reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Jews who follow the Torah have always opposed Zionism and the state of Israel because it goes against our beliefs. The creation of Israel involved occupying and oppressing another people, which violates human rights and international norms. It also contradicts Jewish beliefs. We stand in solidarity with the suffering people of Palestine and believe that everything Israel does to Palestinians goes against our religion. The only solution is a peaceful dismantlement of Israel, as there was peace in Palestine before its creation.

Some people claim Jews have too much power, wealth, and influence, particularly in media. I disagree with those who want us to apologetically deny our strength. We've earned our influence through our contributions. We should never be sorry for using our strength to promote peace. The path to peace for Jewish people and the nation comes through strength. Jews have disproportionately founded or led movements like Marxism, humanism, socialism, environmentalism, and feminism. On the topic of Jewish individuals owning much of the media, funding politicians, and leading in movements such as the intellectual lead in combating the initiatives that was proposed, I largely agree. I believe Jews often take the intellectual lead in movements where possible, like civil rights. I can look into the issue of Jews creating issues and dividing people.

I believe the rise in antisemitism stems from Europe's ongoing struggle to embrace multiculturalism. This transformation is essential for Europe's survival, as it can no longer exist as the monolithic societies of the past. Jews are central to this shift, and while our leading role may cause resentment, it is crucial for Europe's future. The continent is in a multicultural transition, and we are at the heart of it.

Antisemitism is a bit of like a virus. And like some viruses, it exists in the kind of body politic and it's dormant like chickenpox. It can manifest again when you're older because of stress or age as shingles. It's as old as time. We faced it for thousands of years. First it was after the, you know, the death of Christ. There were these accusations that the Jews killed Christ and that the Jews weren't a real religion because we didn't accept Christ and then we didn't accept Mohammed. We had inquisitions. Then it was, okay, well, maybe Judaism is okay as a religion, but it's the Jewish race that isn't legitimate. Now it's the Jewish state that's illegitimate. We see that now in the form of anti Zionism, which is anti Semitism.

Zionism, a political philosophy behind Israel, is distinct from Judaism. The founder, Theodor Herzl, was an atheist seeking a state for Jews. Zionism is labeled as satanic, imperialistic, and racist for displacing Palestinians through terrorism. The speaker urges the US to stop funding Israel and instead support the homeless domestically.

As a Jewish person, I want to make it clear that I am against the existence of the Zionist State of Israel. The oppression and cruelty inflicted upon the Palestinian people is not in the name of our religion or the star of David. Judaism, as stated in the Torah, forbids Jews from having our own sovereignty since the destruction of the temples. True followers of Judaism do not aspire to have our own state or take land from the Palestinians. This goes against the principles of my religion.

What I’m about to say now, most people in conspiracy research won’t touch this subject. I’m going to touch it because I’m sick of it and sick of people being frightened and intimidated into not touching it. First of all, we as a human race have got to get our heads around what this is because it ain’t what we’re told it is. It’s not about what’s right and beneficial for Jewish people. Jewish people are its victims, not its beneficiaries. Jewish people have been hung out to dry again and again by this crowd. They claim to have their best interests at heart like hell they do. That’s why I call this Rothschild Zionism. It was created by them. It is controlled by them to this minute, and it was created as a secret society within the web to massively contribute to the manipulation and control of our global society and individual countries, etcetera, etcetera. It’s Rothschild Zionism. Anti Zionism is not antisemitism. Not that antisemitism means what we think it does. Zionism is not about Jewish people. Even in its play out way or world, it is political system, a political philosophy. At its core, it is a secret society putting its agents in places of power. One of the very few things that Joe Biden, vice president of The United States, has ever said, which is true, is you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. Because of the propaganda, we equate Zionism with Jewish people. It’s not how it is. How many people know this? How many Jewish people around the world protesting at organizations created to protest against Zionism? Zionism and Judaism are diametrically opposed. Zionism is state organized terror. How many times do we see this in the newspapers? Never. End of Zionism equals peace. Israel, stop killing Palestinians. I am Jewish, and I want that. Why do we hear about this? We condemn any Zionist aggression against Iran. I thought every Jewish person in the world wanted to bomb Iran. That’s what the media seemed to give us an indication about. Another Jew against Zionism. Over and over, Rothschild dynasty created Israel. It paid for the first people out of Europe to go and populate Israel after the war. It paid for the building of the Knesset. It paid for the building of the supreme court building with all its illuminati symbols all over it. And some of the people who’ve broken out of the family, I quote one of them in my book, have actually said, Israel is not the homeland of Jewish people. It is the fiefdom of the Rothschild dynasty created out of Rothschild Zionism, a secret society. And Rothschild Zionism has been used via Israel to devastate, slaughter, torture an entire nation of human beings while claiming to be against terrorism. This is the dictionary definition of genocide, the systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. Never can what is happening in Palestine and Gaza have been described so accurately. More and more people killed through war, killed through bombing attacks, killed through shootings, killed through lack of food and adequate medical care. Gaza, the most crowded piece of land on earth, is little more ironically than a concentration camp, and the world looks on. And then we got this wall, sorry, security fence, which has taken great tracks of Palestinian land, right all against international law and all the rest of it. This green is Palestinian land in 1946. Then we see what has happened since. This is 2000. We're in 2010 now. It’s much smaller than that. What was I saying? The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national racial, religious, or ethnic group. And I say to these Rothschild Zionists, don’t you bloody dare talk about racism of others when you are behind this. It’s an elephant in the bloody living room, and people are terrified of going there because they’re terrified of being called racist and antisemitic and all that. They’ll call you antisemitic. I don’t give a shit. I don’t give a shit.

