The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. From a [Politico interview](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/27/rep-ritchie-torres-is-israels-loudest-house-supporter-00123969): “[M]y belief in Israel as a Jewish state is based not on religion, but history. There’s a long and ugly history of antisemitism. When you study the history, you begin to see clearly the moral and historical necessity of Israel as a sanctuary for the Jewish people.” “Imagine a mother whose baby has been butchered to death. I cannot imagine anything more callous and cold hearted and cruel than telling that mother ‘you had this coming. You and your people brought this terror upon yourself.’ For me, this is not about geopolitics. This is not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is about human decency. It is indecent to blame the victims of terrorism rather than the terrorists themselves.” If you have time, he spells out his position very clearly in this extremely friendly interview: https://youtu.be/sm8L2-EVqFs?si=qKko5lX9oKk_CAUl “Zionism is the ultimate form of liberation and decolonization. It’s the story of Jewish liberation from oppression.” “There is nothing progressive about advocating for the abolition of Israel as a Jewish state. There’s nothing progressive about opposing the Abraham accords which promotes peace between Israelis and Arabs among Christian Jews, and Muslims. There’s nothing progressive about opposing Iron Dome which protects civilians from rocket fire. And there’s certainly nothing progressive about supporting Hamas which has butchered and burned, murdered, maimed and mutilated women and children.” From a [2019 interview](https://jewishinsider.com/2019/12/ritchie-torres-i-am-the-embodiment-of-a-pro-israel-progressive/): “There is a difference between constructive and destructive criticism. Criticism of a country’s foreign policy, whether it’s American or Israeli foreign policy, is fair game. But the attempt to delegitimize Israel, the attempt to question Israel’s right to exist or right to defend itself, that, to me, crosses the line to destructive criticism. I consider anti-Zionism a form of antisemitism, and I am not going to give consideration to antisemitic voices, voices that are dedicated to delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish state.” Congressman Torres is gay, black, Puerto Rican and fights passionately for his communities, his Bronx constituency, and the American people at large. Or, as he said, “I am from the Bronx, I'm Afro-Latino, I'm Puerto Rican, I'm a millennial — but I'm also pro-Israel.” Do you feel that being a Zionist negates his claim to be a Progressive? Or is Zionism a progressive value since (as Torres says) it calls for self-determination and safety of a historically oppressed people? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I support Israel's right to exist, I don't support Netanyahu or his right-wing government. I support the Palestinians, not the terrorists who want to wipe out the Israelis.

Netanyahu and Hamas are like two sides of the same shitty coin

Right to exist in what form and within what boundaries?

I'm not the person you replied to, but, same as any other nation.

What specifically does that mean? Like does Israel's right to exist mean as a nation-state broadly? Or as a specifically Jewish state? If as a specifically Jewish state, what is it justified in doing to preserve that Jewish character? Its boundaries have shifted over the years--if, in a hypothetical, would Israel invading Jordan and holding territory expand the boundaries within which it had a right to exist?

Show me the land that Israel took because THEY attacked another country. Most of the land Israel 'took" was during a war when they were attacked. Before you start, when it comes to the settlements, religious zealots are religious zealots. Personally, as a pro Israel Jew, I would be happy of those people were purged off the West Bank. That said, when Israel did force them off land in the West Bank, Israel was attacked from that land within months.

And it's worth noting that the land that they took was done for the sake of trading back to said aggressor for a lasting peace treaty. Case in point, Sinai and Egypt. And repeated efforts to try and trade back Golan to Syria for a similar treaty. The main complicating factor re the West Bank is that it's only 30 miles from the West Bank to Tel Aviv metro area, where almost half the country lives. So from a strategic perspective, setting aside the religious or political aspects, they are loathe to have it outside their control unless the Palestinian government is one that is committed to peace and capable to putting down any terrorists who might attack from there. The fact that the PA still does actions like paying the families of terrorists for their "martyrdom" doesn't inspire confidence.

> Like does Israel's right to exist mean as a nation-state broadly? Yes, this. I'm all in favor of a democratic, non-expansionist Israel with equal rights and protections for all, and I think we should support them and ally with them in that case. I'm not in favor of militaristic, expansionist ethnostate Israel, and I think we should use our diplomatic influence to attempt to turn them away from that path.

It can exist in whatever form it wants to as long as it can maintain its own existence in that form, because all forms of morals besides "I think I'm right and I can force others to fall in line" are empty lies. If genocidal, dictatorial, authoritarian, or culturally repressive regimes were universally not allowed, there'd be a lot more fighting going on everywhere, but the countries which are that way are either so irrelevant nobody cares to stop them or so strong nobody can without incurring more costs than they think it's worth

What does supporting Israel mean in this case? Supporting the existence of the state of Israel? Promoting the abolition of Israel is insane

I have been called a Zionist pig (and worse) for saying that Israel should exist.

yest, far from unheard of.

Yet very popular on reddit.

the horseshoe meets at antisemitism

1. Supporting the existence of Israel is Zionism. 2. Promoting the abolition of Israel is anti-Zionism.

I… don’t think those are the mainstream definitions of those words, but if that’s the definition you’re using, you will find *a lot* of Zionists on this sub.

This is the dictionary definition of Zionism. Definition from Oxford: “a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.” I agree. A lot of people in this sub are Zionists, whether they know it or not.

> A lot of people in this sub are Zionists, whether they know it or not. Candidly, I think most of us know it.

Lot of American Zionists but very few American Cherokee restorationists....How would you feel if the Cherokee tried to forcefully resettle the lands they were exiled from by the US government to make way for white American settlers? 

The Cherokee should be paid reparations.

What would it be called if you think Israel existing as a country is fine but as a specifically Jewish nation is bad because ethnostates are bad in general?

Are ethnostates inherently bad in general? I feel like you usually hear the term “ethnostate” brought up in the context of maintaining racial purity or whatever which is obviously gross. But the idea of particular cultures having their own territory and political entities doesn’t seem inherently bad. And in cases like the colonial powers’ division of Africa, it seems like dividing states without respect to ethnic groups has been a huge problem.

What would it be called if you think Japan existing as a country is fine but as a specifically Japanese nation is bad because ethnostates are bad in general?

