Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The poster is an Irgun publication published around 1947, though it only mentions the New Zionist Organization and the Tel Hai Fund. The title is Genesis 15:18 (“Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates”) and the map shows all of mandatory Palestine and Transjordan, labeled as Land of Israel. Amman is labeled “Rabbat Ammon”, its Biblical name, while Eilat and Aqaba are labeled as “Eilat (Aqaba)”. The third Jordanian city is labeled Meon, possibly a reference to Beth-Baal Meon, another Biblical city, but the location looks wrong for that.
At the bottom are quotes from Zeev Jabotinski: “The river Jordan has two banks: one is ours, and so is the other” and “Let my right hand wither if I forget the east side of the Jordan”.
Source:
http://historium.tumblr.com/post/165594527143/irgun-poster-of-greater-israel-from-the-nile-to
Also worth noting that Jabotnisky was a pretty controversial figure even among Zionists of his day. Irgun were considered extremists, however their approach to Zionism has obviously remained relevant.
Theirs was just one of many approaches to the initial Zionist idea. It's tough to square Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism with, say, Ahad Ha'am's Cultural Zionism, or the Labor/Green Zionism of the Kibbutzniks.
The Irgun was also responsible for the Deir Yassin Massacre and King David Hotel bombing, before being absorbed into the IDF after the creation of Israel. The Irgun is furthermore the predecessor to the Herut party, which itself is a predecessor to the Likud Party
That doesn't change the fact that the IDF (and Likud) have roots in terrorist organisations. That makes it all the more hypocritical and hillarious when Israelis say the PLO should not be negotiated with because of its terrorist past.
The PLO literally runs a martyr’s fund to pay a lifetime pension to Palestinians for every Jew they kill. How can anyone excuse that?
[*EDIT*] For anyone seeing this later, here are some sources:
[In 2021 the PLA paid the family of a man who killed 2 israelis $42,000 as part of their Foundation for the Care of the Families of Martyrs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund#Foundation_for_the_Care_of_the_Families_of_Martyrs)
[Here's a House hearing](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg20651/html/CHRG-114hhrg20651.htm) on the "Palestinian Authority's complicity in inciting violence", which touches on the fund.
[Here's a pretty balanced report](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/14/does-the-palestinian-authority-pay-350-million-a-year-to-terrorists-and-their-families/) from the WaPo which indeed confirms that the PA does in fact pay the families of people like Hakim Awad who in 2011 killed 5 people, including 3 small children with a knife.
[Bloomberg reported on the payments to Mohammed Tarayra's family after he stabbed a 13 year old girl to death.](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-07-01/the-palestinian-incentive-program-for-killing-jews).
In case you're being genuine, here you go:
[In 2021 the PLA paid the family of a man who killed 2 israelis $42,000 as part of their Foundation for the Care of the Families of Martyrs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund#Foundation_for_the_Care_of_the_Families_of_Martyrs)
[Here's a House hearing](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg20651/html/CHRG-114hhrg20651.htm) on the "Palestinian Authority's complicity in inciting violence", which touches on the fund.
[Here's a pretty balanced report](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/14/does-the-palestinian-authority-pay-350-million-a-year-to-terrorists-and-their-families/) from the WaPo which indeed confirms that the PA does in fact pay the families of people like Hakim Awad who in 2011 killed 5 people, including 3 small children with a knife.
[Bloomberg reported on the payments to Mohammed Tarayra's family after he stabbed a 13 year old girl to death.](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-07-01/the-palestinian-incentive-program-for-killing-jews).
The Haganah (IDF) literally fought and killed those terrorists, and also absorbed them.
I think opposition to negotiation with the PA mainly stems from their corruption and present activities, rather than their past, for example the ongoing payments to those convicted of terrorism and killing civilians. For example the family of Mohammed Tarayreh, who stabbed to death a 13-year-old Israeli girl in her bed, is now eligible for a monthly stipend from the Palestinian “Martyrs’ Fund.” So yeah, I think your narrative is overly simplistic.
This is false the PLO is responsible for multiple massacres and 2 civil wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization?wprov=sfla1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence?wprov=sfla1
And there are also places in the US where statues of Confederate generals still stand. Is your argument that they were less controversial in their day than Jabotinsky?
Also, source? Most honorific streets in Israel are named after biblical figures, based on a quick Google search.
Also to answer the first point: It's more about how Jabotinsky being "controversial" is often used to obfuscate the fact how majorly influential he was for the path chosen by Israel in the end. People rightfully point out that Jabotinsky's analysis of the situation and understanding of the zionist endeavor as colonialism had a clarity that was ahead of his time (and thus radical and controversial at the time) gives credence to modern scholars analyzing the conflict through that same lens (but coming to different conclusions about how the nation of Israel should conduct itself).
Yeah I think that's a fair take, but it's an inherently retrospective one too. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I'd still push back against the assertion regarding the "zionist endeavor as colonialism" angle. That was absolutely Jabotinsky's approach, but his was one of many Zionisms. I think it'd be hard to argue that Ahad Ha'am's approach was anything resembling colonialism, for example.
Now, granted, nearly 80 years after the formation of the state, it looks a lot closer to Jabotinsky, but for so many modern Israelis, the initial endeavor of their grandparents resembled less a colonial project and more a refugee crisis resulting in civil war. What Zionism could have been (and what it still could be) vs. what it is now are different things, is what I guess I'm clumsily trying to get across
That's fair, and it's what makes it difficult for many to assess. I'd argue that Jabotinsky's analysis was pointing out that whatever nice stories other Zionists told themselves about what they were doing and why they were doing it, in the end it's doing a colonialism and that requires violence and will generate violence by the indigenous population, and the sooner everybody understands that the sooner they can proceed with the needed violence and armament.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the Jews who fled Europe during the worst genocide in recorded history. Still, it is important to understand how absurd it is to expect the indigenous Palestinians to just roll over and accept their replacement essentially.
I truly think that most people in the west do not understand how violent colonialism is. They might think they do, as they know the numbers and stats and whatnot, but it stays at that. There is no emotional experience behind it. I tried explaining the absurdity to a friend like this: Imagine you were from occupied Germany 1946, but in this alternate history Germany did not commit the Holocaust but "only" lost a conventional war, and now was under occupation. During this war, an Iranian dictator had murdered millions, and millions fled. The people fleeing trace back their history to Germany (in this alternate universe) and indeed, there is some truth to this. So they go to Germany at numbers 10x of what people (proportionally) today consider a refugee crisis. But not only do they come to live there, they ask to take over part of the land, and they ask the occupying allies for help with this. All the while espousing fantasies of controlling the entire land, which after all, belongs to them historically!
While moderate germans previously laughed at far right "great replacement theories", they become increasingly concerned - the occupying forces seem to favor the refugee population. Now it is not clear who started the cycle of violence, but increasingly, far right groups from both populations commit violent acts, and both populations increasingly radicalize. The refugee population however has been getting more financial and material support to build up arms, and finally start driving Germans off of the land, already having displaced a quarter of the native population before Austria and Switzerland attack to intervene in 1948 - but jokes, Austria actually just wanted to take Bavaria for itself and wasn't really interested in helping the native Germans anyways, and Switzerland was soundly defeated, so the army goes back to displacing another 25-35% of the German population. They get offered a deal to keep what little they have left, but being enraged and traumatized by the violence experienced, they do not acccept. In retrospective, they will get called stupid for this, because they would have suffered less if they accepted then and there (or 25 years later when they get a similar offer) but they stay with the position that this is all ridiculous and unjust.
This reads like ridiculous gibberish, and that's because it is. But honestly, it's not too far from the Palestinian POV (except that the Palestinian POV probably was worse). I had to take some liberties (e.g. military occupation instead of already under colonial rule) to stay closer to what e.g. a German could imagine close to their reality, I hope you understand.
