reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that online discourse on Israel is split into two extreme camps and that US politics mirrors this division, creating a harmful national distraction. To heal the relationship and conversation, four steps are proposed: 1) Global perspective: The United States is a 350,000,000-strong powerhouse; Israel is tiny with 9,000,000 people and few natural resources. The US has spent at least $30,000,000,000 defending Israel since 10/07/2023, and about $300,000,000,000 overall; two THAAD batteries in Israel represent a quarter of the world’s supply. Prominent claims: "The United States needs Israel" and "Israel could not survive without The United States." 2) Self-respect: stop being treated as a client state; cited incidents include Pollard and Israeli officers in the Pentagon; Netanyahu's "I control Donald Trump" remark. 3) Citizenship: end dual citizenship; APAC to register under FAIR. 4) Theology: reject Christian Zionism; "the chosen people in Christianity are those who choose Jesus."

In a discussion with Glenn about rising US-Iran tensions and the prospect of war, Syed Mohamed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, outlines several key points and scenarios. - He asserts that Iranians are preparing for war, with the armed forces building new capabilities and underground bases, while ordinary Iranians remain calm and continue daily life. He notes large demonstrations on February 11, with up to 4,000,000 in Tehran and 26–34,000,000 nationwide, seen as a show of solidarity against what he calls Western “rioters or terrorists” and against aggressive posturing by Israel. He stresses that Iran government negotiations will be framed around Iranian sovereignty: Iran will not negotiate who its friends are, who its allies are, or give up its rights to a peaceful nuclear program or enrichment, but could consider a nuclear deal. He argues any new deal would not revert to JCPOA terms given Iran’s technological advances and sanctions. He says a deal is unlikely under current conditions, though not impossible, and that even with a deal, it wouldn’t necessarily endure long. Ultimately, Iran is portrayed as preparing for war to deter aggression and preserve sovereignty. - The conversation discusses broader regional security, linking Israeli-Palestinian issues to potential peace. Marandi argues that Zionism has ethnosupremacism and that Western media often whitewashes Israeli actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. He emphasizes that a genuine peace would require recognizing Palestinian humanity and restoring fair treatment, arguing that a one-state solution could be the only viable path given the West’s failure to secure a lasting two-state arrangement. He contends the West has allowed colonization of the West Bank and that only a one-state outcome will resolve the situation, while portraying growing international hostility toward the Netanyahu regime and Zionism, including among young Jews. - On possible US strategies, Marandi rejects the notion of token strikes, arguing that even limited actions would invite broader conflict and potentially false-flag provocations that could be used to escalate toward war. He warns that Iran would respond with full force and could target US bases, naval assets, and regional interests, potentially shutting the Strait of Hormuz or sinking ships, with widespread economic ramifications. He predicts a regional war involving Iran’s allies in Iraq (where PMF played a key role against ISIS) and Yemen, and Hezbollah, suggesting that Arab Gulf regimes hosting US bases would likely collapse quickly in such a conflict. He stresses that Iran’s missile and drone capabilities are heavily focused on the Persian Gulf area and that war would be existential for Iran and its allies, but a dangerous, protracted challenge for the United States. - The potential consequences of US oil and petrochemical disruption are discussed. Marandi notes that Iran could retaliate against Iranian tankers or, conversely, seize Western tankers in response to piracy. He emphasizes Iran’s comparatively lower dependence on oil exports due to sanctions and sanctions-driven diversification, arguing that attacking Iran would backfire economically for the US and its allies. He also highlights that such a war would be regional, not just Iran versus the US, given Iran’s relationships with Iraq, Yemen, and other actors, and that Gulf regimes would be under immediate pressure. - Regarding current US leadership and narrative control, Marandi critiques the inconsistency of Western narratives around regime change, human rights, and democracy, pointing to the Epstein files as revealing a distrustful climate in Western politics. He argues Western media often uniformly pushes a narrative of Iranian repression while ignoring or whitewashing similar or worse actions by Western allies. He suggests that the lack of a cohesive, credible Western narrative signals a shift in geopolitical dynamics and could limit the ability to mobilize public support for aggressive actions against Iran. - They also touch on US-Israeli diplomacy, noting Trump and Netanyahu’s posturing and the Epstein documents’ potential implications. Marandi contends time is not on the side of aggressive policy, given midterm political pressures in the US and growing public skepticism about war, which could undermine leadership like Trump and Netanyahu if conflict escalates. The discussion ends with acknowledgment of the complexity and volatility of the situation, and gratitude for the opportunity to discuss it.