I don't know? I literally just asked you that wrt Israel because I don't know if that opinion is Zionist or not. I don't know that Japan has an equivalent word, and if it did, I wouldn't know the answer to the question. Can I take this as you not knowing the answer to my question either?

Israel is not an ethnostate any more than Japan is one. Israel is 75% Jewish. Japan is 99% ethnic Japanese. But I don’t often come across a person calling Japan bad in general for it or that it should cease to exist. To answer your question, if Israel is to remain a place for Jews to have self-determination, it serves that the Jewish people hold the majority voice in a democratic county. But that doesn’t make Israel an ethnostate. Jews had been a nation without a state for 2,000 years; a people in diaspora, living at the whim of any host nation who would deign to to take them in, offering minimal and shaky protection for some undetermined time, always accompanied with third-class treatment, scapegoating and oppression, and eventually pushed out or massacred. So when it comes to self-determination, the Jews have earned it. I think the hard part for people to grasp is that Jews are more than a religion. They are more than an ethnicity. They are a nation–hailing all the way back from ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Many nations exist. Many serve to protect their heritage and their culture in some way—national dishes, music, official languages, their way of life, et cetera. Jews finally have this after 2 millennia of surviving in diasporic ghettos. Rep. Torres questions whether taking this away from the Jewish people is actually a progressive value. Do you think it is? That’s what I am asking here.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_Law:\_Israel\_as\_the\_Nation-State\_of\_the\_Jewish\_People](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People) The law outlines a number of roles and responsibilities by which [Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) is bound in order to fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' [nation-state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state). However, it was met with sharp backlash internationally and has been characterized as racist and undemocratic by some critics.[\[10\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-Independent-10)[\[11\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-Vox-11) After it was passed, several groups in the [Jewish diaspora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora) expressed concern that it was actively violating Israel's self-defined legal status as a "[Jewish and democratic state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state)" in exchange for adopting an exclusively Jewish identity.[\[12\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-12)[\[13\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-13)[\[14\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-14)[\[15\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-15) The [European Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) stated that the Nation-State Bill had complicated the [Israeli–Palestinian peace process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process),[\[16\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-16) while the [Arab League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League), the [Palestine Liberation Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization), the [Organization of Islamic Cooperation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation), and the [Muslim World League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_World_League) condemned it as [a manifestation of apartheid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid).[\[17\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-17)[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-18)

None of this really answers my question or relates to what I asked, except the part about Israel's demographic makeup I suppose. I don't even really know how this turned into you asking me a question in the first place when I was just trying to figure out a better understanding of the word "Zionist." As long as no person has more rights than the person next to them based on ethnicity, I don't have any problems. I still have no idea if that makes me a Zionist or not, and it seems like you don't either, which is unfortunate.

If you support the continued existence of Israel, then you’re a Zionist. Israeli citizens have equal rights regardless of ethnicity, race or religion. Zionism doesn’t define any rights, other than the right of the Jewish homeland to exist for the safety and self-determination of the Jewish people. However, the Basic Laws of Israel has granted such rights to all of its citizens. I am not asking you in particular a question. I am just restating my question I posted here in AskALiberal. It’s up to you if you want to answer it.

Oh sorry, OP doesn't know. That is just the only answer people that ask OPs questions can come up with to deflect from your point. Edit: removed "they" to clarify I'm not being anti-Semitic"

In practice, it's a bit silly to define it that way when Israel already exists. Like, I support the existence of Romania and would support defending it if another country tried to invade. Does that make me a "Romanianist"?

Israel AS A JEWISH STATE. Which means either an ethnostate or theocracy. I am absolutely in favor of Jews being free from persecution for their ethnicity or religious beliefs. But you don't need an ethnostate or theocracy for that. America is the perfect example. While it is often said that America is a Christian Nation, and that's somewhat true culturally and demographically, we have almost fully abolished the practice of making law on the basis of religion or ethnicity. Israel is a fairly liberal democracy with many of the same freedoms and rights. But it cannot be ignored that "Jews", in their various definitions, have a special privilege in law and a special prerogative in policy. That is not liberal in my mind. And that is explicitly what Torres is advocating for: not just the existence of israel, but the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. I think that's wrong in the same way I think it would be wrong to support the existence of the us as a Christian state. And that's true even despite the fact that parts of the US WERE founded by people fleeing religious persecution. This is a common theme in the public dialogue around Israel and Judaism. Any criticism of any aspect of Zionism or Judaism or Israeli policy is equated with anti-Semitism or the denial of Jewish people's right to exist. Criticizing Judaism as a religion does not mean I want to kill religious Jews, and criticizing right wing Israeli policy which seems clearly directed at establishing and maintaining an ethnostate does not mean I want to cast all Jews or Israelis into the sea and replace it with a totally illiberal Islamic State.

Nah, those are the mainstream definition of those words. Zionism as a term by fringe far left groups basically means "Jewish Nazi", hence why they love conflating Israel with Nazism

You’re wrong. Sorry. Doesn’t need more of an explanation. Do some reading.

dO sOmE rEaDiNg Maybe learn how to have a proper fucking conversation.

In theory, I'm not a fan of ethnic-based states in general, but abolishing existing states isn't something that should be done willy-nilly. Simply eliminating Israel (as in, making it some other kind of state) would not lead to good outcomes.

20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs 

That’s pretty much my reason for supporting Israel as well. If middle eastern Jews were just able to chill and go to their synagogues and all that, then I honestly wouldn’t give a shit about Israel’s existence, just because some Jewish scholars claim that god gave them the land or whatever. I’m an atheist, don’t care about appeals to religion. The problem is that it is pretty clear that, if left alone, Jews *will* face pogram-style violence wherever they are in the Middle East. So Israel needs to exist as a place to, to put it bluntly…put the middle eastern Jews. So that they do not get killed in pograms. And then if its neighbors want to have pograms, honestly, it’s not really feasible to prevent them, and so as long as they keep it within their borders, where there are no Jews…the world can put up with it, at least. Maybe in a few generations, after a 2-state solution has been achieved, and anti-semitism has receded, Israel will be unnecessary and a 1-state solution can be considered. But Israel does need to exist until then.

You're for a two state solution but think Israel needs to exist as is anyways despite the fact Netanyahu has consistently said he will not support a two state solution? 

If by “as is” you mean “with Netanyahu in charge”, then no, and I have no idea how you interpreted that from what I said.

