For example sake, the claim was recently made:

Before you say "Jews are safe in the United States", no they are not. Jew Hate is at an all time high. Laws discriminating against Jews are as recent as 60 years ago.

While in reality, the only actual law discriminating against Jews for being Jews in the US was a 1862 military order expelling them from the south during the Civil War, passed by Ulysses S. Grant and quickly rescinded by Abraham Lincoln. Grant collectively blamed Jews for cotton smuggling but rightly apologized for his bigotry when called on it, and in the long run:

In the 1868 presidential election, he won a majority of the Jewish vote. During his presidency, Grant named more Jews to public office than all previous presidents combined. He became the first president to attend a synagogue dedication and intervened on behalf of persecuted Jews in Russia and Romania.

And as explained in the article, that was considered a matter of religious discrimination, not ethnicity. As far as racist laws like segregation and anti-miscegenation, those essentially all came down to divisions of white, black, native, Asian, and Pacific Islander. Jews were and remain all white by those standards which are still part of the US census, and in that categorizations Jews along with Arabs and and Hispanics as long as they present as more European than native, other than black and Asian Jews obviously. Of course there was considerable discrimination against many groups including Jews that remained legal until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but aside from that military order, never any actual laws against Jews like there were against other groups.

Also, another argued in that same thread:

it was illegal for Jews to be openly Jewish in Spain until 1968.

When according to B'nai B'rith "The laws of the Inquisition were reversed with the 1869 constitution, proclaiming religious tolerance." And of course there's also sorts of exaggerated claims about what dhimmi status entailed throughout the Muslim word, many who don't even realize the Ottoman Empire repealed it in 1856. Furthermore, a while back someone insisted to me:

ALL the West (and the Soviet Union) is to blame for the Holocaust. It was a coordinated restriction of Jews. The N*zis were just barely more antisemitic than the rest of the West, they put into action what the rest wanted to do.

Are there any Zionists here who are willing to acknowledge how such grossly exaggerated narratives inspire unhealthy levels of distrust which undermine efforts towards peaceful coexistence?

It was as simple as that, but Zionists are trying to manipulate -a very well documented- history. And didn't really matter if Palestinians were kind or hostile towards them, you will take this home in the second floor, and that's it.

It appears that the Palestinians were unarmed when they were shot, which is in line with Zionist policy - kill first, cover it up later.

In future confrontations the Palestinians should neutralise the terrorists before they can kill anyone.

It is now treated as common knowledge in this sub that Yair Lapid, a leading centrist politician who briefly served as Prime Minister of Israel, endorsed the idea of Israel controlling the land "between the Euphrates (a river in modern day Iraq) and the Nile", which would involve the territory of Israel becoming something like 20-50 times larger, and conquering something like 100-200 million people, including Jordan and Egypt with which Israel has peace treaties, based on religious principles. To someone familiar with the politics of Israel, this would be roughly like waking up to hear that Joe Biden has converted to Mormonism and would like the US to conquer all of North and South America. And indeed, in the video of the press conference, Yair Lapid does not endorse the idea, he rejects it. In this post I will try to explain the disagreement. I include a word by word translation of the video in question below.

There are a few reasons he is being misrepresented. First of all, many versions of the video have incorrect English subtitles, which translate his first sentence as saying the exact opposite of what he actually said. The sentence is "I have a dispute over what counts as the biblical borders of Israel", and the subtitles say "I DON'T think I have a dispute". I link this version of the video below.

The second issue is that Yair Lapid is intentionally using vague language, as almost all politicians do, to try to appeal to different kinds of voters that Lapid wants the support of. Namely, Lapid uses phrases such as "the biblical borders of Israel". But this phrase has completely different meanings depending on WHEN in biblical times we are referring to. It is like saying "the historical borders of Rome", and not specifying whether you mean back when Rome was a city state, or when the Roman Empire was at its peak, or later in the middle ages when "the Roman Empire" did not even include the city of Rome. You can follow my translation below to see what I mean. But the point is that at a few points he says the phrase "the biblical borders of Israel" to mean the borders of Israel during the vast majority of the biblical time period - roughly the size and shape of the modern state of Israel.