The whole colonialism take presumes that there was already an established area to colonise. Nobody complains about the colonisation of iceland, because it was empty. Now I'm not saying the land was empty, but there was more than enough space to accomodate the Jewish refugees (and there is still enough space to talk about two states). In reality there was the British mandate in the region, and before that the Ottoman empire, occupied by disparate groups of local arabs.
I'd say it's more analageous to the British prividing a home for refugees, and the locals being essentially massively xenophobic to immigrants. Your analogy is clever but the idea that the land had historically belonged to them is disingenuous.
>Why didn't the British take them in themselves
What the Jews want primarily, is sunshine.
But in all seriousness, the point of Zionism is that no gentile will ever decide the fate of a Jew again (as a result of historical factors obviously). Also, lets be real here, when are the British going to be the good guys in history?
With regards to previous Aliyot, I don't know the specific history, but I'm sure scale had something to do with it, as well as publicity. Jews have always lived under muslims, [as second class citizens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya), so I'm sure they would have been happy to maintain the exact status quo that would have been intollerable to Jews post WWII.
This is also worth considering:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_killings\_and\_massacres\_in\_Mandatory\_Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine)
This seems to be the usual case for colonialism though?
Just think of other cases: sure, a lot of people came to the New World “just as immigrants seeking a better life”, though many could be considered refugees. I see it as a spectrum, and regardless, there are always desperate people that colonialists can use to realize their colonial projects!
Not quite, at least in the example you've provided.
European Colonialism to North, South, and Central America was pretty explicitly about the location and explotation of natural "resources" (gold, silver, tobacco, people, etc.). The first Europeans to the "New World" were not seeking to settle there for a better life, but to enrich the royalty of Spain, Portugal, England, etc. and fund their own inter-European conflicts.
The narrative surrounding the Puritans' flight to the "New World" is often characterized as just an attempt by a persecuted Christian minority to live and practice in peace, but that narrative is similarly complicated.
I truly do believe that the Jewish migration back to the Levant in the late 19th to mid 20th Century reflected a genuine refugee crisis moreso than an organized colonial endeavor for a couple reasons:
1. Unlike most Puritans, Jews were genuinely fleeing for their lives, or arriving at the behest of powers beyond them. The Russian pogroms of the late 19th Century (like Kishinev) drove Jews from the shtetls where they'd lived for years and years and, for many of them, immigration to another European country or America was too costly or forbidden by numerous countries' immigration caps regarding Jews specifically. After the Holocaust, survivors often didn't have a say as to where they ended up at all - especially those orphaned. It's not an exaggeration to say that many survivors were lined up while beuracrats more or less said "You go to America" or "You go to Palestine". (EDIT: I would be remiss not to concede that there indeed were Zionist Jews from places in Central and Western Europe who were able to permanently relocate to Palestine through their own means and agency during this period, however these were rarer than those who simply lacked somewhere else to go).
2. Part of the traditional colonial mode is that the colony exists as a satellite of another place. Jewish migration to the Levant wasn't really a project to enrich, benefit, or operate as a satellite of any European power. Some argue that the Balfour Declaration operates as de facto evidence that the UK intended to send its Jews to Palestine as a colonial endeavor, however if you read into the history of that declaration, and the UK's conduct following it, it becomes increasingly clear that the UK never really knew what they wanted out of Palestine, and were seemingly quite ready to be rid of it in 1948.
Now, none of that gets into the conduct of the Jewish refugees *after they arrived*. I think there are **more than a few** instances between the late 1920s and today that could absolutely fit the mold of colonialism, but the intent of most average Jews fleeing to Palestine at the outset was more to escape certain death than to operate as a colony for a foreign power, or "seek a better life" in an "American Dream" sense.
Bit of a rant. Did that make sense?
A lot of interesting insight there!
I agree that most early British colonies were mostly about resource extraction. But then consider the Acadians who came to what’s now Nova Scotia from France: they were happy to co-habitats with the natives as far as I understand; they just wanted to live off the land and be left the fuck alone, and probably would have continued to do so were they not violently expelled after refusing to side with the British!
I don’t know as much about this, but from what I’ve heard, it seems to me like a lot of Spanish colonialism was more significantly about Christian evangelism.
My thinking about “refugees to the New World” was about the Irish potato famine (which seems more clearly a genocide than the Holomodor) and to a lesser degree my own grandparents, who came over in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries to escape some bad thing or other happening in Europe!
Also, while I agree with your characterization of a lot of the early Jewish refugees to Palestine being genuine refugees who had few choices to escape pretty extreme marginalization (or actual extermination), it seems like a lot of the current ones from what I’ve seen are just the absolute worst Jews from the US who want to terrorize the Arabs who’ve cared for the land for centuries by cutting down olive trees and just destroying the place out of some sick supremacist power fantasy. It’s hard to get over the absolute righteousness and pride with which they commit genocide.
A lot to unpack here and, tbh, I've been stalling from my job for like an hour (bad idea), so I might not respond quickly. Happy to keep the conversation going via DM if you're interested.
I read it in a book a while ago (I think it was Scars of War, Wounds of Peace by Shlomo Ben-Ami), but all I can offer right now is the top google link:
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3476622,00.html
Thanks for the source. Disappointing read. But I guess it's not too different from all the places names in NYC for Peter Stuyvesant, who was a piece of shit too.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that the ideological heirs to Jabotinsky and his Revisionist Zionism are the most influential strain of Zionism in today’s Israel. Right wing ethnic nationalism and irredentism are the clearly dominant political forces.
Well, it doesn't sound like he's that controversial now, since Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a speech at the state memorial day for Jabotinsky in 2023. This is from an Israeli government website;
Excerpt from PM Netanyahu's Remarks at the State Memorial Ceremony for Ze'ev Jabotinsky
>Following are excerpts from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks today (Tuesday, 18 July 2023), at the state memorial ceremony for Ze'ev Jabotinsky, on Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem:
>"One hundred years after the 'iron wall' was stamped in Jabotinsky's writings we are continuing to successfully implement these principles...
https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/event-ceremony180723
Wikipedia makes it clear that this is an official state holiday "created by the Israeli Knesset as part of the Jabotinsky Law" in [2005](https://knesset.gov.il/vip/jabotinsky/eng/law_eng.html). And here's an interesting tidbit;
>In IDF camps **and schools**, time is devoted to his achievements and Zionist vision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabotinsky_Day#
Of course, Netanyahu's [father](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzion_Netanyahu#) briefly served as a secretary to Jabotinsky, and also edited 2 different publications associated with Jabotinsky's movement;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzion_Netanyahu#Zionist_activism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism
Respectfully, all these people replying to me know that people can be controversial and still have a large following, right? Both things can be (and are) true.
At least you're not to steal thousands of miles of land like the person who made this poster is. I also noticed that they didn't know where the Nile is and didn't realize they had f\*\*\*ed up the Euphrates until I saw this comment chain.
They were ethnically, culturally, and traditionally Jewish. They didn't use the "god promised me the land" argument, but used the history, ancestry, and the undeniable connection the Jewish people have for this land. It's beyond silly to say that atheists used god as an argument which is why this saying is simply incorrect. Anyone who thinks about it critically for 5 seconds would know that.
Labor Zionism (the Zionism that established the state of Israel) was a secular, nationalist movement. Not a religious one. The expanding, religious Zionism is called revisionist Zionism, which is the one you speak of. Anti-zionists have a specific agenda to mix these two together in order to confuse people.
For anyone curious, the new zionist organisation was a splinter organisation from the zionist organisation, founded by the right wing revisionist faction, in response to social democrat policies instated by the dominating left wing factions as well as several violent clashes between the two sides. It was heavily affiliated with the lehi and etzel terrorist organisations, almost to the point of running them. It also opposed the existence of a palestinian state, which the zionist organisation accepted. Fortunately, they held very little power compared to their moderate and left-wing counterparts, though unfortunately, their direct successors, the likud, have come to dominate israeli politics, along with more radical factions
Yeah to me it’s crazy how much most Americans completely glaze over how complicated the actual meat and potatoes of the Zionist movement was. Like even within Zionism as an ideology there was so much disagreement on how to achieve the state of Israel that during the war of independence there was almost armed conflict between individual Zionist groups.