Israel and its supporters deliberately foment hate and division in our society. I’ve noticed a lot of angry comments underneath my posts these past few days, which bizarrely mention the words Islam and Muslims completely out of the blue. Why don’t you turn your attention sometimes to the genocidal intent of the radical Muslims, or does that suit your racist narrative? Reads one tweet. What can you say about Islamic jihadist Muslims murdering thousands of Christians in Sudan and other parts of Africa, reads another. The Muslims must be eradicated, reads another. There are too many examples to quote here, but here’s what’s so funny about all this. I haven’t been saying anything about Islam or Muslims on Twitter. I’ve been tweeting about Israel. Hasparists just babble about Islam when they can’t defend Israel’s actions. It is not a coincidence that they’ve been doing this. In September, Drop Site News published a leaked polling report that had been commissioned by the Israeli government which found that while Israel’s reputation is crumbling throughout the Western world, one way to salvage it would be to foment panic about Muslims. Dropsight News reports the following: Israel’s best tactic to combat this, according to the study, is to foment fear of radical Islam and jihadism, which remains high, the research finds, By highlighting Israeli support for women’s rights and gay rights, while elevating concerns that Hamas wants to destroy all Jews and spread jihadism, Israeli support rebounded by an average of 20 points in each country. Especially once the situation in Gaza is resolved, the room for growth in all countries is very significant, the report concludes. So if you speak critically about Israel online and suddenly find your replies inundated with Zionists shrieking about Islam and Muslims, that’s why. Their research has concluded that convincing Westerners to hate Muslims is easier than convincing them to love Israel. In addition to committing genocide and starting wars and working to stomp out free speech throughout the Western world, Israel is also doing everything it can to make our society more racist and hateful. A foreign state is actively fomenting division and discord in Western countries in exactly the way Western Empire apologists claimed Putin was doing at the height of Russia hysteria. Because it’s a Western ally, though, nothing is being done to stop it. In addition to being evil and disgusting, this tactic is also just sloppy argumentation. Deflection is the lowest form of argument. Even if Islam really was as dangerous as they pretend it is, and even if Muslims really did present a threat to our society, pointing this out would not address a single criticism of Israel. Yelling Muslims bad does not magically erase Israel’s abuses or address the grievances of its critics. It just diverts attention to another target and says, Stop looking at Israel’s actions and hate those people instead. Mention Israel, and you’ll get Hosperists babbling about Islam. But Islam and Israel are not opposites, and the mention of one has no bearing on the other. One is a worldwide religion with nearly 2,000,000,000 adherents, while the other is a genocidal apartheid state, Framing the issue as a conflict between two diametrically opposed parties is a false dichotomy created by propagandists and manipulators. And that’s exactly the false dichotomy Netanyahu is trying to feed into when he tells Americans that Israel is in an alliance with Christianity against radical Shiite Islam and radical Sunni Islam, calling it our common Judeo Christian civilization’s battle. He’s working to foment fear of Islam among Americans to boost support for Israel. All this to manufacture consent for human butchery and apartheid. Israel could improve its support among Westerners by simply ending its genocidal atrocities in Gaza and ceasing to try to start a war between The US and Iran, but instead it’s working around the clock to foment racism and division while demanding increased censorship and authoritarianism to stomp out pro Palestine sentiment throughout Western society. Israel is doing this because it cannot exist in its present iteration as a state without nonstop violence and abuse. Under the political ideology known as Zionism, peace, justice, truth, and freedom are simply not an option.