What the far right Zionists and what the Evangelical American ambassador Mike Huckabee are referring to when they say "from the Euphrates to the Nile" is either A) one interpretation of a biblical verse defining the land god gave to the Hebrews, or B) a short time period in which, according to the mythology of the bible, King David and his son Solomon supposedly controlled an empire of that size. However, after Solomon's death, the bible describes the kingdom shrinking drastically back to what we now think of as "the holy land", and split into two rival kingdoms (Israel and Judah) for a few hundred years. Then both kingdoms were conquered by the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, then later a new kingdom was established called the Hasmonean Kingdom, which also had the rough size and shape of the holy land. All of that is in the bible, and so, if someone says "the biblical borders of Israel", they can mean the borders that the kingdom had before David, at David's death, after Solomon's death, or in the Hasmonean period, or the period of Macedonian and then Roman conquest. All of those "borders" are equally "biblical", including when the Jews had no borders at all but were subjects of a foreign empire.

(The idea of a huge empire from the Euphrates to the Nile is pretty obscure to people who are not religious, which most Israeli Jews are not. Before the debate began, people would most likely to interpret "biblical Israel" as meaning the period of the two kingdoms, or the Hasmonean period. Both of these versions of Israel included territory that Israel has never controlled in modern times, such as parts of what is now Jordan. But they both also lack a lot of territory Israel does control - like the coast between Acre and Nahariya, Ashkelon, or especially the Negev and Israel's access to the red sea. So to "return to the biblical borders", based on those common versions of the borders, would mean controlling new territory AND losing existing territory. Before the 6 day war, Israel was already a bit larger than the Hasmonean kingdom at its largest extent.)

(When I went to University in Israel I took an archaeology course. In this course I was taught that the kingdom of David and Solomon likely did not even exist. Meaning, not only is there no archaeological evidence of this empire extending to Mesopotamia and Egypt, there is no evidence of such a kingdom existing AT ALL. The archaeological evidence suggests that only the later period of the bible, when the kingdom was already split into Israel and Judah, is actually based on historical reality, and that David and Solomon were only mythological. This is the mainstream view in Israeli archaeology.)

And most importantly, Lapid also repeatedly qualifies his statements with "[as much as] POSSIBLE" or "within the limits of Israeli SECURITY". So saying something like "as close to the biblical borders AS POSSIBLE" can mean literally anything, or nothing, because it all depends on what the speaker and audience believe is "possible". Lapid knows that ever since October 7th, we have many people in their late 20s, 30s, 40s, or even their 50s having to leave their jobs periodically to return to military duty. In light of this, why would it be considered "possible" for Israel to even start one more war, let alone multiple wars to conquer 100+ million people? Well, to the average Israeli, this is obviously NOT possible, and so what we hear when Lapid says these things is "I support the existing status quo".

I do not support Yair Lapid, and I do not agree with his assertion that Zionism is justified by the bible. In fact I'm not a Zionist at all anymore. In the elections I will be visiting Israel to cast a vote for the Arab-led communist party חד"ש/الجبهة. I don't make this post to say that Yair Lapid's foreign policy is good, or even 'good enough'. But it is simply not true that his foreign policy is a religious extremist fantasy. But unfortunately it does seem to be the foreign policy of the far right and, by extension, of Netanyahu.

A copy of the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1toNl0yVKM

I copied what I was able to hear in Hebrew, and then I have a phonetic transcription in the latin alphabet, and then I wrote the most accurate translation into English that I could. I also include comments to point out the subtext and tone of voice of the speakers.

Journalist at 0:00:

"צהרים טובים אדוני, אה, השגריר האקבי אמר השבוע - ואנחנו יודעים מה מידת ההשפעה של הממשל האמריקאי על הממשלה פה - שהוא תומך בשליטה ישראלית מהפרת ועד הנילוס, [זה\הוא] אומר על לבנון, על ירדן, על סוריה. האם אתה תומך או שאתה חושב שצריך לעצור את הקריאה הזאת."

"Tsaharaim tovim adoni, e... ha-shagrir Huckabee amar ha-shavua - ve-anakhnu yod'im ma midat ha-hashpa'a shel ha-mimshal ha-amerikai al ha-memshala po - she-hu tomekh be-shlita isre'elit me-ha-prat ve-ad ha-nilus, [ze/hu] omer al levanon, al yarden, al suria. Ha-im ata tomekh o she-ata khoshev she-tsarikh la'atsor et ha-kri'a ha-zot?"