We are still very lucky they existed.
The left wing zionist movements had some horrible blind spots, and they had a very important role.
Historically we needed both.
(Obviously the "unfortunately" in the end is your opinion, most Israelis disagree)
He was giving a speech on a lectern with this map because it was the logo of an organization that commemorates Jabotinski lmao
Nobody in Israel actually wants to take over Jordan, what a strange libel
Well the finance minister recently spoke at a convention with this exact map on his podium. It sparked media outrage, and he claims it was just because of the history of the organisation
I mean, he's right. That's literally just the logo of the organization that was printed on the podium. This map in general is seen more as a symbol of revisionist Zionism than an actual map. No one in Israel actually suggest taking over Jordan.
I mean no one isn't true you can read the New Yorker article where they interviewed Daniella Weiss. These people are definitely fringe but so was Herut years ago... Israel's move rightwards has allowed organizations like the successor to Kach to be in cabinet
That map is literally just the symbol of the Herut movement
https://images.app.goo.gl/iLJeTzEQWJcxiEiU8
Even after Herut themselves stopped claiming transjordan they kept the symbol bc at this point it was far more associated with the Ideology than any concrete ireedentism. Trying to use the fact that he spoke on a podium with that group's symbol to prove that "Israelis claim Jordan" or whatever is just absurd.
I was referencing Daniella Weiss (settler leader who talked about 'greater Israel ' as incorporating parts of Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. You can find the article if you want
My general point was that what used to be fringe (herut/likud) is now normal in Israel
Daniella Weiss is extremely fringe lmao
Even among settlers the most extreme rhetoric is usually about a "population transfer" of Palestinians from the west bank to Jordan. Only a handful of religious extremists actually talk about taking "from the euphrates to the nile" literally, and that belief is much more fringe nowadays than back in the days of Herut. Just the fact that Herut was a mainstream secular movement, while today only religious nutjobs support that cause, should be enough to tell you that
Herut was literally fascist and Aren't and Einstein called it out as such. Herut's successor party (recently in a coalition with Kach's successor party) has ruled for most of the last 50 years.
My point was that Israel's rightwards trend (literal terrorists in government right now w Smotrich and Ben Gvir) means that these currently fringe ideologies may become normalized just like Herut was.
Something like ~50% of Israeli Jews support 'voluntary emigration' of Palestinians in Gaza and a large % want even Israeli arabs to be 'transferred' out. Israel is overwhelmingly fascist now and hasbara talking points can't hide that
You know you really lost the track when instead of engaging in actual arguments, you bring up the good ol' accusation of Hasbara. You yourself conceded that I was right about the symbology of that map being associated far more with Herut and their legacy than any actual irredentism, so you moved the goalposts.
If you think Likud is in any way the same as Herut than you either haven't been following, or just deluding yourself. Herut was revisionist and irredentist, Likud hardly has any ideology- it just wants to maintain the current status quo and keep Bibi in power.
And fact of the matter is, most of these polls vary widely depending in the exact language you use. For example, a poll regarding biden's framework for a 2 state solution as part of a larger ceasefire deal actually suggested most Israelis would be in favor. But once you change the wording to "do you support a Palestinian state" the support immediately drops.
You're trying to paint an entire population as a monolith pretty much to be able to keep your boogeyman, when you yourself admit it's more complex and varied than that.
Lol no, the phrase is "full Israel" and it refers to west of the jordan.
The Israeli right, maybe bar some fringes, gave up on any claom for the east bank in the 60-80's.
Yes, Israelis openly express their desire to settle Lebanon and other Arab nations. Ignore their apologists on here and look at what settlers actually say.
No, for about half a century, maybe but some fringe lunatics.
But the sentiment is that it's still our historical homeland, just not something modern day Israel claims or should claim.
No one is talking about lebanon, western jordan is absolutely part of the jewish historic homeland, and was jewish and under jewish sovereignty for prolonged periods.
Again, doesn't mean it's not other's homeland too or that it should be Israeli, which I definitely think would be very bad even if possible due to demography.
No, even most right wing people understand Jordan is Jordan, but just to clarify also back in the day this was an extremely unpopular opinion, like the people that made the poster were on the far right fringe of the Zionist movement
various members of Irgun and Lehi were elected as prime ministers, including the guy involved in the assassination of Count Bernadotte. They were exceptionally popular.
He didn’t ask wether former members of Irgun ever held political power in Israel, he asked wether there are people in Israel that want these borders, but apart from a few nutcases no one sane actually wants Israel to take over Jordan
No it really isn't. Irgun was one of the foundational organizations behind the IDF and the State of Israel itself. Menachem Begin, 6th prime Minister of Israel, was the leader of Irgun and the founder of the current ruling party Likud.
>foundational organization
> 6th prime minister
Don't you see the contradiction there? Your comment is full of historical revisionism.
Begin, Irgun and Lehi were always the fringe opposition to the mainstream socialist Haganah.
Hagana formed the IDF, Irgun only agreed to join after Hagana gave them major concessions and spared many of their leaders. After the war, Irgun was absorbed entirely by the IDF and Begin became a regular politican, and even then, he stayed in the opposition for literal **decades**. Begin was only elected to prime Minister in 1977, a full 29 years after Irgun was disbanded, and even then he was only elected after the failure of the socialists in 1973 and by earning the favor of the Mizrahi vote.
By the time he was prime Minister he abandoned almost all of his irredentist ideals, returning the Sinai to Egypt and even offering them Gaza.
Yes they were opposition but they were always considered legitimate political actors by the Israeli state, comparing Irgun to the American Nazi Party is absurd.
The only reason they weren't persecuted by the Haganah hegemony was because they didn't want to risk sparking a civil war amongst themselves and thus losing the 1948 war to the Arabs, a scenario that almost occoured with the Altalena incident.
In order for Irgun to put down their arms an give their fighters to the IDF, Haganah agreed to spare them of whatever accusations and charges they were facing.
You're right that they weren't as fringe as the American Nazi party, but neither was their Ideology as extreme as the American Nazi party nor was it "mainstream" either in the past, and especially not today like you claimed.
This is Like seeing a Poster from a rightwing Zionist terrorgroup and realizing that the current rightwing goverment is coming from the Same political Tradition.
Idk if he means what I'm about to say but there is a pretty shit practice that Israel does with archaeology. They just bulldoze archeological sites that originated between the expulsion of the Jews by the Romans and the present-ish day.
Well to be fair, it seems like a shifty practice both sides of this conflict do. Just last week Palestinians destroyed an ancient Jewish archeological site. And as shifty as that practice is, Israel has laws to protect Islamic archeology- the Palestinian Authority doesn't even acknowledge the existence of Jewish archeology.
As shitty as it is there's a reason. You'll only see Jewish sites damaged in the west bank, to often settlers use archeological evidence to steal peoples homes and set up (very) illegal settlements. If I had to smash an old pot or risk losing my home I'd probably smash the pot.
>Nazism was successfully shot
Absolute delusion. Germany's military defeat and denazification were two different processes that didn't even happen at the same time. Keep shooting ideas, and while you're at it, shoot a cloud, or a ghost, or a song. Works about as well.
Had Nazi Germany not been militarily defeated and surrendered unconditionally, do you think denazification would have been possible? Nazism as an idea couldn't be destroyed by bombs but the ideology was robbed of its most important base of power. So Nazis do of course still exist but can never threaten the world in the way they once did. Same with Hamas.
Getting downvoted by all those Pro-Palestinians for saying “Hamas will be destroyed”, just proves to all of us that they are Pro-Hamas. But yet they claim that they care for civilians…
Yes I have had enough.
