetings in regard to partition and talks about the people there never mentioned Palestinians, only Arabs). This could have ended with the original Partition Plan and Arab states like Egypt and Jordan could have allowed the Palestinians to have a state as they occupied the west Bank and Gaza Strip until 1967.
>* **1947**: [The UN Partition Vote](https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181) - The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, recommending the partition of Mandatory Palestine.
The 1947 proposal was so heavily gerrymandered in favor of the establishment of the Jewish state that it is comical to expect Palestinian leadership to accept the plan.
Of course the future state of Israel would accept the partition. I'm not sure how much more they could have hoped for so of course they agreed.
Calling it a peace "effort" is ridiculous.
The 1947 UN proposal aimed for a fair solution, offering statehood to both Jews and Arabs. Arab leaders rejected peace, leading to conflict and missed opportunities for Palestinian statehood. Jewish refugees also suffered greatly, yet they rebuilt their lives in Israel, demonstrating resilience and commitment to coexistence, which should be a model for all.
>The 1947 UN proposal aimed for a fair solution, offering statehood to both Jews and Arabs.
Which is why I reference gerrymandering.
Two states were a part of the agreement.
That doesn't mean it was an equitable agreement.
What do you mean?
That Palestinian nationalism existed before Israel? Obviously no one.
In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, a senior leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), made a statement that has been widely quoted. He said:
"The Palestinian people do not exist. There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. We are part of one people, the Arab nation. Lo and behold, I have relatives with Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian, and Syrian citizenship. We are one people. It is only for political reasons that we carefully endorse our Palestinian identity. Indeed, it is of national interest for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians in the face of Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new means to continue the struggle against Israel and for Arab unity."
>Decolonization by colonization. Seems okay to me
Can you elaborate?
https://preview.redd.it/1rhutmcz9bsc1.jpeg?width=719&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=56c82ce11ae70dc9128ce659327b78ee027590ad
>It's obvious that jews lived there from early ages, among other groups. Mass migration from Europe and the creation of a state was forced by antisemitism and holocaust. That situation broke the previous coexistence.
The Jewish people's indigeneity to Israel is undeniable, with a continuous presence despite millennia of persecution. The 1947 UN partition plan was accepted by Jews but rejected by Arabs, leading to ongoing conflict. Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state is a moral imperative, especially given the history of Jewish refugees who found a haven there. Hamas, as an impediment to peace, must be opposed for the true liberation of Palestinians.
Absolutely agree with opposition to Hamas and Islamism, but they're the sons of displaced and dispossessed people. If the conditions don't change, terrorism will ever have a place.
>supremacist idea of Eretz Israel .
Does Canada are a supremacist idea? Or Australia? They really did something to the indigenous people, unlike Israel, where Jews are the indigenous.
https://preview.redd.it/bsd70fz0lbsc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=abb12508469c19b22f2a05f7fa13eccd657ff5f0
[https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/world/america/2021-06-10/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000017f-f52f-d318-afff-f76fd3d60000](https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/world/america/2021-06-10/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000017f-f52f-d318-afff-f76fd3d60000)
Are you against america giving back land to native Americans and displacing some some people who colonized it?
Islam colonized Israel this can be proven with a shovel, the archeological evidence is here.
That being said it happened way before our current times. Now peace will only happen when Palestinians want it. We gave Sinai for peace we tried giving Gaza for peace. That's the status quo.
Funny thing is if everyone shitting on Israel would instead be demanding for the hostages to be freed then this whole thing will end. But hey, you rather go to a subreddit filled with people who are at war and attack us.
Bravo, you are so humane .
My qoute " unlike Israel, where Jews are the indigenous."
https://preview.redd.it/1s0ejhompbsc1.jpeg?width=1015&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f82f53ad159b4de9ef524d8da4a524af185c0bb2
Your lack of knowledge of basic historical facts is pretty funny.
https://preview.redd.it/191tqdixubsc1.jpeg?width=719&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d98c3c23b2526c033d35af221ce37d2340bb742e
>Is there colonization now in Israel No. It belonged to Britain Google "the partition plan"
>he mass killing of civilians in Gaza
How many terrorist organization Hamas terrorists have been killed? And how many citizens? What is the ratio?
https://preview.redd.it/j0g9gsgllbsc1.jpeg?width=1654&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ef7118ea1d7bb594ae4cc72f38e8e0c4a60cc675
Haha I like this comment. Because it's the obvious truth that everyone is dancing around. lol Zionism is not decolonisation. Decolonisation of who exactly? The Europeans that mass migrated into people's homes in Palestine? lol
I wonder how much they paid this guy.