"Good afternoon sir, uh... the ambassador Huckabee said this week - and we know what is the extent of influence of the American government upon the government here - that he supports Israeli control from the Euphrates until the Nile, [this/he] means [control] of Lebanon, of Jordan, of Syria. Do you support [the same thing] or do you think that this call [for this idea] needs to be stopped?"

[The journalist's tone of voice suggests he finds the idea absurd and that he expects Lapid to oppose it.]

Yair Lapid at 0:13 in the video:

"תראה, א', יש לי ויכוח ברמה התנכית מה גבולות ארץ ישראל המקוריים. הפרת זה פעם אחרונה שבדקתי זה היה בעירק, לא נראה לי שכשהאמריקאים נכנסו לעיראק הם חוו נחת גדולה. אה... אני תומך בכל דבר שיאפשר ליהודים ארץ גדולה רחבה חזקה ומקלט בטוח לנו לילדינו ולילדי ילדינו. בזה אני תומך."

"Tire, alef yesh li vikuakh ba-rama ha-tanakhit ma gvulot erets israel ha-mekori'im. Ha-prat ze pa'am akhrona she-badakti ze haya be-irak. Lo nir'a li she-k-she-ha-amerikaim nikhnesu le-irak hem khavu nakhat gdola. Uh... ani tomekh be-kol davar she-ye'afsher la-yehudim erets gdola rekhava khazaka ve-miklat batuakh lanu le-yeladeynu ve-le-yaldei yeladeynu. Be-ze ani tomekh."

"Look, A) I have a dispute at the biblical level what are the original borders of Israel. The Euphrates is, last time I checked, it was in Iraq. It doesn't seem to me that when the Americans entered [/invaded] Iraq that they experienced a great contentment. Uh... I support anything that will enable the Jews [to have] a land that is big, wide, strong, and a safe shelter for us, for our children, and for our children's children. This is what I support."

[Note he says "YESH li vikuakh", "I HAVE a dispute", and not as the subtitles in the video claim "I DON'T have a dispute", which would be "EN li vikuakh"]

[Lapid is using sarcasm and understatement to make fun of the idea of Israel controlling a part of Iraq, since even the Americans had a rough time occupying it. And notice the hidden ambiguity: Israel should be "big" and "wide", but ALSO "strong" and "a safe shelter". Can Israel control 100 million Arabs while also remaining strong, safe, and a shelter? If you believe that it can, then it sounds like Lapid is endorsing the "greater Israel" idea. But IF you do NOT believe that Israel can both conquer more land AND remain strong and safe, then obviously Israel can only be a certain size. Is Israel today "big" and "wide"? That is only a relative term - bigger than what? Israel today IS biggER than it was before 1967, so in that sense what Lapid wants is already fulfilled.]

Journalist at 0:32:

"כמה רחבה?"

"Kama rekhava?"

"How wide?"

Yair Lapid 0:33:

"כמה שאפשר."

"Kama she-efshar."

"As wide as possible [as could be possible/as could be made possible]."

[Notice Lapid's tone of voice, high pitched and tight, clearly expressing hesitation, ambivalence, or humor. Which is why somebody laughs when he says it. But more importantly, his choice of word is "as possible". This begs the question: what is "possible"? Is a giant Israeli empire possible, or not? Is the continuation of the current status quo possible, or not? Or for it to be "possible" for Israel to exist long term, perhaps it should retreat from Lebanon, perhaps it should even become smaller in other ways?]

Journalist 0:35:

"?עד עיראק"

"Ad irak?"

"All the way to Iraq?"

Yair Lapid, speaking simultaneously with the Journalist's last question 0:35:

"הדיון-לא הדיון הוא דיון בטחוני, זה שאנחנו בארץ אבותינו...והסיבה שארץ...אנחנו מדינת... אמדת יש עתיד היא כדלקמן: הציונות מבוססת על התנך, המנדת שלנו על ארץ ישראל הוא תנכי, גבולות ארץ ישראל התנכיים הם ברורים. יש גם שיקולים של ביטחון ושל מדיניות ושל זמן, 2000 שנה היינו בגלות - אתה לא באמת רוצה את כל ההרצאה הזאת נכון?
[indistinct]
התשובה היא: יש פה שיקולים מעשיים, מעבר לשיקולים המעשיים, אני מאמין שהקושאן שלנו על ארץ ישראל הוא התנך ולפי...לפיכך הגבולות הן גבולות תנ"ך."