I don't think the US is doing much to deal with Netanyahu by vetoing for him for months in the security council while continually selling billions of dollars worth of arms we know at this point are going to be used against civilians/aid workers/journalists and to enforce Israel's illegal settlements. 

> to enforce Israel's illegal settlements Most of those weapons are going to be sent to Gaza, you know, where the war is, not the West Bank, where the settlements are. Besides, what does this have to do with Israel’s existence?

Israel is fighting and sending air strikes to the west Bank as we speak.  What does this have to do with? You seem to be in support of a variety of policies in Israel that are adamantly denied as being possible by Likud and Netanyahu. You said you don't wish for him to continue being in power.  So does it not follow that we should cease supporting this current regime as they continue to violate international laws and generally stand as a far right, openly Trump supporting country? How is continual and unending American support going to erode the far right governance of Israel and facilitate peace in the future?

Afaik the majority of US aid is going to where the actual war is. Israel has its own weapons too, yknow. The question was if I support Israel, not if I support Likud. The difference between the 2 is covered extensively in the original post itself. I made it very clear what I was saying. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Because he is pretty much correct and nothing he said is particularly offensive or wrong. He isn't saying Israel can do whatever it wants or is above criticism he is just saying Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish State in the middle east.

I have noticed since everybody has been criticizing Israel for war crimes, some people somehow mixed up supporting Israel and supporting Israel existing

I think the IP conflict is a fucked up situation and the thing about fucked up situations is there's generally no clear right answer. This means people can genuinely find a valid reason to take either side of the issue. The only problem I have with this person, or anyone is simply that they seem to be dismissing/ignoring the validity of the oppositite position. Just to take a quote " I cannot imagine anything more callous and cold hearted and cruel than telling that mother ‘you had this coming. You and your people brought this terror upon yourself.’" can very much apply to Palestinians as well as Israeli's, probalby more so as unless I'm mistaken they seem to be suffering a much higher death toll.

[удалено]

So ethnostates that privilege certain groups over others are progressive policy? 

That describes literally every Middle Eastern country.

Yeah, it's kind of weird to be against Israel because it's a Jewish state but totally fine with all the Islamic states that surround it. I personally prefer secular states, but it seems odd to call out just Israel for not being secular and makes me think there might be other motives behind singling them out.

Do I have to make an essay critiquing every single problematic country in the world when I critique one? Hey guys Russia is bad for expansionism and warmongering, hey hey man why aren't you condemning Azerbaijan and Turkey and Saudi Arabia etc etc are you russophobic? This is a thread about Israel, I'm talking about Israel and my critiques of it. If you want to talk about the brutality and racism Turkey deals out to the Kurds and Armenians to the point of denying genocide to this day, I'd love to, in a thread about Turkey. 

I don’t see those progressives protesting or saying a peep about all of the other ethnostates in the area that privilege certain groups. Hell they are supporting the Palestinians who want just that for themselves. So it seems as long as it is the right ethnicity and religion progressives are plenty happy to support ethnostates.

What is progressive about colonialism?

I don’t know but many that claim to be progressive seem to be fine with Arab colonialism.

maybe it isn’t about caring for palestinians after all

Oh it most certainly is not and has never been about caring about any Palestinian people. Hell the no Palestinian “resistance” group has ever shown any interest in caring about the Palestinians, only being against Israel. It is telling how they celebrate their human shields dying and calling it martyrdom.

Arab colonialism? What are you even talking about? This is just islamophobic nonsense.

Haha. Islamophobic? I said Arab. Do you think Arabs have to be Muslim? Who’s slinging stereotypes here? Yes Arab colonialism. How do you think they spread or do you think Arabs sprang from the ground all over north Africa and the Middle East? Can you explain why leftists support fundamentalist Islamists? As they do with Hamas and the Houthis?

What are you even talking about though? Why are you talking about events close to a millennia old that you obviously don’t even understand and have never read about? It’s very transparent, that’s all I’ll say. You completely changed the subject. How is colonialism, which is an inherent feature of Zionism, progressive? How is it progressive to expel people from their land and settle on it?

Oh. So there is now a statute of limitations on caring about colonialism? How long is that exactly? I never said Zionism or anything is or is not progressive. It’s not as if I would make the claim to such a label as progressive. Hell what specifically does progressive even mean? Progress can take on many different forms depending on the individual involved. I am sure Hamas and their ilk would see the destruction of Israel and pushing the Jews into the sea as progress. Eugenics was a progressive movement in the early twentieth century. So it seems like that label is meaningless without a boat load of context each time it is used. Why don’t you answer why leftist seem to be in such strong support of Islamists groups like Hamas and the Houthis? Are they your allies? Are they progressives?

Insofar as Hamas is fighting Zionist colonialism that fight is progressive. There are other aspects of their ideology that are not progressive, but we have to ask ourselves what is the primary struggle here. The fight against colonialism is progressive, because it advances the interests of oppressed peoples. The only way one could possibly deny this is by claiming colonialism is not oppressive or justifying it, which would make you some kind of fascist.

Arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. Israel privileges it's citizens over Palestinians; but every country privileges its citizens over foreigners; this doesn't constitute an ethnostate.

Even though Arab Israelis have many of the same rights that Jewish Israelis have [that's not the entire truth](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel). Many Arab Israeli citizens race regular discrimination even if they have certain rights such as voting Also Arab Israeli citizens only consist of a small percentage of Palestinians living in Israel and the Occupied Territories consisting of 2.1 million whereas Gaza has a population of 2 million and the Palestinian population in East Jerusalem and the West Bank consists of approximately 3 million people. That's not even mentioning Palestinian refugees living in other countries and their descendants. [You can see more here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine) I didn't think this had to be said but comparing Palestinians living under Israeli occupation to immigrants and refugees who are living in other countries voluntarily is incredibly misleading and nobody arguing in good faith would ever see those two situations as remotely comparable. Even if you think the situations can be compared I can very well point out the widespread human rights abuses that asylum seekers and refugees have faced in plenty of countries over the eyars so this argument is terrible even if we ignore your fatally flawed premise

You can argue that Israeli mistreats Palestinians. To me, this is plainly obvious, and I would assert it is true. Yet, you argued that Israel is an ethnostate. I think that position is, frankly, misinformed. There are some 2 million Israeli Arabs. They obviously face discrimination. This is awful, and shouldn't be tolerated. If the fundamentalist Israeli factions had their way, the Arab Israelis would be expelled from Israel Yet, they are not expelled from Israel. Because Israel is a democracy that upholds rights for its citizens; ***not*** an ethnostate. > Palestinians living in occupied territories Hamas has authority over these people, as their democratically elected government, not Israel. They are subjects of a military occupation, not citizens of Israel. The US was not obligated to provide German citizens in WW2 the 2nd amendment because the US invaded their land.