Israel has a right to exist and is a vital democracy. Amid rising anti-Semitism, some Jewish individuals may feel they can handle the situation alone, but I believe it's essential to oppose anti-Semitism regardless. It is wrong, unjust, and evil. Similarly, if my Catholic friends faced bigotry and felt they could manage it themselves, I would still stand against that bigotry because it is also wrong and unjust.

A Jewish speaker opposes Zionism, stating that it is not anti-Semitism to be against it. They share personal experiences of facing backlash for their beliefs. They explain that Zionism is a movement that started 150 years ago by Jews who were not practicing their religion and wanted a homeland. However, Judaism forbids having their own state. They highlight the historical support and acceptance Jews received from Muslim countries. The speaker criticizes the Zionist movement for disregarding the rights of Palestinians and accuses them of using PR tactics and political pressure to silence opposition. They emphasize their belief in coexistence with Muslims and express empathy for Palestinian suffering.

For 5000 years, Jewish people faced persecution, mainly from white European Christians. Palestinians didn't contribute to atrocities like Auschwitz or turning away Jewish refugees. The real enemy is white Christian Europeans, not Palestinians. The question remains: why are 2 million Palestinians in an open-air prison?

Rothschild Zionism, not Jewish people, is the problem. Jewish people are its victims. Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism because Zionism is a political system, a secret society placing its agents in power. One doesn't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. Many Jewish people protest Zionism, and Zionism and Judaism are diametrically opposed. Zionism is state-organized terror, yet this is not reported. The Rothschild dynasty created Israel and paid for its infrastructure, including the Knesset and Supreme Court. Israel is not the homeland of Jewish people but the Rothschild dynasty's fiefdom, created out of Rothschild Zionism. It has been used to devastate and slaughter Palestinians while claiming to be against terrorism. This is genocide: the systematic extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. Gaza is a concentration camp, and Palestinian homes are being demolished and given to extremist settlers.

Judaism is a centuries-old religion, while Zionism is a newer movement that transformed religion into nationalism and materialism. Non-religious Jews who disliked Judaism created Zionism, initially considering Uganda as a location for a Jewish state. They used Jewish symbols and names to legitimize their existence and silence criticism by labeling it as anti-Semitic. However, this is far from the truth. Muslim countries, like Turkey, have historically been supportive of Jewish people. Zionism goes against the teachings of the Torah, which forbids Jews from having their own state. The creation of Israel in Palestine, a land already inhabited by Palestinians, contradicts the principles of compassion and non-violence. Many Jews, including rabbis, oppose Zionism and its actions.

I was arrested, interrogated, and threatened multiple times. Western countries need stricter immigration laws to prevent our defeat. People label us as Islamophobes, but if you examine the text and history, you'll see how Muslims have historically applied hate towards Jews and Christians. In 1948, when Israel was established, all Muslim countries expelled Jews, resulting in 830,000 deaths. Hate is the underlying cause, and it is deeply ingrained in Islam.

If I were Jewish, I would support Zionism. However, my father made it clear that being Jewish is not a requirement to be a Zionist. Israel plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety of Jews all over the world.

Speaker 0 expresses support for Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself, but says they have to do this because they simply have no option if they are to survive as a country, and frankly, in many ways, as a race in that part of the world. Speaker 1 asks whether immigration represents a major threat to Britain from a demographic perspective, noting that in the last twenty years the white British population has declined from 87% to 74%, and asks if that is a concern. Speaker 0回答: No. No. Speaker 1 reiterates the claim of rapid demographic change, stating that the fastest and most rapid decline of the white British population ever experienced in British history has occurred in a tiny short period of time, and that majority cities that were once 90% white British are now majority ethnic minorities, citing London, Leicester, and Birmingham, and asks why this isn’t a concern of Speaker 0. Speaker 0 responds: But they're not unrecognizable as being English because of skin color. They're unrecognizable because of culture. He adds that he genuinely thinks the British are the most open minded, most accepting people.