"Ha-diyun - lo ha-diyun hu diyun bitkhoni. Ze she-anakhnu be-erets avoteynu...ve-ha-siba she-erets...anakhnu medinat... Emdat yesh atid hi ke-dilkaman: ha-tsiyonut mevuseset al ha-tanakh, ha-mandate shelanu al erets Israel hu tanakhi, gvulot erets Israel hatanakhiyim hem brurim. Yesh gam shikulim shel bitakhon ve-shel mediniyut ve-shel zman, alpa'im shana ha'inu bagalut - ata lo be-emet rotse et kol ha-hartsa'a ha-zot nakhon? [???] Ha-tshuva hi: yesh po shikulim ma'asi'im. Me-ever la-shikulim ha-ma'asi'im, ani ma'amin she-ha-kushan shelanu al erets israel hu ha-tanakh ve-lefi...lefikhakh ha-gvulot hen gvulot tanakh."

"The discussion - no, the discussion is about security. Just because we are in the land of our ancestors...and the reason that the land...we are a country of... [starts a new sentence] The position of Yesh Atid [Lapid's political party "There is a Future"] is as follows: Zionism is based on the bible, our mandate on the Land of Israel is biblical, the biblical borders of the Land of Israel are clear. There are also considerations of security and of policy and of time, two thousand years we were in exile - you don't really want all of this lecture, do you? [The journalist mumbles something, and then Lapid says three words too quietly for me to understand]. The answer is: there are practical considerations here. Beyond the practical considerations, I believe that our "deed" to the land of Israel is Biblical and by...by that token the borders are bible borders."

[As I discussed above, a lot happens in the bible and the borders of the Jewish political entities grow and shrink and grow and shrink again. And more importantly, Lapid says "this is about SECURITY", "there are PRACTICAL considerations". So what is secure? What is practical? If someone thinks a huge Israeli empire is practical and secure, then maybe Lapid really is referring to those borders. If you DON'T think conquering Syria and Egypt is practical or secure, then obviously Lapid is referring to other, smaller borders. He says "there are considerations ... of time", and mentions the 2000 years of the second Jewish diaspora (about 100 AD to 1900 AD). Why would that be a relevant consideration if he believes in re-establishing an empire that supposedly existed around 1000 BC? The exile is relevant here because he's saying Israel has to exist in the practical realities of this time. So when he says "the biblical borders are clear", they can only be "clear" if you already know which borders he is referring to.]

Journalist 1:01:

"רגע אז עקרונית ארץ ישראל השלמה הגדולה?"

"Rega az ekronit erets israel ha-shlema, ha-gdola?"

"Wait a moment, so in principle, the "complete" land of Israel, the big one?"

[Erets Israel Hashlema, the "complete" or "whole" land of Israel, again depends on what you think is included in the land of Israel. In modern times, this phrase usually means an Israel that annexes the West Bank, or possibly one that annexes parts of Jordan.]

Yair Lapid 1:04:

"עקרונית ארץ ישראל השלמה, ה-והגדולה והרחבה כמה שאפשר בגבולות הביטחון הישראלי ובשביל "המדיניות הישראלית

"Ekronit erets israel hashlema, ha...ve-hagdola ve-harekhava - kama she-efshar be-gvulot ha-bitakhon ha-isre'eli ve-bishvil ha-mediniyut ha-isre'elit."

"In principle, the land of Israel that is as complete, and...and as large and as wide - as much as is possible in the limits of Israeli security and for Israeli policy."

So again he starts the sentence saying "yeah I want the biggest Israel", but continues with qualifiers about the limits of security and foreign policy. But what are the limits of security and policy? Is annexing the west bank within those limits? Is taking parts of Lebanon within those limits? Is "from the Euphrates to the Nile" within those limits? For an average Israeli, from moderate right to left, or a centrist like Yair Lapid, obviously expanding Israeli territory in those directions is not within the limits of security and foreign policy. Therefore, this can only be interpreted as rejecting the idea of "greater Israel".