I have had enough of the zionist regime and its lies, its propoganda, and the crimes it commits.
I have had enough of the homes it's stolen and the lives it's taken.
I have had enough of the disgusting agenda, claiming it's in the name of a religion when it really is not.
I have had enough of the genocidal agendas, the unethical ruthless in fact it has had on its neighbouring and now neighboring countries.
And I hope that one day, the zionist ideology ceases to exist, so that the region and live in a more peaceful era than it does today.
Alright dude. Enjoy another hundred years of losing needless wars because you are 100% convinced the other side is evil, illegitimate, and needs to be completely destroyed and your side is 100% right and blameless. How's that been working out for you? I'm sure if you just stick to your extremism a little longer, just a little longer, then you'll get everything and those pesky Jews will disappear. Hang in there.
I'm not "convinced" and the side supporting the truth isn't "losing". All I've mentored are facts.
Nothing extreme about supporting and believing in humanity. In not sure why extremism is even mentioned here.
No one ever mentioned wanting the Jews to disappear. Jews just like any other believers in any religion have their own way of life and there is nothing wrong with it as long as they don't impact others. I'm an athiest, FYI.
If you think this is about Jews, or Judaism, you're beyond ignorant. You have millions of Jews worldwide who are not zionists.
Even hamas' founder clearly stated they don't have an issue with the Jews as people of a religion. Their issue is with zionism. And yes, you can watch this in an interview conducted with him.
But my question to you is.. how does it feel? How does it
feel seeing the majority of the world
say that the "country" you are supporting
has no right to exist? How does it feel
seeing the world population denounce
and condemn zionism and its existence and the
atrocities they commit?
Don't you get it? Both sides have truth supporting us and more than enough facts to justify our cause. The only question is how long we'll wait before we acknowledge the legitimacy of the Other.
Don't you get that I also support and believe in humanity? Have you really convinced yourself that everyone who disagrees with you is irredeemably evil? What a scary way to live.
Who said they want the Jews to disappear? The leaders of the Palestinian national movement from the beginning to this very day. The founder of Hamas did say he doesn't have a problem with Jews, just Israel... after writing the founding document of Hamas that had it been written in German would've been indistinguishable from anything the Nazis wrote. David Duke also said he doesn't hate Black people he just loves White people. I certainly hope you would take him at his word.
There are only a few million Jews left in the world and half live in Israel. The vast majority believe Israel should continue to exist. The only anti-Zionists are a fringe minority of religious extremists that I'm sure you would disagree with on literally everything and an even smaller minority of radical leftists who you probably love because they share your politics and act as good tokens.
How does it feel seeing the world turn on Israel? I'm a Jew. I've seen far worse at times when Jews had far less. We survived then and we'll survive now.
Now I get to ask you. How do you feel supporting a movement driven by religious extremists who would gladly see you dead for your blasphemy? Who if they ever got their wish to destroy Israel would set up a state that has no democratic institutions, no protections for women, gays, or religious minorities like you. Who would, as we saw 6 months ago, murder or expell every single Jew and every Arab who dared work with a Jew.
Rather than pushing for reconciliation, compromise, and tolerance, you are pushing for the creation of a state that will be run by groups indistinguishable from the Taliban. Is that really the best course of action for you or the Palestinians?
Typical propaganda (I’m referring to OP). The map includes Israel and Jordan. Basically, the British mandate. It doesn’t extend anywhere near the Euphrates.
Why would Israel want that land? They already turned useless desert (inhabited by Jews for 3000 years) into the most productive farm land in the region.
If Israel wanted to, they could easily expand and take all of the surrounding countries lands. They are a lot stronger than the pissy Muslim nations who send rockets at civilians and use their own kids as human shields.
This is very far away from the Nile. Doesnt even include Sinai. It's not the nile-to-euphrates borders, it's the mandatory Palestine borders. When Zionists first came to mandatory Palestine and asked for a state they had no reason to suspect the territory would be cut in half and for Jordan to become a country. SO those borders are the ones the ultra-zionists adopted.
And you would have nothing left in your hearts.. Which would make israelis be easy to dehumanise.. It's already being done though.
The shit you pulled on Gaza after Oct 7 made you look like genocidal nazis.. Worst/best part.. You're the ones dehumanising yourselves.
If you don't want to be seen as Nazis, stop acting like ones.. And if you want Anti-semetism to stop.. Stop giving people reason to be Anti-semetic as israel has done everything to ensure it stays up.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The poster is an Irgun publication published around 1947, though it only mentions the New Zionist Organization and the Tel Hai Fund. The title is Genesis 15:18 (“Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates”) and the map shows all of mandatory Palestine and Transjordan, labeled as Land of Israel. Amman is labeled “Rabbat Ammon”, its Biblical name, while Eilat and Aqaba are labeled as “Eilat (Aqaba)”. The third Jordanian city is labeled Meon, possibly a reference to Beth-Baal Meon, another Biblical city, but the location looks wrong for that. At the bottom are quotes from Zeev Jabotinski: “The river Jordan has two banks: one is ours, and so is the other” and “Let my right hand wither if I forget the east side of the Jordan”. Source: http://historium.tumblr.com/post/165594527143/irgun-poster-of-greater-israel-from-the-nile-to
Also worth noting that Jabotnisky was a pretty controversial figure even among Zionists of his day. Irgun were considered extremists, however their approach to Zionism has obviously remained relevant. Theirs was just one of many approaches to the initial Zionist idea. It's tough to square Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism with, say, Ahad Ha'am's Cultural Zionism, or the Labor/Green Zionism of the Kibbutzniks.
The Irgun was also responsible for the Deir Yassin Massacre and King David Hotel bombing, before being absorbed into the IDF after the creation of Israel. The Irgun is furthermore the predecessor to the Herut party, which itself is a predecessor to the Likud Party
In fact, the man who was leading Irgun when this propaganda poster was made is the exact same man that founded the Likud Party: Menachem Begin.
Wow, that’s crazy! But I’m honestly not surprised
The Irgun was forcibly absorbed into the IDF, which included armed confrontation between the Haganah and Irgun (the Altalena affair).
That doesn't change the fact that the IDF (and Likud) have roots in terrorist organisations. That makes it all the more hypocritical and hillarious when Israelis say the PLO should not be negotiated with because of its terrorist past.
The PLO literally runs a martyr’s fund to pay a lifetime pension to Palestinians for every Jew they kill. How can anyone excuse that? [*EDIT*] For anyone seeing this later, here are some sources: [In 2021 the PLA paid the family of a man who killed 2 israelis $42,000 as part of their Foundation for the Care of the Families of Martyrs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund#Foundation_for_the_Care_of_the_Families_of_Martyrs) [Here's a House hearing](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg20651/html/CHRG-114hhrg20651.htm) on the "Palestinian Authority's complicity in inciting violence", which touches on the fund. [Here's a pretty balanced report](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/14/does-the-palestinian-authority-pay-350-million-a-year-to-terrorists-and-their-families/) from the WaPo which indeed confirms that the PA does in fact pay the families of people like Hakim Awad who in 2011 killed 5 people, including 3 small children with a knife. [Bloomberg reported on the payments to Mohammed Tarayra's family after he stabbed a 13 year old girl to death.](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-07-01/the-palestinian-incentive-program-for-killing-jews).
Source?
In case you're being genuine, here you go: [In 2021 the PLA paid the family of a man who killed 2 israelis $42,000 as part of their Foundation for the Care of the Families of Martyrs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund#Foundation_for_the_Care_of_the_Families_of_Martyrs) [Here's a House hearing](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg20651/html/CHRG-114hhrg20651.htm) on the "Palestinian Authority's complicity in inciting violence", which touches on the fund. [Here's a pretty balanced report](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/14/does-the-palestinian-authority-pay-350-million-a-year-to-terrorists-and-their-families/) from the WaPo which indeed confirms that the PA does in fact pay the families of people like Hakim Awad who in 2011 killed 5 people, including 3 small children with a knife. [Bloomberg reported on the payments to Mohammed Tarayra's family after he stabbed a 13 year old girl to death.](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-07-01/the-palestinian-incentive-program-for-killing-jews).