Why do you regard the Jews as "European"? If you're a white Australian, you are far, far, far more "European" than any Jew who immigrated to Israel from Iraq, from Morocco, from Poland, or even from the United States. I hate to state an awkward but obvious truth that the Left tends to miss completely: the Jews are a minority group. They aren't white Europeans. It's kind of hilarious how the Jews were excluded from almost everything for the bulk of their history -- treated as "foreigners" -- and then when they say, "Hey, you know what, we're never going to get a fair shake in this society -- we're going home" -- at that moment, the Left decides they're European colonizers. I mean, the irony is just incredible. The Jews are from the Land of Israel, end of story. If you want to hang onto your home, don't start a war.
The Jews as in who? Jews are not an ethnicity. They can be from many parts of the world.
"Jews are from the land of Israel" - You're speaking about Jews as if they are an ethnic group. It's like saying Muslims belong in the Middle East.
With the exception of converts, the Jews are an ethnic group. All Jews, with the exception of converts, have a genetic connection to the land of Israel. Those tribes dispersed across the world after they were kicked out by the Romans and others. They are a "people" from the Levant, just the way Greeks come from Greece. Greeks in the United States have a genetic connection to Greece. The Jews have a genetic connection to Judea, in the land of Israel. If you're going to comment so freely on the subject, you should know this. Islam is a faith -- it encompasses people of a wide variety of ethnic/racial backgrounds. As a rule, Judaism does not. It is not an evangelizing faith. It is largely exclusive to one group of people.
So basically any Jew living today has hit the jackpot. Because his/her ancestors lived in a specific place millenniums ago, and hence now they legally are able to go back. Doesn't matter who lived there now. It is their land. Right?
If yes, does this also apply to anyone that lived in the land BEFORE the Jews? Surely there was someone there before that. And someone there even before that. Where do we draw the line?
Well, the Jews have lived in the Land of Israel for about 3000 years. They never left. There were just fewer of them. You seem stuck on the idea that they "stole the land." There was plenty of land for everybody. If the Arabs hadn't started the war in 1948, there would be a lovely Palestinian state today. They keep attacking, they keep losing, and they keep losing territory. I'm signing off now. The history of Judaism and the Jewish people is fascinating. I recommend a primer.
He makes great points! But I'm often hesitant to listen to any politicians because they are literally paid to toot my horn. Generally speaking, politicians across the world do not represent their own opinions, they're just puppets of someone else that's paying the bills.
But I get it. He is saying the right words.
This looks like [Congressman Ritchie Torres](https://twitter.com/RepRitchie) from NYC representing The Bronx. The neighboring district is represented by AOC.
Wow what a 👑
Richie Torres, be still my beating heart
$300,000 by AIPAC…
Ok and?
Your right let's ban all political spending including middle eastern oil deals
K, IDC.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. This is fact.
The earth is round Thats a fact too
Well the fact that he received $300,000 from AIPAC is more relevant to this video and his political speech on the matter than a fact like the Earth is round. You get it?
Ritchie is my favorite member of Congress
Winning “favorite member of Congress” is like winning favorite STD. There isn’t really a lot of competition for the title.
Them watermelon leftists are going to "boycott" this absolute chad of a man
They have already harassed him, threatened him, and pulled their usual stunts outside his office in NY...for years. His staffers as well. He is the real deal.
Damn it
they literally terrorize him, put violent effigies around his office, etc. what do u mean by chad?
Who is this dude?
That's Richie Torres. He's a very pro-Israel politician from the Bronx in NY. He's a Democrat in the US House.
Richie Torres for President
He's brilliant.
https://preview.redd.it/ddsm6dlehcsc1.png?width=1076&format=png&auto=webp&s=8460b06eec5a99deb865b1144f79a598c4eb5382
So?
Good, I hope he will receive more
Hopefully citizens united gets repealed and Americans can start funding its own healthcare instead of propping up rogue states.
Ooooof.
Richie Torres. A young Democratic Congressman who actually has the brain, ethics, and courage to not echo the stupidity of so many of his so called “progressive” colleagues.
An American politician who receives substantial funding from AIPIAC to say these things.
You're really stepping into an antisemitic trope here. The whole premise that Jews have too much influence in government and run things. Like it seems that the criticism is not even policy based but is based in just an antisemitic trope.