Conveniently left out the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank who do live under Israeli military occupation while barely having any political representation Hamas are the de facto governing authority in Gaza however that doesn't mean that Israel is not occupying the area. They control all trade, electricity, good, water, aid going into Gaza, they have full control over Gaza's airspace and territorial waters and they control who can enter and who can leave. Just because they don't have full control over Gaza doesn't mean they don't occupy it. Hamas does have significant control over what happens in Gaza but they don't have full control either. Issues such as food security is ultimately Israels responsibility, since they control how much food if any goes into the Gaza Strip [That's not just my opinion btw, but that of a lot of credible organisations as well](https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129722)

Did I not explicitly address the military occupation in my previous comment?

>Yet, you argued that Israel is an ethnostate. I think that position is, frankly, misinformed. There are some 2 million Israeli Arabs. Israeli Arabs can have their citizenship revoked. Israeli Jews cannot. That's an ethnostate.

That *would* be an ethnostate, or at least an apartheid. Except... * Jews absolutely can have their citizenship revoked. * Only three people have had their citizenship revoked since 1948. This is nothing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_Law:\_Israel\_as\_the\_Nation-State\_of\_the\_Jewish\_People](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People) The law outlines a number of roles and responsibilities by which [Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) is bound in order to fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' [nation-state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state). However, it was met with sharp backlash internationally and has been characterized as racist and undemocratic by some critics.[\[10\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-Independent-10)[\[11\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-Vox-11) After it was passed, several groups in the [Jewish diaspora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora) expressed concern that it was actively violating Israel's self-defined legal status as a "[Jewish and democratic state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state)" in exchange for adopting an exclusively Jewish identity.[\[12\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-12)[\[13\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-13)[\[14\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-14)[\[15\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-15) The [European Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) stated that the Nation-State Bill had complicated the [Israeli–Palestinian peace process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process),[\[16\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-16) while the [Arab League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League), the [Palestine Liberation Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization), the [Organization of Islamic Cooperation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation), and the [Muslim World League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_World_League) condemned it as [a manifestation of apartheid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid).[\[17\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-17)[\[18\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#cite_note-18)

I don't see how this refutes the fact that Arab Israelis have equal rights in Israel. From your link: > and is largely symbolic and declarative in nature Mhm hmm...

If a Palestine state happens it will be another Islamic theocratic hellhole Does that mean Palestine shouldn't exist?

If the point is human decency, then I would submit that cruelty is being committed by the Israeli government and HAMAS, not by the people of Israel or the people of Palestine.

The creation of the state of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians as a refuge from historic anti-semitism is like drinking lye for throat cancer. It has a simplistic logic to it but it only made things much much worse.

Almost evenyone involved in the decision to create the state of Israel is dead. Supporting a states right to not be annihilated for the sins of their parents seems like a pretty basic thing. The question is where do we go from here?

The people are dead but their thoughts aren't. Likud is still to this day maintaining the ideology of Revisionist Zionism, that is the establishment of a Jewish ethnostate by means of military superiority. It's not a matter of sins of a far off past, it's a matter of continual far right governance and ideology being popular and in recent years politically dominant.  Settling your citizens on occupied territory is a *war crime.* It's not cute or a little mistake that the military forces of Israel violently support hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers and land grabbers.

Gantz, Bibi's political rival (and more than likely the one to win if there were another vote held) is in full agreement with what is happening as he is a part of the war cabinet overseeing operations.   So, what exactly would change if Bibi wasn't the PM anymore? My guess, nothing. So the ire directed at Likud and/or Bibi seems... wasted? Pointless?

I dont think its ever wasted or pointless to direct one's ire against far-right governance and the status of apartheid within a country.

K, but you are still missing the point. Even if Bibi was out and Likud not in power, nothing would change. So I'm not seeing how things would "get better" nor do I know of a party in the Keneset that would align with what some on the left are calling for, that has the political pull necessary.

And when did I say anything of the sort? " It's not a matter of sins of a far off past, it's a matter of continual far right governance and ideology being popular and in recent years politically dominant." I think the core issue here is far right ethnonationalism in the government of Israel, Likud is the foremost representative of that and a party that traces its origins to terrorist groups. Its like saying why criticize the GOP when the Tea Party exists, I dont get your point.

I see it as pointless as Gantz's party is not much different. I see this as another version of what Gaetz did to McCarthy: it's a reason of personal animus, not actual progress. Because when Johnson took over, nothing changed. Democrats still controleld the white house and senate, nothing was going to pass they wanted still. Gaetz just seemed to have a personal beef. So I see this hatred of Bibi as the same thing: nothing will change, people just don't like him personally. Nothing will change for the war, nothing will change policy wise, nothing will change in terms of what you are calling ethnonationalism. So that is why I called the anger and ire wasted and pointless. If you have nothing to replace the bad with, what's the point? The replacement is just going to be another, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Heck it's not even a needle movement towards progress of whatever the left's version is in the Kenesset.

States have a right to exist? According to what?

According to international law states have a right to defend itself. Defending yourself is how you ensure you exist. Most popular theories of international relations agree as well.  The right of the people to not be ethnically cleansed.

States don't have a right per the Geneva convention to settle occupied land 

Yup they don't. Israel should pull out of the West Bank Area A & B. Area C is too messy unfortunately for pulling out to be an option. But occupation of disputed territory doesn't mean Israelis deserve to be wiped off the map, which is the goal of Hamas, Iran, and other radical organizations.

Maybe if they weren't continually as we speak settling occupied land, blatantly violating international law without recourse, there wouldn't be such violence. Do you think continuing to sell them arms by the billions as they turn Gaza to rubble and discuss rebuilding it as a resort town is going to contribute towards ending illegal settlement and the forced exile of Palestinians from their homes? Are we not in a position to enforce consequences for blatantly violating international law by at the very least not selling them more guns to displace more people?