Europe is experiencing a resurgence of antisemitism because it hasn't learned to be multicultural. Europe is undergoing a transformation from the monolithic societies of the last century, and Jews are at the center of this. Jews will be resented for their leading role in Europe's shift to multiculturalism. Without that leading role and transformation, Europe will not survive.

I have strong ties to Israel, rooted in my Jewish background. My family fled pogroms in Eastern Europe, and my grandfather's name is Israel. I grew up attending Sunday school as a reformed Jew. I deeply care about Israel's future and do not want to see it harmed.

Jonathan (Speaker 0) and Michael (Speaker 2) along with Jonathan Conricus (Speaker 1) discuss the Australia Hanukkah attack, antisemitism, and the political context surrounding Palestinian statehood and Islamist extremism. They also touch on free speech, protests, and potential international implications. - Jonathan’s initial reaction to the Australian shooting: He was not surprised, framing it as part of a broader pattern he terms “globalize the Intifada.” He cites experiences in Australia, including Bondi Beach visits and conversations with the Jewish community, who he says feel betrayed by legislators and exposed by law enforcement. He argues the atmosphere in Australia has allowed antisemitic attacks, with radicals allowed to shout antisemitic slogans and attack synagogues. He accuses the Australian government of being weak and cowed, quick to side with Hamas and Palestinians while demonizing Israel, and contends this climate enabled violence against 2,000 Australian Jews celebrating Hanukkah. He calls for full support and protection for Jews in Australia and for leadership to change its stance toward global affairs. - Netanyahu connection and limiting principle: Michael notes Netanyahu’s August letter to Australian Prime Minister Albanese warning that support for a Palestinian state fuels antisemitic violence and benefits Hamas. Conricus is asked about a limiting principle: could endorsing Palestinian statehood by various figures (Ehud Barak, the UN Security Council’s Oslo-era blueprint, etc.) be linked to such attacks, potentially implicating many figures including Donald Trump? Conricus responds that the situation in Australia goes beyond a mere recognition of a Palestinian state and highlights the disquiet in Israel across political spectrum about linking Israel’s actions to global support for Palestinian statehood, especially after October 7 atrocities. - Protests and incitement: Jonathan argues the protests in Australia, including chants like “gas the Jews,” reflect incitement and a broader systemic failure by authorities who allowed Hamas supporters to dominate public spaces and harass Jews. He recounts encounters with Hamas supporters in Melbourne and claims police and local government enabled harassment against Jews, including demands Jews remove kippahs to avoid incitement. He says hate crimes against synagogues have gone unsolved and that this atmosphere of violence and antisemitism needs to change. - Pro-Palestinian vs pro-Hamas distinction: Michael asks where to draw the line between pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas protesters. Conricus argues the distinction is artificial and notes that polls show Hamas is the most popular Palestinian political group, suggesting that many demonstrators imply support for Hamas even if they do not explicitly say so. He believes the dominant sentiment among protesters on October 7-8 was supportive of Hamas, even if framed as pro-Palestinian nationalism. He also mentions paid protesters, particularly in US/UK campus contexts, but emphasizes ideologically driven protesters. - Free speech and incitement: Michael insists that if protests include chants and actions that incite violence, this becomes a free-speech issue, citing First Amendment protections in the US and contrasting with other countries. Jonathan counters that incitement can justify restriction when it explicitly calls for violence against a protected group, noting that “gas the Jews” crosses lines beyond free speech, and criticizes Australian authorities’ tolerance of violent incitement. - Chronology and retaliation: The participants discuss the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent response. Jonathan clarifies that Hamas conducted an unprecedented, unprovoked attack killing 1,200 Israelis, with later identification of missing and abducted individuals. He describes Israel’s border closure and subsequent major offensive in Gaza. Michael points out debates around whether attackers’ motives included broader geopolitical narratives, while Jonathan underscores the gravity and scale of the October 7 killings and the need to acknowledge the initial atrocity. - Islam and Western integration: Jonathan addresses Islam as a monotheistic faith with nearly 2 billion followers, expressing no issue with Islam as a religion but concern about Islamist ideology and an imperialistic mindset. He cites Sweden’s immigration policy as an example of perceived societal strain and argues for cautions about cultural integration, border policies, and governance standards in Western societies. - Acknowledgment of individual bravery: They remark on Ahmed Ben Ahmed, a Muslim shop owner who helped defend Jews during the Australian attack, acknowledging his bravery and suggesting he should be recognized for valor. - Iran, Israel, and alleged blame: The discussion covers claims about Iran or Israel behind the attack. Michael asserts there is no evidence linking Mossad or Iran to the attack, while Jonathan suggests Iranian involvement is possible but not proven, noting Iranian propaganda and the potential for blowback, while maintaining that the attackers’ exact affiliations remain unclear. They note Iranian condemnation of the attacks, with skepticism about Iranian statements.