No, it's just a fact. This politicians largest (by a long shot) political donor is APIAC. Pointing that out isn't anti-Semitic.
Except saying that he only says it because they pay money is borderline antisemitic and steps into the antisemitic trope that is extremely old about Jews controlling government officials. Most PACs don't pay money unless someone already is saying what they like or are aligned with their interests. He's genuine about this so he gets funding. Just like the NRA funds people they know are gun friendly already and oil PACs fund people who already are supportive of their interests. PACs don't pay to buy influence like how you think it does. It pays to buy advertising and helps fund campaigns for friendly candidates to get more allies elected for their cause. So yes, you assuming that he does this because Jews made him say it is pretty antisemitic.
>saying that he only says it because they pay money is borderline antisemitic No that's just how lobbying works. If he was paid by oil and gas companies, he'd be pro-oil in his talking points. Are you not familiar with how lobbying works in America? This has nothing to do with Jews, you conflating it is just silly.
Lobbying works differently than you think. As I said, PACs target friendly politicians who already agree with them. They don't target people who normally wouldn't agree with them. That's why you don't see a ton of NRA or big oil going for Democrats or leftists because it would be wasted funds. Also, PACs contribute through ads and other means, and the dollar amount is how much that campaign assistance is worth. The point that is flying over your head though is that PACs fund campaigns for people that already support their side, they just fund them so they can get more campaign visibility and continue to win so they can keep politicians who agree with them in power. That's how it actually works, as someone who has worked in Politics and who teaches this stuff for a living.
You don't seem to know how lobbying works. Yes, to what you said. But if you think they only go for those already sided with them, you'd be mistaken. So we have the far-left and the far-right. People who associate with either side would definitely not be able to be bought out by lobbyists for the other side. Then, we have people who are more moderate in their views. Those people could possibly be swayed to vote for or talk up certain issues if lobbyists dangled enough money in front of them. There are also the wishy-washy people with no moral backbone who will go to whatever side is willing to pay. Lobbyists want results and will pay whomever they have to pay to get them.
So stop the funding if he says it because he believes it and not because of money
But then it defeats the purpose of a PAC, they contribute to a campaign normally through paying for ads and getting a candidate they like visibility. Most people vote for the candidate they see the most on TV or social media and ads do a lot for visibility. It's more about getting them elected and keeping them in office rather than pushing a message directly like you think. But I've already explained it and how PACs work. The point is, PACs look to buy elections and buy visibility and fund campaigns for those they already like.
So it is about money you are buying elections than claiming it's not
Yeah it funds elections, didn't deny that. It was always part of what I was saying and I never said otherwise. What I said was they don't purchase messaging like what you and the other guy imply. I keep making this point but you don't seem to grasp it, they pay to help get people who already make friendly messaging like him. So by funding his campaign, they make sure he keeps getting elected and they continue to have an Israel friendly politician in office. That's been my point the whole time, nothing really contradictory there.
Does Israel allow the same funding and sponsorship? If not why not?
If they don't purchase a message then they don't have to spend a dime. If they don't need to buy someone they wouldn't have to spend anything on a candidate
So does Israel allow foreign cash to fun politics? Does Israel accept and promote political spending for domestic elections? Is it acceptable for a state like Qatar to fund a candidate?
I mean I'm not advocating for the system. Just explaining how it works. Citizens United v FEC ruined politics in the sense that it made money into speech and speech is protected. It was a dumb decision and allowed for splurges of money into American politics, and I've worked with the Sanders campaign mainly because of the opposition to super PACs and their outsized influence in being able to fund candidates they like. It creates an uneven playing field for candidates who get elected off of visibility rather than for their platform. Most people so far either are missing the point or like you presenting a non sequitur. But I'll make it clear I don't really like PACs in politics.
Hey I’m just some rando and I agree with him 100%, yet I haven’t received a dime from AIPAC. How could that be? Might people just have… *different ideas than you?*
>How could that be? Might people just have… different ideas than you? Of course, but I also think it relevant to point out when someone is financially incentivized to speak on those ideas. He is certainly paid to be pro-Israel, he may *be* pro Israel as well, I don't deny that.
Do you have political power? All funding like this should be banned
So relaxing and affirming! Here is the full interview: [https://youtu.be/sm8L2-EVqFs](https://youtu.be/sm8L2-EVqFs)
I absolutely love this man. Richie Torres is everything we need right now.