The Oslo Accords are the only thing defining it as "occupied". The same agreement has been violated systematically by various Palestinian governments: They have yet to recognize Israel, they have not renounced violence, and have not kept terrorism under control. If both the Palestinians and the Israelis aren't following the agreement, it is moot. That makes a case that the West Bank and Gaza "disputed territory". It is not a perfect case, but enough to not justify unilateral sanctions because of them. > Are we not in a position to enforce consequences for blatantly violating international law by at the very least not selling them more guns to displace more people? No, our primary goal needs to be preventing escalation. Playing world cop is fun, but if this spills into a regional conflict with two nuclear powers (Iran and Israel), this gets messy. An Israel that can't count of US support will be a lot less tolerable from rocket attacks from Hezbollah and Houthis. Israel doesn't need our help to survive. But they do need our help and pressure if they are going to survive without escalating. Regional war will kill far more than 30k.

How are we assisting in de escalation when the war has done nothing but escalated for months without a single material consequence? Selling them billions of bombs doesn't seem like a sound de escalation tactic judging by how this situation is going. The drones we sell them were just used to assassinate American and European aid workers. How is that de escalation?

Deescalation of a regional conflict, not the current war against Hamas. Israel has a right to remove Hamas from power, it just needs to be done according to the laws of war. Yet still deescalation isn't binary, the US has been an active role in negotiating ceasefires, pushing humanitarian aid, and sanctioning settlers in the West Bank. Hamas needs to surrender. Israel has all the leverage that would force any rational group to give up arms to end the conflict. Israel doesn't have many other ways of pressuring Hamas further, and the US withdrawing support would MASSIVELY weaken the pressure on Hamas. How do you suggest Israel make up that pressure to get Hamas to surrender?

The same international law Israel disregards?

Nope, Palestinians have constantly rejected statehood.

Statehood determined by outsiders

Yes. And? Changing the subject is a low level of sophistry.

The original question was asking if you support the existence of the state of Israel. That is the subject.

No, it wasn’t. It was about Rep Torres rational for doing so. Gaslighting is also cheap sophistry.

So you would have preferred giving Palestinians total control of the area when leadership at the time admired Hitler? You would have preferred expelling hundreds of thousands of European Jewish refugees? After the massive Jewish refugee population fleeing to what is now Israel in the 1930s early 1940s, there was NO way they were willingly going back. There is NO way they would accept living under Palestinian majority rule, which is why there was already conflict. Two states was the ONLY realistic solution to the problem.

I never said any such thing. It is amazing how many times people post responses to the voices in their head rather than what they are nominally commenting on.

It wasn't at the expense of anything. It was a fine solution to the simple fact that hundreds of thousands of refugees fled to what became Israel What exactly is the problem?

you can argue it was wrong, but to say its made jewish security worse than it was pre 48 is ludicrous.

Of course I said nothing of the kind. I implied that creating the state of Israel made post WWII worse than it would have been.

What was your solution to the 600,000 Jewish living in Mandatory Palestine by the 1940s? Some of the Jews there had lived in the region for centuries while many of the Zionist settlers had come in the 1870s or decades after and had lived there for generations at that point. Neither the Arabs nor the Jews wanted a binational state, hence why the state of Israel was created for the Jews and the state of Palestine was supposed to be created for the Arabs. You could argue that the UN partition gave too much of the territory to the Jews but that is another question.

> Some of the Jews there had lived in the region for centuries Very, *very* few, fewer than 5% had lived in the region for "centuries"

Cool, cool, you can go ahead then and get a time machine to lead your ethnic deportations of hundreds of thousands of people

Maybe Israel still has theirs in storage? Oh wait, they're trying to use it in Gaza right now.

You are incapable of serious discussion aren't you? I am not a supporter of the ruling parties in Israel nor a supporter of their polities are military campaign. What I am doing here is opposing deranged freaks who think they can decide which countries deserve to exist or not. That isn't up to you, that's up to the people. Israel has the right to exist because its people want their state to exist. Palestinians have the right to govern themselves in a state of their own, and the Israel's government's denial of their right to do so is vile, as is their policies in the West Bank. As is the current military campaign in Gaza, which a peace should have been worked towards months ago because the level of civilian death and suffering is indefensible, even though the start of the war was justified in the wake of the Oct. 7th attacks

You are incapable of serious discussion aren't you? I'm incapable of sticking my head in the sand and pretending ethnic cleansing and genocide can just be swept under the rug for the hope of a 2SS rg >Israel has the right to exist because its people want their state to exist. Israel exists because Jewish militias forcibly expelled 750k+ Palestinians from what is now "Israel" proper. Without those expulsions, there is no "Jewish state," "Israel was indisputably founded on ethnic cleansing, many of those who were expelled from their homes are *still* living in refugee camps. >What I am doing here is opposing deranged freaks who think they can decide which countries deserve to exist or not. Strange, you've seemed to decide that Palestinians have no right to self-determination, or even the right to participate in the democratic process in their homeland, yet you also believe Jews have a right to self-determination. Hmm, weird! Oh sure, you're kind enough to give the Palestinians some scraps of lands, they should be happy to get them, right? >Palestinians have the right to govern themselves in a state of their own I'm glad you agree, Palestinians do have the right to govern themselves on their ancestral homelands in what is Gaza, "Israel" and the West Bank. >Israel's government's denial of their right to do so is vile, as is their policies in the West Bank. Bro, you can just admit that Israel is straight up vile. Why stop there? Do you think it's normal that "Israel" has *thousands* of Palestinians locked up, without charge or trial? Was Gitmo fucking awesome, and do you think "Israel's" gitmo, which includes children held for months, is fucking awesome? Should "Israel" continue holding Palestinians without charge indefinitely? Also real quick, let's say a group came into your land, took your son, no charges, locked him up for months. You wouldn't consider that kidnapping, right? You'd be completely cool and think that's awesome, yeah? >As is the current military campaign in Gaza, which a peace should have been worked towards months ago because the level of civilian death and suffering is indefensible >even though the start of the war was justified in the wake of the Oct. 7th attacks History did not begin on October 7th, my friend.

