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

[Nanjeanne]

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

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

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

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

[Chasstev365]

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

[malaise]

2. K & R

That is all

[JustAnotherGen]

3. All I care about in 2026

Is Black Voting Rights, Civil Rights, and Liberties.

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

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

DGAF.

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

[Ponietz]

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

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

[yardwork]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ponietz]

8. What about what about?

SMDH

[paleotn]

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

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

[Bettie]

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

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

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

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

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

No. They aren't.

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

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

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

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

[JustAnotherGen]

15. I think you mean 22%

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

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

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

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

[JustAnotherGen]

16. I think you mean 22%

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

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

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

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

[LeftInTX]

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

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


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


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

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

[H2O Man]

55. Respectfully disagree.

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

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

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

[LeftInTX]

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

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

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

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

[H2O Man]

57. Yeah.

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

[LeftInTX]

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

[LeftInTX]

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

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

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

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

[JustAnotherGen]

68. The entire country

has a white supremacy problem.

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

[Beartracks]

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

The status quo loves their apathy.

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

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

[yardwork]

5. This white woman is voting with you.

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

[H2O Man]

40. As is this decrepit Irish rebel.

[Bettie]

65. Older white woman, Black voters,

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

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

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

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

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

[BaronChocula]

81. Not to mention

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

[Martin68]

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

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

[yardwork]

23. FFS.

How will voting for Democrats hurt Latinos? No sympathy?

[Martin68]

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

Liberties."

[yardwork]

26. You know what she meant.

[Martin68]

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

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

[H2O Man]

37. Respectfully disagree.

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

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

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

[JustAnotherGen]

71. I'm a Black American before

I'm a Democratic.

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

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

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

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

[electric_blue68]

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

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

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

[H2O Man]

50. This is why

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

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

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

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

[JustAnotherGen]

72. You get me H2O Man

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

[KPN]

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

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

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

[slightlv]

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

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

[leftstreet]

7. DURec

[harumph]

9. That is the healthy thoughtful attitude.

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

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

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

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

[twodogsbarking]

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

[MaryMagdaline]

11. Well said!

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

[BeneteauBum]

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

Peace ☮️

[David__77]

13. Good statement.

[Celerity]

14. K & R

[Johnny2X2X]

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

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

[Sympthsical]

24. Sometimes it's like watching a klan rally

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

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

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

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

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

[mopinko]

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

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

[Johnny2X2X]

34. I disagree

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

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

[Nanjeanne]

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

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

[SunImp]

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

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

[Ponietz]

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

[Mossfern]

79. I'm honestly confused by this

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

[Nanjeanne]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sympthsical]

39. There's not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Violet_Crumble]

86. Sorry, but there is

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

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

And

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

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


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

[mopinko]

31. it is in my mind, but

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

[Johnny2X2X]

35. It's also in the wrong forum

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

[mopinko]

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

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

[Johnny2X2X]

49. Yeah

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

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

[muriel_volestrangler]

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

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

[mopinko]

47. words mean things.

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

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. No, it doesn't just mean that

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

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

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

[Eko]

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

[Blue Full Moon]

18. Look up Yitzhak Rabin and Yeshayahu Leibowitz

[patphil]

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

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

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

[chowder66]

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

[NoRethugFriends]

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

Unless I'm missing something

[sarisataka]

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

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

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

[Initech]

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

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

[patphil]

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

[enid602]

43. Food

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

[mopinko]

52. they're eating now.

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

[enid602]

58. Aid

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

[AloeVera]

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

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

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

[AloeVera]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PatSeg]

44. Very well said

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

[gulliver]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AloeVera]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gulliver]

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

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

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

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

[AloeVera]

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

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

What can we call such people? Hmmm...

[yellow dahlia]

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

He is rational and demonstrates a moral compass.

[MustLoveBeagles]

53. Kick

[KPN]

64. Hear hear!

[MineralMan]

78. I'm uniformly indifferent to all religions

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

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

Leave religion and its prejudices out of it.

[Cheezoholic]

84. 1000% n/t