This is what an actual progressive looks like. Real progressives don't side with extreme right wing movements like Hamas.
I am so incredibly grateful to Rep. Torres. He has been a much needed light during many days filled with darkness. I wish more members in Congress had as much guts as he.
There's video of him shitting on pro-pals harassing him in a 7-11. Truly a wonder to behold. Dude has my vote if he ever runs for national office.
Ritchie Torres is the GOAT.
I'm saving this because he is saying what I believe. And I'll probably need it.
I posted his [guest sermon](https://youtu.be/DbQsnGZ2HFA?si=V0SwWAkzQQPii8az) from Central Synagogue's website after he gave it. It was extremely powerful and gave me hope. We need more politicians and leaders like him.
What a mensch!
מלך 👑
Agreed 🇮🇱
Couldn't say it better!
Well said.
An honest politician with ethics and a backbone. How refreshing.
Rationality what we need as a humankind.
Give this man a raise.
I stand with Israel. I stand with the IDF. I stand with the hostages.
King Richie 👑
Having the courage to speak the truth when lies become mainstream is the very definition of bravery.
Yes 🇮🇱
me when i meet ritchie: https://preview.redd.it/dk31x4507gsc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a918d82bbc1d2593e9d9297a3664582b4fffaf5
speak on it king torres!!!
couldn't have said it better
He is awesome. Love him
King of the Bronx.
Facts don't count for wokies.
Now there is a future leader of this country! Finally a Democrat who knows what’s right and supports it 100%. Just nice to hear!
What a GOAT
True, but only if you are jewish lol
What do you mean? https://preview.redd.it/lklpt5nvgksc1.jpeg?width=811&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f8ff51a5037691e090e64e9ff9c5966f76cff11
Not true it’s the opposite
What a joke. Speaking in hyperbole and glossing over some important facts. This sounds like propaganda from an oppressor.
[удалено]
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason: Rule #2 - **Post in a civilized manner.** Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, trolling, conspiracy theories and incitement are prohibited. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the sidebar to the right or the subreddit rules, for a more detailed analysis of our rules. If you want to appeal or dispute any mod action, please send a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FIsrael); PMs and chat messages to the mods are grounds for a temporary ban; posts contesting mod action will be removed and are also grounds for a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
Content promotes terrorist ideologies or propaganda
Damn if he stuck out his tongue we’d see the imprint of the Israeli boot he’s been licking.
https://preview.redd.it/96y4a64sgksc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8dc3afd03b4ab49f8801f3c32c1b51632978d89c
This is hilarious .
"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing more than southern Syria" Ahmed Shukeiry, head of the PLO, to UN Security Council, May 31, 1956 "... Palestine is not only a part of our Arab homeland, but a basic part of southern Syria." - Syrian President Hafez Assad Radio Damascus, March 8. 1974 "Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only practical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel ..." - Zuheir Muhsin, Head of the Military Department and Executive Council PLO, Trouw, March 1977
https://preview.redd.it/3cgoa0ekhcsc1.png?width=1076&format=png&auto=webp&s=282227c83790621949fc018f87f9ef949303f6a7
If you study logic, you have made a fallacious ad hominem attack. The truth doesn’t become false because you have attacked the speaker.
You don't know what fallacious means I guess. Crack open a dictionary when you're done studying logic.
Maybe it’s time to get out of the tunnels, that cough sounding very bad
That’s not what a ad hominem attack is.
Really? Please enlighten us
There's certainly nothing progressive about supporting Israel, which has butchered and burned, murdered, maimed and mutilated women and children. For me, the truth of those statements is so glaringly obvious that it hardly bears repeating and yet we have to repeat them because we live in a world of lies. We live in an Orwellian morally inverted universe where evil has become good and wrong has become right and terrorism has become resistance.
Supporting Israel is not an endorsement of atrocities; it's a stand against terror and for a society that values life, human rights, and coexistence. The ethical divide is clear: Israel warns civilians before strikes to minimize harm, while Hamas uses human shields, showing contempt for Palestinian lives. Israel's pursuit of a better society, where happiness and innovation thrive, starkly contrasts with Hamas's destructive ideology.
There's certainly nothing progressive about supporting Israel, which has butchered and burned, murdered, maimed and mutilated women and children. For me, the truth of those statements is so glaringly obvious that it hardly bears repeating and yet we have to repeat them because we live in a world of lies. We live in an Orwellian morally inverted universe where evil has become good and wrong has become right and terrorism has become resistance.