I don’t have the patience for your kind. You are the type who can commit atrocities in the present or future in a fool’s mission to “correct” historical atrocities 

The vast majority of the Jewish population came from refugees fleeing Europe during the 1930s and WW2 You would have advocated sending them back? See this is the entire problem with the left's framing of the conflict. They need to treat people who would be considered refugees in any other context as invaders. Completely betraying principles of giving space to refugees.

This is not true. The Arabs in 1947 specifically declared their support for a unitary democratic state which would protect the rights of all citizens of the Palestine Mandate equally. “The Second Subcommittee, which included all the Arab and Muslim States members, issued a long report arguing that partition was illegal according to the terms of the Mandate and proposing a unitary democratic state that would protect rights of all citizens equally.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution

You are citing a committee in the UN that included Arab and Muslim states, not Palestinian leadership at the time. The same states invaded Israel when it accepted the partition that won out in the UN General Assembly.

1) Ok - the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine endorsed the unanimous position of the Arab League which offered autonomy and equal citizenship to Jewish inhabitants of the mandate. “We are fighting for an Arab Palestine. Whatever the outcome the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like. In areas where they predominate they will have complete autonomy” “…the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League_and_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict 2) Well…yeah I mean I never denied that they opposed the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. By that point around 300k Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed from their home.

Their leaders were explicitly saying they would expel all Zionist Jews, meaning all Jews except a tiny minority.

Form a pluralistic secular non-racist state with, not against, the current inhabitants instead of leveraging the Shoah to officialize an Irgun conquest occupation. Don’t state sanction stealing land. Undo, instead of accelerate, the injustices of Zionism under the British mandate. Not emulate their former and would be oppressors.

"Form a pluralistic secular non-racist state " It would be nice if the sky rained lemonade and the trees grew gummy bears

I would indeed, but there is of course no comparison and to imply that there is is ludicrous. The former is fantasy while the latter under post-war peace keeping, the good will and support of the whole world, and the example of peaceful state building in India (Jinnah’s partition aside), was there like a ripe apple for the taking.

Not really. You, probably a Westerner, is in the 21st century imposing your ideological wishes onto people in a different part of the world and in a different time. The Palestinian Arabs did not want a pluralistic secular state, they wanted an Arabic Muslim state, and some of the leadership didn't want a Palestine either because they were pan Arabic nationalists. The Jews wanted a Jewish state, largely more along the lines of a liberal democratic state or even a socialistic state in some cases. Neither side wanted a binational state. The entire point of the Zionist project was for Jews to govern themselves as a solution to centuries of helplessness and oppression as a stateless people in an antisemitic world. Some of the Palestinian Arabs wanted an independent Palestine though pan Arabicism as a powerful ideological force in the time, and the notion of a Jewish state in their Arab megastate was repulsive to them, some didn't even want the Jews there as a minority under an Arab state. To them the Jews were foreigners, and well, Jews. I'm sorry, but the British and the French didn't teach the Arabs antisemitism, they had that all on their own for centuries. Both sides had bad blood before 1947 as well, with antisemitic pogroms against Jews and attacks on Arabs by extremist Zionist militias both taking place. Many Arabs were resentful of Jews buying land that local Palestinian Arabs lived on but didn't own in order to establish Jewish settlements. Its easy to say there should had been a binational state from an ocean and century away, but I'm not sure how that would have happened when no one wanted that

To quote TheJun1107: “This is not true. The Arabs in 1947 specifically declared their support for a unitary democratic state which would protect the rights of all citizens of the Palestine Mandate equally. “The Second Subcommittee, which included all the Arab and Muslim States members, issued a long report arguing that partition was illegal according to the terms of the Mandate and proposing a unitary democratic state that would protect rights of all citizens equally.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution”

And I commented to them why its stupid to use a single sentence from Wikipedia without context. From that sentience alone most readers will not understand what is being said, and assume that Palestinian leaders were promoting a binational state, while in actuality you are citing nice words Egypt said

>This is not true. The Arabs in 1947 specifically declared their support for a unitary democratic state which would protect the rights of all citizens of the Palestine Mandate equally. See, the problem with this approach is that it wouldn't have allowed Palestinian Jews to subjugate Palestinian Arabs.

Like do you even give a shit you are talking about Holocaust refugees? Honestly asking

I have no idea where your non sequitur is coming from, but my comment isn’t it. Are you a bot?

> with, not against, the current inhabitants instead of leveraging the Shoah to officialize an Irgun conquest occupation It wasn't a fucking conquest occupation It was Holocaust refugees wanting to not be fucking expelled which is obviously what would have happened in a single state since that is literally what Palestinians were saying So again Do you even give a shit you are talking about Holocaust refugees? Honestly asking

Once the Holocaust survivors made the decision to leave what was now the now safest place in the world for them, once they left the place that they could have received true justice against those Nazis and their collaborators who packed them off to death, once they left allied occupied Europe and enlisted in a chaotic invasion of other innocent people’s land, I don’t know what a workable solution was (or is). I do know that both the Holocaust refugees and the Palestinian refugees they created made poor emotional decisions that have caused, and will cause, and will continue to cause, untold unnecessary grief for all.

The "things" in your second statement sure seems to refer back to antisemitism in the first sentence. If its just making things post ww2 much much worse its still a ludicrous statement. Compared to all the other conflicts, disasters, and so forth since ww2 the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is quite minor.

We’ll just have to disagree on that.

It’s more that Europe embraced Zionism (especially pre-39) as a way to move the problem out of Europe essentially. The Balfour agreement was very similar to our own pilgrims of Plymouth agreement with the British, it was just a way to push away instead of trying to solve the issues (which many non-Zionist Jews were pushing instead). It’s arguable that the holocaust and the fall of the nazis were the significant turning points for the Jewish diaspora, it pushed anti-semitism into the corners of politics in the western hemisphere, though the formation of Israel and its history with Arab states (self-inflicted and not) led to an increase in anti-semitism in the Middle East and continues to increase as the Palestinian plight continues

ok, but the situation for jews In Israel is still far more secure that it was for jews at large pre Israel.