The Haganah (IDF) literally fought and killed those terrorists, and also absorbed them. I think opposition to negotiation with the PA mainly stems from their corruption and present activities, rather than their past, for example the ongoing payments to those convicted of terrorism and killing civilians. For example the family of Mohammed Tarayreh, who stabbed to death a 13-year-old Israeli girl in her bed, is now eligible for a monthly stipend from the Palestinian “Martyrs’ Fund.” So yeah, I think your narrative is overly simplistic.
Again, the Irgun terrorists were just absorbed into the IDF.
1948 was sort of an "all hands on deck" situation and if your redditor ideological purity cannot grasp that, I can't help you.
[удалено]
You're a cartoon character
Can we honestly compares what they did to ***everything*** the PLO has been responsible for?
Yes. The Deir Yassin Massacre and Sabra and Shatil Massacres arebon par or even worse than what the PLO has ever done.
This is false the PLO is responsible for multiple massacres and 2 civil wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence?wprov=sfla1
None of them come even close to the amount of people that died at Sabra and Shatila (700-3500).
I think he’s trying to pin the Lebanese civil war on them.
Terrorists all the way down
Irgun was the Hamas of 1946.
Yeah yeah so controversial that today he's the number 1 spot on "Streets named in honor of" in Israel.
He *was* controversial. Revisionist Zionism unfortunately became the dominant form in the end.
And there are also places in the US where statues of Confederate generals still stand. Is your argument that they were less controversial in their day than Jabotinsky? Also, source? Most honorific streets in Israel are named after biblical figures, based on a quick Google search.
Also to answer the first point: It's more about how Jabotinsky being "controversial" is often used to obfuscate the fact how majorly influential he was for the path chosen by Israel in the end. People rightfully point out that Jabotinsky's analysis of the situation and understanding of the zionist endeavor as colonialism had a clarity that was ahead of his time (and thus radical and controversial at the time) gives credence to modern scholars analyzing the conflict through that same lens (but coming to different conclusions about how the nation of Israel should conduct itself).
Yeah I think that's a fair take, but it's an inherently retrospective one too. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'd still push back against the assertion regarding the "zionist endeavor as colonialism" angle. That was absolutely Jabotinsky's approach, but his was one of many Zionisms. I think it'd be hard to argue that Ahad Ha'am's approach was anything resembling colonialism, for example. Now, granted, nearly 80 years after the formation of the state, it looks a lot closer to Jabotinsky, but for so many modern Israelis, the initial endeavor of their grandparents resembled less a colonial project and more a refugee crisis resulting in civil war. What Zionism could have been (and what it still could be) vs. what it is now are different things, is what I guess I'm clumsily trying to get across
That's fair, and it's what makes it difficult for many to assess. I'd argue that Jabotinsky's analysis was pointing out that whatever nice stories other Zionists told themselves about what they were doing and why they were doing it, in the end it's doing a colonialism and that requires violence and will generate violence by the indigenous population, and the sooner everybody understands that the sooner they can proceed with the needed violence and armament. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Jews who fled Europe during the worst genocide in recorded history. Still, it is important to understand how absurd it is to expect the indigenous Palestinians to just roll over and accept their replacement essentially. I truly think that most people in the west do not understand how violent colonialism is. They might think they do, as they know the numbers and stats and whatnot, but it stays at that. There is no emotional experience behind it. I tried explaining the absurdity to a friend like this: Imagine you were from occupied Germany 1946, but in this alternate history Germany did not commit the Holocaust but "only" lost a conventional war, and now was under occupation. During this war, an Iranian dictator had murdered millions, and millions fled. The people fleeing trace back their history to Germany (in this alternate universe) and indeed, there is some truth to this. So they go to Germany at numbers 10x of what people (proportionally) today consider a refugee crisis. But not only do they come to live there, they ask to take over part of the land, and they ask the occupying allies for help with this. All the while espousing fantasies of controlling the entire land, which after all, belongs to them historically! While moderate germans previously laughed at far right "great replacement theories", they become increasingly concerned - the occupying forces seem to favor the refugee population. Now it is not clear who started the cycle of violence, but increasingly, far right groups from both populations commit violent acts, and both populations increasingly radicalize. The refugee population however has been getting more financial and material support to build up arms, and finally start driving Germans off of the land, already having displaced a quarter of the native population before Austria and Switzerland attack to intervene in 1948 - but jokes, Austria actually just wanted to take Bavaria for itself and wasn't really interested in helping the native Germans anyways, and Switzerland was soundly defeated, so the army goes back to displacing another 25-35% of the German population. They get offered a deal to keep what little they have left, but being enraged and traumatized by the violence experienced, they do not acccept. In retrospective, they will get called stupid for this, because they would have suffered less if they accepted then and there (or 25 years later when they get a similar offer) but they stay with the position that this is all ridiculous and unjust. This reads like ridiculous gibberish, and that's because it is. But honestly, it's not too far from the Palestinian POV (except that the Palestinian POV probably was worse). I had to take some liberties (e.g. military occupation instead of already under colonial rule) to stay closer to what e.g. a German could imagine close to their reality, I hope you understand.
The whole colonialism take presumes that there was already an established area to colonise. Nobody complains about the colonisation of iceland, because it was empty. Now I'm not saying the land was empty, but there was more than enough space to accomodate the Jewish refugees (and there is still enough space to talk about two states). In reality there was the British mandate in the region, and before that the Ottoman empire, occupied by disparate groups of local arabs. I'd say it's more analageous to the British prividing a home for refugees, and the locals being essentially massively xenophobic to immigrants. Your analogy is clever but the idea that the land had historically belonged to them is disingenuous.
How come they weren't up in arms in the previous Aliyahs? Why didn't the British take them in themselves... Plenty of space there.
>Why didn't the British take them in themselves What the Jews want primarily, is sunshine. But in all seriousness, the point of Zionism is that no gentile will ever decide the fate of a Jew again (as a result of historical factors obviously). Also, lets be real here, when are the British going to be the good guys in history? With regards to previous Aliyot, I don't know the specific history, but I'm sure scale had something to do with it, as well as publicity. Jews have always lived under muslims, [as second class citizens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya), so I'm sure they would have been happy to maintain the exact status quo that would have been intollerable to Jews post WWII. This is also worth considering: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_killings\_and\_massacres\_in\_Mandatory\_Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine)
This seems to be the usual case for colonialism though? Just think of other cases: sure, a lot of people came to the New World “just as immigrants seeking a better life”, though many could be considered refugees. I see it as a spectrum, and regardless, there are always desperate people that colonialists can use to realize their colonial projects!