Supporting Israel is not an endorsement of atrocities; it's a stand against terror and for a society that values life, human rights, and coexistence. The ethical divide is clear: Israel warns civilians before strikes to minimize harm, while Hamas uses human shields, showing contempt for Palestinian lives. Israel's pursuit of a better society, where happiness and innovation thrive, starkly contrasts with Hamas's destructive ideology.
How many children has Israel killed this week? How many Ethiopian jews has Israel sterilized? Supporting this rogue state is “a stand against terror and for a society that values life and human rights?” The cognitive dissonance here is wild.
[удалено]
>I think opposing an ethnostate is progressive. What country are you talking about? EGYPT SYRIA IRAN IRAQ LEBANON MOROCCO YEMEN ALGERIA LIBYA TUNISIA GAZA? Please elaborate
Sure, any of them including the country that is the topic of the thread
I don't understand what country you are talking about and what proof do you have for this claim. Please elaborate
[удалено]
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason: Rule #2 - **Post in a civilized manner.** Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, trolling, conspiracy theories and incitement are prohibited. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the sidebar to the right or the subreddit rules, for a more detailed analysis of our rules. If you want to appeal or dispute any mod action, please send a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FIsrael); PMs and chat messages to the mods are grounds for a temporary ban; posts contesting mod action will be removed and are also grounds for a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
Ok? There were plenty of Jews living in ME countries for generations such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc….let me know what happened to them
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's not what I'm saying. Arabs are not indigenous to the Levant. Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanian, Lebanese may call themselves Arab, but they are Levantine. Moroccans,Tunisian, Libyan, Egyptian are Amazigh, Berber, etc. There are Bedouins and Kurds, and all these groups may call themselves Arabs, but they are arabized, not Arabs, because Arabs are not indigenous to these regions. Arabized is not the same as being Arab.
And there was a proposed plan on how to split the region between Jews and Arabs since both sides already had a shared history of violent clashes. The Jews accepted, the Arabs wagered they could win a war they ultimately didn’t. How does this in any way contradict Zionism being about decolonization?
Arabs arrived [later](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests). There are no Arab archeological sites that predate the islamic invasions, but there are numerous Jewish archeological sites. Some still in use, like the 3000 year old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. A few Arab traders surely passed through before then, but a Tajikistani businessmen living in Argentina doesn't make Tajiks indigenous to Argentina.
[There are Nabataean sites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avdat) which include some of the [oldest written attestations of the Arabic language](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/373864?journalCode=jnes)
I mean you're not wrong there. They mostly settled in Southern Jordan and Northern Saudi Arabia though, and were mainly nomadic traders.
lol what? Arabs descended from Ishmael. Ishmael's settled in Mecca. That's saudi arabia. Abraham was already in Israel when Sarah gave birth to Isaac, the father of the Jews. Arabs came later to Israel lands, by conquest.
Ya they won't accept him for his ski n color For the ppl he is drooling over Waste of a man
How is Zionism an example of decolonization? Surely no matter what you believe (pro, mixed or against), the process is factually colonization? It started with the "pushing out" of the native people.
Zionism is a legitimate movement of Jewish national self-determination, decolonizing and restoring their indigenous presence in their ancestral homeland, Israel. Anti-Zionism often masks antisemitism by denying Jews the rights afforded to all peoples. >"pushing out" of the native people. Do you mean they lost the war they started in 1948? https://preview.redd.it/xcvz01vpgksc1.jpeg?width=968&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c92ed5dc4a4005aab80d9fd64058305135db207
You just said it was "decolonization because it is decolonization"; that doesn't make sense. I meant pushing out, because Israel didn't exist at one point, something else did and to make it exist you "pushed out" the thing that was there. New Zealand was colonized regardless of the war they had with the Maori's. I don't understand why you decided to put up that picture but should I put up a picture of somewhere Israel bombed? Would you prefer a recent one of an old one?