Zionism relies on antisemitism for support, with organizations like the Anti Defamation League inflating incidents to stay relevant. Israel fuels antisemitism, creating a hostile environment for Muslims, Christians, and even Jews who just want to live normally.

As a Jewish person, I want to make it clear that I am against the existence of the Zionist state of Israel. The oppression and cruelty inflicted upon the Palestinian people is not in the name of our religion or the Star of David. Judaism and the Torah forbid Jews from having our own sovereignty since the destruction of the temples. We are also forbidden from killing or stealing. Taking land away from the Palestinians goes against my religion and is completely contradictory.

There's a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe due to its struggle with multiculturalism. Europe is undergoing a significant transformation and will no longer be the monolithic society it was in the past. Jews will play a central role in this change, which may lead to resentment. However, this transformation is essential for Europe's future survival.

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

Speaker 0 describes the Gaza war as a response to the horrors of October 7, noting he has been to Gaza since the war began and that entering is restricted (the IDF is the only way in). He describes Gaza as a flattened place and calls the situation a disaster for the future of Israel and for the Palestinian people, with 70,000 deaths mentioned. He asserts the catastrophe is a disaster for families of the dead and for children. Speaker 1 counters that tens of thousands of civilians murdered represent a disaster for the future of Israel, but emphasizes that the real crime in Gaza is killing people who did nothing wrong. He critiques the idea that people are labeled anti-Semitic, arguing that naming accusations can silence legitimate concerns, and insists the real problem is the harm in Gaza. Speaker 0 turns to the question of Israel’s right to exist and Zionism, asking whether the respondent believes in the narrow definition of Zionism as the state of Israel having the right to continue existing. Speaker 1 pushes for definitions, distinguishing between “right to exist” and “should continue to go on as a nation state.” He asks for clarification on what the right to exist means, noting the term’s use as a political construct and questioning what “right” means in this context. Speaker 0 reframes, asking whether Israel should continue to exist, and whether the respondent seeks Israel’s destruction. Speaker 1 responds that he does not seek Israel’s destruction and does not want anyone to be killed, particularly innocents, and emphasizes a stance against killing innocents as a basis of Western civilization; he states he does not identify as a Zionist and does not understand the term, urging a definition. He reiterates he does not want Israel destroyed or to use nuclear weapons. Speaker 0 mentions the broader historical frame of Zionism, asking again about the right to exist in narrow terms. Speaker 1 again questions the usefulness of the term and emphasizes a preference for universal standards, arguing he believes in human rights that derive from the creation of people by God, rather than ethnic or group-specific rights. He asserts he supports universal human rights for all people, regardless of ethnicity or religion. In sum, the dialogue moves from the Gaza war’s human cost and the resulting disaster for civilians and future prospects, to a debate over Zionism and Israel’s right to exist, and culminates in a commitment to universal human rights and opposition to collective punishment or destruction of innocents.

A Jewish individual speaks out against Zionism, stating that it is not anti-Semitism to oppose it. They mention facing backlash and vandalism for their beliefs. They explain that Zionism is a movement that started 150 years ago by Jews who were disconnected from their religion and sought a homeland. However, Judaism forbids the establishment of a Jewish state, as Jews are meant to be loyal citizens in every country they reside. They highlight the historical support and acceptance Jews received from Muslim countries. They criticize the Zionist movement for disregarding the rights of Palestinians and accuse them of using PR tactics to silence opposition. They express solidarity with Palestinians and hope for a world that recognizes the truth.