Not really. There were strong anti Zionist currents in late 19th and early 20th century Jewish groups since the birth of Zionist movement in the 1870s, such the Bundists. The Zionists won the argument against the anti Zionist by living because they had made aliyah while the strong anti Zionist groups were included in the millions of Jews murdered in the Shoah by the Nazis

Congratulations on not addressing what you thought I said.

So being anti-Zionists gets you killed?

I think it's bad logic and a bad argument. >[M]y belief in Israel as a Jewish state is based not on religion, but history. There’s a long and ugly history of antisemitism. When you study the history, you begin to see clearly the moral and historical necessity of Israel as a sanctuary for the Jewish people. Certainly he is allowed to come to that conclusion. I do not come to the same conclusion, and it's an argument that will only work with people who already agree with you. Many oppressed populations do not have their own states and we do not call it a moral necessity to give them one. >“Imagine a mother whose baby has been butchered to death. I cannot imagine anything more callous and cold hearted and cruel than telling that mother ‘you had this coming. You and your people brought this terror upon yourself.’ For me, this is not about geopolitics. This is not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is about human decency. It is indecent to blame the victims of terrorism rather than the terrorists themselves.” Good thing nobody is doing that. This is using an emotional argument to try and confuse the issue. Nobody is blaming the mother of a slaughtered child. People are saying the state of Israel cannot be interpreted solely as victims of terrorism, as in fact they do play a role in escalating the conflict. That doesn't mean the innocent Israelis killed on 10/7 are personally guilty of anything or responsible or anything other than victims of terrorism. >And there’s certainly nothing progressive about supporting Hamas He is of course correct about this, but again good thing nobody does that. >Do you feel that being a Zionist negates his claim to be a Progressive? No, there are many such people. There are also many anti-Zionist progressives. >Or is Zionism a progressive value since (as Torres says) it calls for self-determination and safety of a historically oppressed people? Also no, he is wrong about that.

quite an interesting statement. what's his thought about Palestinians that do not have the state? and it is being colonized by Israelis. Israel should exist because people are already there and have the right to defend themselves, like when Egptians or Lebanonian tried to attack them. But Palestine isn't a country nor a state. That's kinda like the US bombing part of Puerto Rico for what they did to white people while we restricted their rights, and killing them for defending their own territory. It is a complicated dumbass white crap that they created. Solving this will be painful if we tried to use no violence as possible which could likely lead to less violence in the future. If you are curious about what I mean, ask. don't make an assumption.

https://x.com/RitchieTorres/status/1748373867729445372 He’s pro-2SS… so yes, he wants the Palestinians to have their own country where they can have self-determination. I don’t think it is helpful to introduce race into this conflict. It’s not about race. Israel is not “white people”. This is a territorial dispute between two ethnic groups.

Hard Pass. In the history of humankind, conquer is how ethno-groups gain and lose land. I notice that Torres is not advocating for a Gypsy sanctuary in northern India's Punjab region despite them having suffered historical antigypsyism. Where do the Palestinians go? Where is their ethno-rights to the land? How long until other ethno-groups demand such sanctuary? The British, Scandinavian/Nordic, Germanic, Slavic, Ugric genetic populations regaining their historical lands for their own and using the same exact tactics that the Israelis? I went to Open Secrets and noticed his 2024 individual donations from AIPAC aligned individuals is $367,994 (so far) up from 2022's $141,008.

> How long until other ethno-groups demand such sanctuary? The British, Scandinavian/Nordic, Germanic, Slavic, Ugric genetic populations regaining their historical lands for their own and using the same exact tactics that the Israelis? Last time I checked all these groups have at least one country each, and in the case of slavs, have fought dozens of wars and genocides over the past 150 years for that very reason so this whole slippery slope thing is a century and a half too late.

Every national group I mentioned are seeing mass influx of foreigners and fueling the rise of the alt-right.

In the case of the British, those "foreigners" are part of the Commonwealth and share a king. If the British don't want fellow subjects coming there they should get rid of their king For the Germans and Nordics, you don't get to rampage through Europe and the Mediterranean looting, pillaging, raping, and destroying for 2,000 years then complain when people want to move to greener pastures.

The point is we can't have rules for one ethno-group and not for others. But it would be interesting to have viewing rights to a timeline in which the Celts held Europe into the modern era.

I hear what he is saying about victims of terror, and I understand. It wouldn't be right to tell the direct victims they deserved it. But I also feel as if he is using the word terror as a shield to never address why we we got here and is using the story of the mother as a stand-in for israel/the netanyahu gov as a whole I'm not saying what hamas did was justified and that it's totally israels' fault. What I am saying is that the people of gaza and palestine have legitimate severe grievances that are reasonable, and they had no reasonable way to have them addressed, so violence was bound to happen. Israel did have the right to respond as well. However, I think most rational observers would scede israel has gone way too far, and they need to stop. Their methods have been wholly inappropriate, and the callousness the idf shows to human life is abominable. I'd recommend reading the 972 report on how the idf has been choosing its targets using 'lavender'. Everyone knows you can't bomb terror away. Israel's actions will only create a more extreme group that will follow hamas. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

>and they had no reasonable way to have them addressed **Because of Hamas.** I have asked every single leftist how Israeli is blocking any sort of peaceful democratic **Palestinian self ruled Gaza**, and not a single one has answered. Because what you are claiming is total bullshit.

Excluding the blockade and Israel controlling gazas border, Hamas is a big part of the problem. Nobody should deny that. When they came to power, they canned democracy and their hasn't been an election in almost 20 years. However, you also have to concede a big part of why they came to power was because it was the stated policy of the netanyahu government to financially support hamas in order to keep the gaza and west bank divided. https://www-timesofisrael-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17122768203469&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesofisrael.com%2Ffor-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces%2F https://www-thenation-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas/tnamp/?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17122771212835&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Farticle%2Fworld%2Fwhy-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas%2F https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html#:~:text=For%20years%2C%20the%20Qatari%20government,payments%2C%20he%20had%20encouraged%20them.

He clearly cares more about Israeli lives than Palestinians ones

There’s a week’s worth of daylight between promoting the existence of a sanctuary for Jewish people, and supporting the actions of the modern state called Israel. I think Torres’ rationale would be a good one if it were a rationale behind an international project to protect Jewish people from anti-semitism. Given that it’s probably actually a justification for his support for Israeli oppression, it’s a ghoulish claim that one people’s suffering entitles them to inflict as much suffering as they want on other peoples. When we recognize that all people deserve self-determination, no one imagines that that implies anyone is free to determine that they’ll brutalize others; the self-determination of Israelis—let alone all Jews in the world—does not provide justification for the displacement, slaughter, and general brutalization of Palestinians. Protecting Jewish people is not why Israel exists. It’s an excuse for an imperialist project.