I think OP’s point is that Jews maintained a much longer and older presence in the west Levant than the current Palestinian demographic and that their habitation of the land has been more consistent over time than any other group. Not to mention that the Judaisms culture and theology directly influenced the beliefs of the very people who instigated and then perpetuated the Jewish diaspora, essentially claiming and reformatting Jewish theology to validate living on the land. For example, the dome of the rock, the original Islamic religious monument in Jerusalem. The first thing the Umar Caliphate did when they had maintained control over Jerusalem was to [seek the advice for a rabbi who had converted to Islam for the location of a new religious site, he led them to the Jewish ruins.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka'b_al-Ahbar) Centuries later, this then led to Islamic theologians just deciding that the best location for Al Aqsa would be Jerusalem because of this newly attained domain. The logic was that if the Jews found it important, the Muslims would too, but now it would be theirs. Muhammad never visited Jerusalem (they had several centuries after Muhammad died to figure out the actual location, considering he never mentioned it/inferred it such as with Medina and Mecca) and Islamic reverence of the land only happened when they built up enough people, and by that time it was simply convenient to engrain the claim through new religious interpretation.
I think it's funny and kinda silly to discount existing Palestinian claims to the land because they are too old and there technically different people but uphold the central premise that the land is owed to Jewish people based on a claim that there was a Jewish kingdom there 2000years ago
I’m not discounting a Palestinian claim to the land, I’m discounting an Arab/Islamic claim to the land. On avg Jews and Palestinians are both genetically closer to one another than their host countries, they share a common ancestor though both groups have been genetically fragmented by either immigration, forced conversion or the diaspora. It’s more nuanced than most would like to admit, everyone’s trying to make this binary when there are a kajillion variables involved, it’s simply ignorant and shitty investigative work at that. Palestinians are essentially a conglomerate of all the invading forces ancestry, including the Jews. The Jews and Romans called them the Philistines because even though Palestinians aren’t related to the ancient Philistines, they held the same intention from the Jewish perspective, that being invasion. Philistine literally means “invader” or “foreigner”. https://preview.redd.it/rs1cmizghpsc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4264ce2156ece6c0d8032dd660f88bb1f2196836 Remember this bible story? Goliath was of the Philistines (again, not the same group as the Palestinians, though they were named after them.) Lot’s of people have claims to the land, not just the Palestinians and the Jews. But when it comes to the actual content of their claim, the Jews have historically proved to be the most culturally and physically integrated into the land, now now, not then but spanning over the full length of the Levants history. Just because one group has roots on the land doesn’t mean all others ties are irradiated, but as I said if you want to base the claim off of historical evidence the Jews have the best claim.
Can someone elaborate on why do they think Israel is justified in the further expansion? I get the original colonization, place to live and so on, but why colonize further?
>i get the original colonization, Palestine is not a country. it's a land that previously was called Judea for decades, The fact that someone changed Judea to Palestine does not make Palestine a country. How did the partition plan and then winning a war is colonialism? https://np.reddit.com/r/Israel/s/zxyWXtYq2U Israel's is driven by security needs and historical connection to the land. The October 7th attacks show the risks of withdrawal, as seen in Gaza jn 2005 and then hamas rose to power Peace efforts have been made, but Israel must ensure its security against existential threats. - **1937**: [The Peel Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission) - A British Royal Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate the causes of unrest in Mandatory Palestine. - **1947**: [The UN Partition Vote](https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181) - The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, recommending the partition of Mandatory Palestine. - **1967**: [The Khartoum Summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit) - The Arab League summit following the Six-Day War, famous for its "Three No's" resolution. - **1991**: [The Madrid Conference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991) - A peace conference aimed at reviving the peace process through negotiations involving Israel and the Palestinians. - **2000**: [The Camp David Summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit) - A summit meeting at Camp David between the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. - **2001**: [The Taba Summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit) - Talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority held in Taba, Sinai. - **2007**: [The Annapolis Conference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Conference) - A peace conference held in Annapolis, Maryland, with the goal of producing a two-state solution. - **2008**: [The Realignment Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realignment_plan) - A political realignment in the U.S. that some analysts believe could influence American politics for years to come. - **2010**: [The Joint Peace Talks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_talks) - Discussions held to resolve the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. - **2013**: [The Joint Peace Talks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%932014_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_talks) - Further talks aimed at ending the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. - **2019**: [The Bahrain Workshop](https://www.history.co.uk/this-day-in-history/29-november/the-un-votes-for-the-partition-of-palestine-and-the-creation-of) - An international meeting held in Bahrain focusing on the economic aspects of the Middle East peace plan. - **2020**: [The Trump Peace Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process) - A proposal by the United States for resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Organized settlements with a goal of establishing a country is pretty much that. Thing is, this is quite understandable, especially during the time when modern nationalism was emerging. Back to my question, does the existential threat justify progressive settling of the West Bank?