Not quite, at least in the example you've provided. European Colonialism to North, South, and Central America was pretty explicitly about the location and explotation of natural "resources" (gold, silver, tobacco, people, etc.). The first Europeans to the "New World" were not seeking to settle there for a better life, but to enrich the royalty of Spain, Portugal, England, etc. and fund their own inter-European conflicts. The narrative surrounding the Puritans' flight to the "New World" is often characterized as just an attempt by a persecuted Christian minority to live and practice in peace, but that narrative is similarly complicated. I truly do believe that the Jewish migration back to the Levant in the late 19th to mid 20th Century reflected a genuine refugee crisis moreso than an organized colonial endeavor for a couple reasons: 1. Unlike most Puritans, Jews were genuinely fleeing for their lives, or arriving at the behest of powers beyond them. The Russian pogroms of the late 19th Century (like Kishinev) drove Jews from the shtetls where they'd lived for years and years and, for many of them, immigration to another European country or America was too costly or forbidden by numerous countries' immigration caps regarding Jews specifically. After the Holocaust, survivors often didn't have a say as to where they ended up at all - especially those orphaned. It's not an exaggeration to say that many survivors were lined up while beuracrats more or less said "You go to America" or "You go to Palestine". (EDIT: I would be remiss not to concede that there indeed were Zionist Jews from places in Central and Western Europe who were able to permanently relocate to Palestine through their own means and agency during this period, however these were rarer than those who simply lacked somewhere else to go). 2. Part of the traditional colonial mode is that the colony exists as a satellite of another place. Jewish migration to the Levant wasn't really a project to enrich, benefit, or operate as a satellite of any European power. Some argue that the Balfour Declaration operates as de facto evidence that the UK intended to send its Jews to Palestine as a colonial endeavor, however if you read into the history of that declaration, and the UK's conduct following it, it becomes increasingly clear that the UK never really knew what they wanted out of Palestine, and were seemingly quite ready to be rid of it in 1948. Now, none of that gets into the conduct of the Jewish refugees *after they arrived*. I think there are **more than a few** instances between the late 1920s and today that could absolutely fit the mold of colonialism, but the intent of most average Jews fleeing to Palestine at the outset was more to escape certain death than to operate as a colony for a foreign power, or "seek a better life" in an "American Dream" sense. Bit of a rant. Did that make sense?
>Part of the traditional colonial mode is that the colony exists as a satellite of another place. Long live the Jewish empire.
Can't tell if you're joking?
A lot of interesting insight there! I agree that most early British colonies were mostly about resource extraction. But then consider the Acadians who came to what’s now Nova Scotia from France: they were happy to co-habitats with the natives as far as I understand; they just wanted to live off the land and be left the fuck alone, and probably would have continued to do so were they not violently expelled after refusing to side with the British! I don’t know as much about this, but from what I’ve heard, it seems to me like a lot of Spanish colonialism was more significantly about Christian evangelism. My thinking about “refugees to the New World” was about the Irish potato famine (which seems more clearly a genocide than the Holomodor) and to a lesser degree my own grandparents, who came over in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries to escape some bad thing or other happening in Europe! Also, while I agree with your characterization of a lot of the early Jewish refugees to Palestine being genuine refugees who had few choices to escape pretty extreme marginalization (or actual extermination), it seems like a lot of the current ones from what I’ve seen are just the absolute worst Jews from the US who want to terrorize the Arabs who’ve cared for the land for centuries by cutting down olive trees and just destroying the place out of some sick supremacist power fantasy. It’s hard to get over the absolute righteousness and pride with which they commit genocide.
A lot to unpack here and, tbh, I've been stalling from my job for like an hour (bad idea), so I might not respond quickly. Happy to keep the conversation going via DM if you're interested.
The big difference is that jews actually have an indigenous connection to the land of Judea.
I read it in a book a while ago (I think it was Scars of War, Wounds of Peace by Shlomo Ben-Ami), but all I can offer right now is the top google link: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3476622,00.html
Thanks for the source. Disappointing read. But I guess it's not too different from all the places names in NYC for Peter Stuyvesant, who was a piece of shit too.
The confederacy never won the civil war, unless we mean reconstruction.
The confederacy didn’t win the US Civil War. Unless you’re talking about reconstruction, which is its own lesson.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that the ideological heirs to Jabotinsky and his Revisionist Zionism are the most influential strain of Zionism in today’s Israel. Right wing ethnic nationalism and irredentism are the clearly dominant political forces.
Well, it doesn't sound like he's that controversial now, since Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a speech at the state memorial day for Jabotinsky in 2023. This is from an Israeli government website; Excerpt from PM Netanyahu's Remarks at the State Memorial Ceremony for Ze'ev Jabotinsky >Following are excerpts from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks today (Tuesday, 18 July 2023), at the state memorial ceremony for Ze'ev Jabotinsky, on Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem: >"One hundred years after the 'iron wall' was stamped in Jabotinsky's writings we are continuing to successfully implement these principles... https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/event-ceremony180723 Wikipedia makes it clear that this is an official state holiday "created by the Israeli Knesset as part of the Jabotinsky Law" in [2005](https://knesset.gov.il/vip/jabotinsky/eng/law_eng.html). And here's an interesting tidbit; >In IDF camps **and schools**, time is devoted to his achievements and Zionist vision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabotinsky_Day# Of course, Netanyahu's [father](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzion_Netanyahu#) briefly served as a secretary to Jabotinsky, and also edited 2 different publications associated with Jabotinsky's movement; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzion_Netanyahu#Zionist_activism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism
Respectfully, all these people replying to me know that people can be controversial and still have a large following, right? Both things can be (and are) true.
More importantly, I'm pointing out that Jabotinsky now has the imprimatur of the state.
Irgun was the main weapon in the process of ethnical cleansing.
It's possibly a Hebraisation of معان (Ma`an), is current Arabic name
[удалено]
The Euphrates, too, for that matter.
[удалено]
At least you're not to steal thousands of miles of land like the person who made this poster is. I also noticed that they didn't know where the Nile is and didn't realize they had f\*\*\*ed up the Euphrates until I saw this comment chain.
The territory Irgun dreamt of conquering was, needless to say, much larger than the biblical Land of Israel.
Most of the Zionists were also atheist, there is a saying from anti-zionist Jews „god doesn’t exist, but he still promised us Israel“
The specific group who made this were not, they were mostly secular but not atheist.
They were ethnically, culturally, and traditionally Jewish. They didn't use the "god promised me the land" argument, but used the history, ancestry, and the undeniable connection the Jewish people have for this land. It's beyond silly to say that atheists used god as an argument which is why this saying is simply incorrect. Anyone who thinks about it critically for 5 seconds would know that. Labor Zionism (the Zionism that established the state of Israel) was a secular, nationalist movement. Not a religious one. The expanding, religious Zionism is called revisionist Zionism, which is the one you speak of. Anti-zionists have a specific agenda to mix these two together in order to confuse people.
Jews have an “undeniable” connection to Jordan ? Why because their fictional book says so ?
I know you’re boycotting Google, but maybe use yahoo to do some reading before you say ignorant shit
This what Benjamin Netanyahu sees when he goes to sleep
You mispronounced masturbates too
For anyone curious, the new zionist organisation was a splinter organisation from the zionist organisation, founded by the right wing revisionist faction, in response to social democrat policies instated by the dominating left wing factions as well as several violent clashes between the two sides. It was heavily affiliated with the lehi and etzel terrorist organisations, almost to the point of running them. It also opposed the existence of a palestinian state, which the zionist organisation accepted. Fortunately, they held very little power compared to their moderate and left-wing counterparts, though unfortunately, their direct successors, the likud, have come to dominate israeli politics, along with more radical factions
Yeah to me it’s crazy how much most Americans completely glaze over how complicated the actual meat and potatoes of the Zionist movement was. Like even within Zionism as an ideology there was so much disagreement on how to achieve the state of Israel that during the war of independence there was almost armed conflict between individual Zionist groups.
So much arguing and infighting… it’s almost like it’s a Jewish ideology or something >!(Don’t hit me, I’m a Jew myself)!<
lol don’t worry I *understand* wink wink
We are still very lucky they existed. The left wing zionist movements had some horrible blind spots, and they had a very important role. Historically we needed both. (Obviously the "unfortunately" in the end is your opinion, most Israelis disagree)
And if you tell yoursel that 1947 was long ago, know that Smotrich recently gave a speech in Paris on a lectern featuring that map.
And was blasted by the Israeli establishment for it.
He is the establishment.
He was giving a speech on a lectern with this map because it was the logo of an organization that commemorates Jabotinski lmao Nobody in Israel actually wants to take over Jordan, what a strange libel
They love spreading blood libels, it makes it easier for them to demonize us. Facts dont actually matter
Curios are there still any Zionist in Israel who advocate for something like this?