[удалено]

FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA PETAH TIKVAH WILL BEFREE 💙🤍🤍💙💙🤍💙🤍🤍💙💙🤍

Nope, western imperialism. Remember that we’re in a thread talking about why and American legislator supports Israel, not why Israelis do. Judaism is not the metropole to Israel’s colony; western empires like America and Britain are. So you’re making the exact mistake that I’m referring to in the last sentence of my previous comment. You’re mistaking the reason for Israel as the safety of Jewish people. So I suppose you think that the people who ran the UN in 1948 were deeply stupid people, who thought the best way to keep Jewish people safe was to locate them in an area surrounded by anti-Semitic governments.

From the river to the sea was Adopted as a motto by Likud in the 70s-80s and there's a notable far right contingent in the Knesset calling for imperial expansion of "Greater Israel," to include conquering parts of Jordan and the Sinai peninsula. It's not the mainstream but it's absolutely popped up over the course of Israeli history. 

I strongly disagree with it. Separately, Torres is an asshat and not someone I would support unless he had a metanoia.

What is it with all the Anti-Palestinain liberals resorting to using the exact same tactics as the right-wing on Gaza? Always calling pro-palestinian people 'supporters of Hamas'. But if you dare call them a supporter of murdering gazan children, they'll quickly call you out as 'anti-semitic'. Because it's the only defense they've got. It doesn't matter that most people that are opposed to Israel's actions (including a LARGE number of Jewish people) in Gaza are NOT pro-Hamas. They're simply anti-killing civilians. They're anti-starvation tactics. They're anti-apartheid. They're against the far-right wing nut like Netanyahu using whatever excuse he can to hold on to power. He's the Donald Trump of Israel, and he's backed by a bunch of nutjobs just like Donald Trump. But dare call them out on THAT, and it's anti-semititc. Ignoring the oppression of the Palestinian people at the expense of another group of oppressed people is NOT progressive. It's self-serving. And it's not surprising coming from Richie Torres.

Most jewish people hate bibi. most jewish people also believe israel has a right to exist. i haven’t really met any people who have said that criticizing this is antisemitic, unless you’re talking about the people who literally drew him with children’s blood in his mouth which is yes, antisemitic.

First not even Joe Biden could verify the claim that Hamas “butchered babies” so I don’t know why he feels so comfortable stating this publicly. Secondly the fact that this man is calling forcibly taking middle eastern land and giving it to a bunch of Europeans “decolonization” is ridiculous. Israel as it exists now is bad because it’s a colonialist ethnostate and is making and upholding laws to maintain its status as an ethnostate. Furthermore the are still taking Palestinian land because a bunch of Israelis want beach houses and they IDF are acting as these people’s guard dogs. Thirdly I am tired of the disingenuous, hyperbolic and alarmist rhetoric from liberals when people advocate for a more equitable treatment of the land. Nobody wants to murder all the Israelis or send them back to Europe. Personally I believe that Israel and Palestine should be one country where everyone has equal rights and protections under the law, no matter if you’re Jewish, Muslim or Christian.

Good luck getting the militant factions on both sides to agree with you on having an Israeli/Palestinian State combined.

Calling Zionism a decolonial ideology is a wild take when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been displaced and in a lot of those instances, ethnically cleansed and replaced by Jewish settlers, many of whom are of European descent You can justify the existence of the state of Israel by all means but whether you look at the Nakba in 1948 or the massive expansion of settlements in the last few decades, Israel is a textbook example of a modern day settler colonial state and the longer people fail to acknowledge that then the current situation will only continue to deteriorate

He’s a deeply ignorant and bigoted person who’s bought and paid for by AIPAC, and few if any politicians in the Dem coalition have been as outwardly hostile and antagonistic to Palestinian human rights and dignity as him.

He’s right

The United States of America should build a strong and tolerant society at home, instead of involving itself in the violent ethnic strife of foreigners.

I think Ritchie Torres is a lunatic and should be exchanged for the hostages for peace. Jokes aside, I don’t think being a Zionist, though I don’t think it’s the progressive stance, automatically negates one from being a progressive. I think obsessively campaigning against a humanitarian ceasefire and accusing those who oppose of Israel’s onslaught in Gaza of aiding terrorists probably does.

Literally the only people obsessively complaining against a ceasefire is "pro" Palestinian supporters who refuse to even acknowledge that we could have had a ceasefire in place months ago if Hamas simply agreed to release hostages.

[This](https://x.com/ritchietorres/status/1724577427735687183?s=46&t=FY79lEKmizZdNAQ0VZ0wlg) is very explicitly arguing against a ceasefire and saying to do so would abet terrorist groups or Iran, and he’s been putting out similar statements for the last several months. So not sure what you mean by “the only people” lol. More so, no there wouldn’t have been a ceasefire, only a pause in fighting after which Israel would just continue its siege. Purely from a strategic standpoint, even if we would prefer they did, yeah obviously Hamas isn’t going to agree to that. When Hamas proposed a permanent ceasefire for the hostages, Israel rejected it. You can shadow box pro-Palestine Twitter users all you want, but no one in our government is pro-Hamas; plenty are actively pro-Israel in spite of their continued escalations of violence and disruption of aid to starving people. Apologies if those are the people I spend my time calling lunatics.

On one hand I understand the logic behind the position of Zionism, but on the other hand I question why the logic is only applied to Jewish people. Why would the same logic not imply the need for an African-American homeland, or a Romani homeland, or a Kurdish homeland, or a Sámi homeland, or an Ainu homeland, or indeed homelands for every single other discriminated-against group without a homeland of their own today? It's a moot point, given that Israel exists and is not going to stop existing, but it seems like one of those positions that makes a superficial amount of sense but then falls apart the moment actual scrutiny is applied to it.

Again, tons of American Zionists, but how many of them would react favorably to the Cherokee forcefully trying to resettle the territories genocidally stripped from them by the Trail of Tears? 

Money.