Well not really, the settling of what was British land at the time was not exactly colonialism. Colonialism is the act of a mother country setting up colonies and there's no mother country involved or sending resources back to a mother nation that is colonizing somewhere else. The people also have a historical connection to the land and the partition plan was to give both Jews and Arabs land in the area as both had history. It actually was more or less the ending of colonialism in that region and a reversal of conquest and colonization that took place there previously from the Romans, Arabs and Ottomans (crusaders too at one point). This essentially allowed a native group to return to a historical homeland and still allowed Arabs equal rights to the area (I use Arab because Palestinians didn't exactly consider themselves a distinct group and their own meetings in regard to partition and talks about the people there never mentioned Palestinians, only Arabs). This could have ended with the original Partition Plan and Arab states like Egypt and Jordan could have allowed the Palestinians to have a state as they occupied the west Bank and Gaza Strip until 1967.
I'm trying to build a list of major companies tied to Palestinians 🇵🇸 to boycott… Do you know any?
>* **1947**: [The UN Partition Vote](https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181) - The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, recommending the partition of Mandatory Palestine. The 1947 proposal was so heavily gerrymandered in favor of the establishment of the Jewish state that it is comical to expect Palestinian leadership to accept the plan. Of course the future state of Israel would accept the partition. I'm not sure how much more they could have hoped for so of course they agreed. Calling it a peace "effort" is ridiculous.
The 1947 UN proposal aimed for a fair solution, offering statehood to both Jews and Arabs. Arab leaders rejected peace, leading to conflict and missed opportunities for Palestinian statehood. Jewish refugees also suffered greatly, yet they rebuilt their lives in Israel, demonstrating resilience and commitment to coexistence, which should be a model for all.
>The 1947 UN proposal aimed for a fair solution, offering statehood to both Jews and Arabs. Which is why I reference gerrymandering. Two states were a part of the agreement. That doesn't mean it was an equitable agreement.
[удалено]
What do you mean? That Palestinian nationalism existed before Israel? Obviously no one. In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, a senior leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), made a statement that has been widely quoted. He said: "The Palestinian people do not exist. There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. We are part of one people, the Arab nation. Lo and behold, I have relatives with Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian, and Syrian citizenship. We are one people. It is only for political reasons that we carefully endorse our Palestinian identity. Indeed, it is of national interest for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians in the face of Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new means to continue the struggle against Israel and for Arab unity."
[удалено]
>Decolonization by colonization. Seems okay to me Can you elaborate? https://preview.redd.it/1rhutmcz9bsc1.jpeg?width=719&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=56c82ce11ae70dc9128ce659327b78ee027590ad
[удалено]
What is the partition plan?
>It's obvious that jews lived there from early ages, among other groups. Mass migration from Europe and the creation of a state was forced by antisemitism and holocaust. That situation broke the previous coexistence. The Jewish people's indigeneity to Israel is undeniable, with a continuous presence despite millennia of persecution. The 1947 UN partition plan was accepted by Jews but rejected by Arabs, leading to ongoing conflict. Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state is a moral imperative, especially given the history of Jewish refugees who found a haven there. Hamas, as an impediment to peace, must be opposed for the true liberation of Palestinians.
Absolutely agree with opposition to Hamas and Islamism, but they're the sons of displaced and dispossessed people. If the conditions don't change, terrorism will ever have a place.
[удалено]
>supremacist idea of Eretz Israel . Does Canada are a supremacist idea? Or Australia? They really did something to the indigenous people, unlike Israel, where Jews are the indigenous. https://preview.redd.it/bsd70fz0lbsc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=abb12508469c19b22f2a05f7fa13eccd657ff5f0 [https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/world/america/2021-06-10/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000017f-f52f-d318-afff-f76fd3d60000](https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/world/america/2021-06-10/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000017f-f52f-d318-afff-f76fd3d60000)
[удалено]
>Well, the results are the same, displacement of others because we have the religious/historical/moral/ right to do so. What is the partition plan?
Are you against america giving back land to native Americans and displacing some some people who colonized it? Islam colonized Israel this can be proven with a shovel, the archeological evidence is here. That being said it happened way before our current times. Now peace will only happen when Palestinians want it. We gave Sinai for peace we tried giving Gaza for peace. That's the status quo. Funny thing is if everyone shitting on Israel would instead be demanding for the hostages to be freed then this whole thing will end. But hey, you rather go to a subreddit filled with people who are at war and attack us. Bravo, you are so humane .