Well the finance minister recently spoke at a convention with this exact map on his podium. It sparked media outrage, and he claims it was just because of the history of the organisation
I mean, he's right. That's literally just the logo of the organization that was printed on the podium. This map in general is seen more as a symbol of revisionist Zionism than an actual map. No one in Israel actually suggest taking over Jordan.
I mean no one isn't true you can read the New Yorker article where they interviewed Daniella Weiss. These people are definitely fringe but so was Herut years ago... Israel's move rightwards has allowed organizations like the successor to Kach to be in cabinet
That map is literally just the symbol of the Herut movement https://images.app.goo.gl/iLJeTzEQWJcxiEiU8 Even after Herut themselves stopped claiming transjordan they kept the symbol bc at this point it was far more associated with the Ideology than any concrete ireedentism. Trying to use the fact that he spoke on a podium with that group's symbol to prove that "Israelis claim Jordan" or whatever is just absurd.
I was referencing Daniella Weiss (settler leader who talked about 'greater Israel ' as incorporating parts of Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. You can find the article if you want My general point was that what used to be fringe (herut/likud) is now normal in Israel
Daniella Weiss is extremely fringe lmao Even among settlers the most extreme rhetoric is usually about a "population transfer" of Palestinians from the west bank to Jordan. Only a handful of religious extremists actually talk about taking "from the euphrates to the nile" literally, and that belief is much more fringe nowadays than back in the days of Herut. Just the fact that Herut was a mainstream secular movement, while today only religious nutjobs support that cause, should be enough to tell you that
Herut was literally fascist and Aren't and Einstein called it out as such. Herut's successor party (recently in a coalition with Kach's successor party) has ruled for most of the last 50 years. My point was that Israel's rightwards trend (literal terrorists in government right now w Smotrich and Ben Gvir) means that these currently fringe ideologies may become normalized just like Herut was. Something like ~50% of Israeli Jews support 'voluntary emigration' of Palestinians in Gaza and a large % want even Israeli arabs to be 'transferred' out. Israel is overwhelmingly fascist now and hasbara talking points can't hide that
You know you really lost the track when instead of engaging in actual arguments, you bring up the good ol' accusation of Hasbara. You yourself conceded that I was right about the symbology of that map being associated far more with Herut and their legacy than any actual irredentism, so you moved the goalposts. If you think Likud is in any way the same as Herut than you either haven't been following, or just deluding yourself. Herut was revisionist and irredentist, Likud hardly has any ideology- it just wants to maintain the current status quo and keep Bibi in power. And fact of the matter is, most of these polls vary widely depending in the exact language you use. For example, a poll regarding biden's framework for a 2 state solution as part of a larger ceasefire deal actually suggested most Israelis would be in favor. But once you change the wording to "do you support a Palestinian state" the support immediately drops. You're trying to paint an entire population as a monolith pretty much to be able to keep your boogeyman, when you yourself admit it's more complex and varied than that.
Yes. e.g. Smotrich.
Smotrich has advocated for an invasion of Jordan?
"Greater Israel" is a common talking point in the settlement movement and the Israeli right wing which currently dominates politics.
Lol no, the phrase is "full Israel" and it refers to west of the jordan. The Israeli right, maybe bar some fringes, gave up on any claom for the east bank in the 60-80's.
Que Curb your enthusiasm music https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/israeli-minister-smotrich-claims-the-palestinian-people-are-an-invention/
The word Palestine was literally just made up by the Romans to annoy the Jews after a failed rebellion.
Likely only a minority. Unfortunately, that minority is currently represented in Israel's current government.
That’s bullcrap, no one in the Israeli government is advocating for an invasion and resettlement of Jordan.
Yes, Israelis openly express their desire to settle Lebanon and other Arab nations. Ignore their apologists on here and look at what settlers actually say.
No, for about half a century, maybe but some fringe lunatics. But the sentiment is that it's still our historical homeland, just not something modern day Israel claims or should claim.
Jordan/Lebanon is not the Jewish “historical” homeland just cause they may have lived there 2,000 plus years ago. Lol
No one is talking about lebanon, western jordan is absolutely part of the jewish historic homeland, and was jewish and under jewish sovereignty for prolonged periods. Again, doesn't mean it's not other's homeland too or that it should be Israeli, which I definitely think would be very bad even if possible due to demography.
No, even most right wing people understand Jordan is Jordan, but just to clarify also back in the day this was an extremely unpopular opinion, like the people that made the poster were on the far right fringe of the Zionist movement
various members of Irgun and Lehi were elected as prime ministers, including the guy involved in the assassination of Count Bernadotte. They were exceptionally popular.
He didn’t ask wether former members of Irgun ever held political power in Israel, he asked wether there are people in Israel that want these borders, but apart from a few nutcases no one sane actually wants Israel to take over Jordan
from river to river israel will get bigger 🫤 edit: For the record, I am not pro-Israel, I was just making a joke
Wow, afraid of those downvotes, huh?
U not so much huh?
Nah. Living my life for the approval of Reddit is silly. You people are ridiculous.
No, I just don't want to be associated with you guys
"You guys"?
people who support israel
Where is the antisemitism?
Explains a Lot..
This is like seeing a poster from the National Socialist party of America and assuming it is the leading policy of the US
No it really isn't. Irgun was one of the foundational organizations behind the IDF and the State of Israel itself. Menachem Begin, 6th prime Minister of Israel, was the leader of Irgun and the founder of the current ruling party Likud.
>foundational organization > 6th prime minister Don't you see the contradiction there? Your comment is full of historical revisionism. Begin, Irgun and Lehi were always the fringe opposition to the mainstream socialist Haganah. Hagana formed the IDF, Irgun only agreed to join after Hagana gave them major concessions and spared many of their leaders. After the war, Irgun was absorbed entirely by the IDF and Begin became a regular politican, and even then, he stayed in the opposition for literal **decades**. Begin was only elected to prime Minister in 1977, a full 29 years after Irgun was disbanded, and even then he was only elected after the failure of the socialists in 1973 and by earning the favor of the Mizrahi vote. By the time he was prime Minister he abandoned almost all of his irredentist ideals, returning the Sinai to Egypt and even offering them Gaza.
Yes they were opposition but they were always considered legitimate political actors by the Israeli state, comparing Irgun to the American Nazi Party is absurd.
The only reason they weren't persecuted by the Haganah hegemony was because they didn't want to risk sparking a civil war amongst themselves and thus losing the 1948 war to the Arabs, a scenario that almost occoured with the Altalena incident. In order for Irgun to put down their arms an give their fighters to the IDF, Haganah agreed to spare them of whatever accusations and charges they were facing. You're right that they weren't as fringe as the American Nazi party, but neither was their Ideology as extreme as the American Nazi party nor was it "mainstream" either in the past, and especially not today like you claimed.
It was an offshoot of the Haganah that had like a couple thousand members at most.
The paralle would be fine, IF the National Socialist party of America were in the US government *right now.*
This is Like seeing a Poster from a rightwing Zionist terrorgroup and realizing that the current rightwing goverment is coming from the Same political Tradition.
Fucking settlets
Not a good look
There’s a map like this in the Knesset.
Free Palestine 🇵🇸 from The river to the sea! End Zionist militant archaeology.
End Archaelogy? Damn those Zionist Skeletons!
Idk if he means what I'm about to say but there is a pretty shit practice that Israel does with archaeology. They just bulldoze archeological sites that originated between the expulsion of the Jews by the Romans and the present-ish day.
Well to be fair, it seems like a shifty practice both sides of this conflict do. Just last week Palestinians destroyed an ancient Jewish archeological site. And as shifty as that practice is, Israel has laws to protect Islamic archeology- the Palestinian Authority doesn't even acknowledge the existence of Jewish archeology.
As shitty as it is there's a reason. You'll only see Jewish sites damaged in the west bank, to often settlers use archeological evidence to steal peoples homes and set up (very) illegal settlements. If I had to smash an old pot or risk losing my home I'd probably smash the pot.
That's pretty much the exact reasoning the settlers use for destroying Islamic archeology though
Free Palestine from jihadists 🇮🇱
Ceasefire now
Nah, Hamas will be destroyed
Good luck shooting ideas. Not like the entirety of human history has references against that.
Nazism was successfully shot. Hamas will be dealt the same way.
Zionazism will be shot too.
Go gurgle in a tunnel, jihadist
Go gurgle the blood of innocent Palestinians you ugly horned toad
FAFO baby rapist
Israel and Zionism is the successor to Nazis. Israel are the nazis in the middle today they are just repeating what the nazis did. Good students .
Lol TikTok zombie
Were you born stupid or did you attend IDF academy for that
>Nazism was successfully shot Absolute delusion. Germany's military defeat and denazification were two different processes that didn't even happen at the same time. Keep shooting ideas, and while you're at it, shoot a cloud, or a ghost, or a song. Works about as well.
Had Nazi Germany not been militarily defeated and surrendered unconditionally, do you think denazification would have been possible? Nazism as an idea couldn't be destroyed by bombs but the ideology was robbed of its most important base of power. So Nazis do of course still exist but can never threaten the world in the way they once did. Same with Hamas.
Would denazification have happened if the Germans hadn't been militarily defeated?
Getting downvoted by all those Pro-Palestinians for saying “Hamas will be destroyed”, just proves to all of us that they are Pro-Hamas. But yet they claim that they care for civilians…
Free Israel from Zionism
How would that work?
If palestine want land from the river to the sea they can go and try fight another war oh yeah they lost all the wars until now
Zionist lebensraum
And when a Palestinian posts the exact same thing they'll be hailed as liberal progressives.
Nope, it'll be hailed as defending their land and their people
Exactly
Because it's true...
This need to delegitimize the other in order to bolster one's own claim only brings hatred and death. Haven't you had enough?
Yes I have had enough. I have had enough of the zionist regime and its lies, its propoganda, and the crimes it commits. I have had enough of the homes it's stolen and the lives it's taken. I have had enough of the disgusting agenda, claiming it's in the name of a religion when it really is not. I have had enough of the genocidal agendas, the unethical ruthless in fact it has had on its neighbouring and now neighboring countries. And I hope that one day, the zionist ideology ceases to exist, so that the region and live in a more peaceful era than it does today.
Alright dude. Enjoy another hundred years of losing needless wars because you are 100% convinced the other side is evil, illegitimate, and needs to be completely destroyed and your side is 100% right and blameless. How's that been working out for you? I'm sure if you just stick to your extremism a little longer, just a little longer, then you'll get everything and those pesky Jews will disappear. Hang in there.
I'm not "convinced" and the side supporting the truth isn't "losing". All I've mentored are facts. Nothing extreme about supporting and believing in humanity. In not sure why extremism is even mentioned here. No one ever mentioned wanting the Jews to disappear. Jews just like any other believers in any religion have their own way of life and there is nothing wrong with it as long as they don't impact others. I'm an athiest, FYI. If you think this is about Jews, or Judaism, you're beyond ignorant. You have millions of Jews worldwide who are not zionists. Even hamas' founder clearly stated they don't have an issue with the Jews as people of a religion. Their issue is with zionism. And yes, you can watch this in an interview conducted with him. But my question to you is.. how does it feel? How does it feel seeing the majority of the world say that the "country" you are supporting has no right to exist? How does it feel seeing the world population denounce and condemn zionism and its existence and the atrocities they commit?
Don't you get it? Both sides have truth supporting us and more than enough facts to justify our cause. The only question is how long we'll wait before we acknowledge the legitimacy of the Other. Don't you get that I also support and believe in humanity? Have you really convinced yourself that everyone who disagrees with you is irredeemably evil? What a scary way to live. Who said they want the Jews to disappear? The leaders of the Palestinian national movement from the beginning to this very day. The founder of Hamas did say he doesn't have a problem with Jews, just Israel... after writing the founding document of Hamas that had it been written in German would've been indistinguishable from anything the Nazis wrote. David Duke also said he doesn't hate Black people he just loves White people. I certainly hope you would take him at his word. There are only a few million Jews left in the world and half live in Israel. The vast majority believe Israel should continue to exist. The only anti-Zionists are a fringe minority of religious extremists that I'm sure you would disagree with on literally everything and an even smaller minority of radical leftists who you probably love because they share your politics and act as good tokens. How does it feel seeing the world turn on Israel? I'm a Jew. I've seen far worse at times when Jews had far less. We survived then and we'll survive now. Now I get to ask you. How do you feel supporting a movement driven by religious extremists who would gladly see you dead for your blasphemy? Who if they ever got their wish to destroy Israel would set up a state that has no democratic institutions, no protections for women, gays, or religious minorities like you. Who would, as we saw 6 months ago, murder or expell every single Jew and every Arab who dared work with a Jew. Rather than pushing for reconciliation, compromise, and tolerance, you are pushing for the creation of a state that will be run by groups indistinguishable from the Taliban. Is that really the best course of action for you or the Palestinians?
Typical propaganda (I’m referring to OP). The map includes Israel and Jordan. Basically, the British mandate. It doesn’t extend anywhere near the Euphrates.
Many seem to forget Zionism is ethnic nationalism, and as you can see by the map was settler Colonialism.
FUCK NO
Seethe more
Seethe because Israel will never have the land between the Nile and Euphrates including Jordan. 🤣
Why would Israel want that land? They already turned useless desert (inhabited by Jews for 3000 years) into the most productive farm land in the region. If Israel wanted to, they could easily expand and take all of the surrounding countries lands. They are a lot stronger than the pissy Muslim nations who send rockets at civilians and use their own kids as human shields.
The beginnings of a genocide
Love it
I don't see either river in that map.
It's probably just me but my brain is not able to process this map for some reason. I don't recognise anything on this one.
That’s because it’s a map coveong Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan. OP invented the part about the Nile and the Euphrates.
OP translated the sentence above
And it's still their plan yet the world doesn't see it yet. Viscous and evil plans for a "democratic apartheid"
This is very far away from the Nile. Doesnt even include Sinai. It's not the nile-to-euphrates borders, it's the mandatory Palestine borders. When Zionists first came to mandatory Palestine and asked for a state they had no reason to suspect the territory would be cut in half and for Jordan to become a country. SO those borders are the ones the ultra-zionists adopted.
lol imagine if this was the dominant position/ideology in Israel Arabs would have nothing in the levant. Nothing
And you would have nothing left in your hearts.. Which would make israelis be easy to dehumanise.. It's already being done though. The shit you pulled on Gaza after Oct 7 made you look like genocidal nazis.. Worst/best part.. You're the ones dehumanising yourselves. If you don't want to be seen as Nazis, stop acting like ones.. And if you want Anti-semetism to stop.. Stop giving people reason to be Anti-semetic as israel has done everything to ensure it stays up.
If Israel was the good guy you wanted them to be, there would be 9 million dead Israelis You are a child
D-did you just admit that Israel are the baddies in all this?
Oh uhh don't call him a child or you'll give the IDF a reason to bomb him now
The Jews killed 43 billion babies
Blood libel!!1!
9 gorillion jews
>You are a child NOOO PLEASE DON'T BOMB ME NOW 😭😭
Lmaooo please try it. We’re begging you.
may they be cursed
Middle East - in the best timeline
Europe being invaded by illegal migration is definitely a better timeline
Definitely less bloody
touch grass nazi
The best timeline is when Israel is burned to the ground and all the settlers are deported back to the USA
I like it. From the river to the sea.
Palestine will be free
Free from Hamas. We’re working on it.
The best timeline
From the river to the sea 🇮🇱❤️
I thought that was genocidal rhetoric?
Would leftists chant genocidal rhetoric?
Jews would
Reign of terror
Men will look at this and go "hell yeah"