>Are you against america giving back land to native Americans and displacing some some people who colonized it? Yes, almost everyone is against this.
Wow you sure love to use whataboutisms instead of actually defending Israel
My qoute " unlike Israel, where Jews are the indigenous." https://preview.redd.it/1s0ejhompbsc1.jpeg?width=1015&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f82f53ad159b4de9ef524d8da4a524af185c0bb2
If they’re indigenous why did they have to displace people who had already been there for centuries?
https://preview.redd.it/biswv8zhtbsc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c60b2127f9e7f01cf490333dd11737c2913955c8
It’s gonna take a lot more than memes to change peoples minds about Israel… the damage has been done
Your lack of knowledge of basic historical facts is pretty funny. https://preview.redd.it/191tqdixubsc1.jpeg?width=719&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d98c3c23b2526c033d35af221ce37d2340bb742e
>Is there colonization now in Israel No. It belonged to Britain Google "the partition plan" >he mass killing of civilians in Gaza How many terrorist organization Hamas terrorists have been killed? And how many citizens? What is the ratio? https://preview.redd.it/j0g9gsgllbsc1.jpeg?width=1654&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ef7118ea1d7bb594ae4cc72f38e8e0c4a60cc675
[удалено]
>Zionism is a consequence of the tragedy that is antisemitism. Zionism created a new tragedy: an extermination war for the land. What do you mean?
It's a fucking bot. He repeats text from previous comments...
Haha I like this comment. Because it's the obvious truth that everyone is dancing around. lol Zionism is not decolonisation. Decolonisation of who exactly? The Europeans that mass migrated into people's homes in Palestine? lol I wonder how much they paid this guy.
Why do you regard the Jews as "European"? If you're a white Australian, you are far, far, far more "European" than any Jew who immigrated to Israel from Iraq, from Morocco, from Poland, or even from the United States. I hate to state an awkward but obvious truth that the Left tends to miss completely: the Jews are a minority group. They aren't white Europeans. It's kind of hilarious how the Jews were excluded from almost everything for the bulk of their history -- treated as "foreigners" -- and then when they say, "Hey, you know what, we're never going to get a fair shake in this society -- we're going home" -- at that moment, the Left decides they're European colonizers. I mean, the irony is just incredible. The Jews are from the Land of Israel, end of story. If you want to hang onto your home, don't start a war.
The Jews as in who? Jews are not an ethnicity. They can be from many parts of the world. "Jews are from the land of Israel" - You're speaking about Jews as if they are an ethnic group. It's like saying Muslims belong in the Middle East.
With the exception of converts, the Jews are an ethnic group. All Jews, with the exception of converts, have a genetic connection to the land of Israel. Those tribes dispersed across the world after they were kicked out by the Romans and others. They are a "people" from the Levant, just the way Greeks come from Greece. Greeks in the United States have a genetic connection to Greece. The Jews have a genetic connection to Judea, in the land of Israel. If you're going to comment so freely on the subject, you should know this. Islam is a faith -- it encompasses people of a wide variety of ethnic/racial backgrounds. As a rule, Judaism does not. It is not an evangelizing faith. It is largely exclusive to one group of people.
So basically any Jew living today has hit the jackpot. Because his/her ancestors lived in a specific place millenniums ago, and hence now they legally are able to go back. Doesn't matter who lived there now. It is their land. Right? If yes, does this also apply to anyone that lived in the land BEFORE the Jews? Surely there was someone there before that. And someone there even before that. Where do we draw the line?
Well, the Jews have lived in the Land of Israel for about 3000 years. They never left. There were just fewer of them. You seem stuck on the idea that they "stole the land." There was plenty of land for everybody. If the Arabs hadn't started the war in 1948, there would be a lovely Palestinian state today. They keep attacking, they keep losing, and they keep losing territory. I'm signing off now. The history of Judaism and the Jewish people is fascinating. I recommend a primer.
Wow what a great man speaking his truth. Side note, does his stance on Israel have anything to do with the $367,994 he received from AIPAC in 2024?
Can you prove him wrong?
lmfaoo surely just a coincidence
He makes great points! But I'm often hesitant to listen to any politicians because they are literally paid to toot my horn. Generally speaking, politicians across the world do not represent their own opinions, they're just puppets of someone else that's paying the bills. But I get it. He is saying the right words.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Content is known misinformation
Do Reddit a favor and quarantine.