As an American with Israeli citizenship, I was raised to believe that Israel was always defending itself and that Palestinians were the aggressors. However, my perspective has changed. The ongoing issues in Palestine, including open-air prisons, checkpoints, blockades, and violations of human rights, have opened my eyes. Palestinians face challenges such as limited access to water, electricity, and the COVID vaccine. Children are separated from their families, and homes are taken by Zionists. It is crucial for everyone to support a free Palestine. This injustice must come to an end immediately.

The path to peace over the past 50 years has centered on a two-state solution, establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with East Jerusalem as its capital. This approach is rooted in international law, yet Israel's current leadership opposes it, influenced by illegal settlers. The enforcement of international law is crucial for peace, but the U.S. and the Israel lobby hinder this process. Israel faces significant challenges, including the Palestinian issue, Hezbollah, and Iran. Military intervention from neighboring countries is unlikely if Israel escalates actions in the West Bank. The real danger lies in potential conflict with Iran, which could involve the U.S. Israel seeks U.S. support to weaken Iran militarily, especially concerning its nuclear capabilities. The future of U.S.-Iran relations will significantly impact regional stability.

Netanyahu's actions have profoundly impacted Israel, the Middle East, and particularly the Palestinians. He has repeatedly engaged the U.S. military in Israel's conflicts, avoiding the need for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Netanyahu was a key advocate for the Iraq War, costing Americans significantly, yet he continues to evade accountability due to the influence of the Israel lobby. The path to peace is clear and widely accepted globally, but remains obscured for Americans. Many Arab nations have proposed a sensible peace plan that ensures Israel's security based on international law, but the U.S. continues to veto these efforts.

The conversation centers on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Iran, and regional dynamics, with Speaker 0 (a former prime minister) offering sharp criticisms of the current Israeli government while outlining a path he sees as in Israel’s long-term interest. Speaker 1 presses on US interests, Lebanon, and the ethics and consequences of the war. Key points and claims retained as stated: - Iran and the war: Speaker 0 says he supported the American strike against Iran’s leadership, calling Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime a brutal threat and praising the move as punishment for Iran’s actions, including backing Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. He questions why there was a lack of a clear next-step strategy after the initial attack and asks whether a diplomatic alternative, similar to Obama’s Iran agreement, could have achieved nuclear supervision without war. He notes the broader regional risk posed by Iran’s proxies and ballistic missiles and emphasizes the goal of constraining Iran’s nuclear program, while acknowledging the economic and security costs of the war. - On Netanyahu and influence: Speaker 1 references the New York Times report about Netanyahu’s influence on Trump and asks how much Netanyahu affected the decision to go to war. Speaker 0 says he isn’t certain he’s the best judge of Netanyahu’s influence but believes Netanyahu sought to push the war forward even during a ceasefire and that Iran’s threat required action, though he questions whether the next steps beyond initial strikes were properly planned. He states, “Iran deserve to be punished,” and reiterates the need for a strategy to end hostilities and stabilize the region. - Proxies and regional instability: The discussion highlights Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as Iranian proxies destabilizing the Middle East, with Speaker 0 insisting that Iran’s support for these groups explains much of the regional violence and Israel’s security concerns. He argues that eliminating or significantly curbing Iran’s influence is essential for regional stability. - Gaza, West Bank, and war ethics: Speaker 1 cites humanitarian and civilian-impact statistics from Gaza, arguing that the war has gone beyond a proportionate response. Speaker 0 concedes there were crimes and unacceptable actions, stating there were “war crimes” and praising investigations and accountability, while resisting the accusation of genocide. He criticizes certain Israeli political figures (e.g., Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) for rhetoric and policies that could protract conflict, and he condemns the idea of broad acceptance of annexation policies in the South of Lebanon. - Lebanon and Hezbollah: The core policy debate is about disarming Hezbollah and the future of Lebanon-Israel normalization. Speaker 0 argues against annexing South Lebanon and says disarming Hezbollah must be part of any Israel–Lebanon peace process. He rejects “artificial” solutions like merging Hezbollah into the Lebanese army with weapons, arguing that Hezbollah cannot be permitted to operate as an independent armed force. He believes disarming Hezbollah should be achieved through an agreement that involves Iran’s influence, potentially allowing Hezbollah to be integrated into Lebanon’s political order if fully disarmed and bound by Lebanese sovereignty, and with international support (France cited). - Practical path to peace: Both speakers acknowledge the need for a negotiated two-state solution. Speaker 0 reiterates a longstanding plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Old City administered under a shared trust (involving Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). He emphasizes that this vision remains essential to changing the regional dynamic and that the current Israeli government’s approach conflicts with this pathway. He frames his opposition to the present government as tied to this broader objective and says he will continue opposing it until it is replaced. - Personal reflections on leadership and regional hope: The exchange ends with mutual recognition that the cycle of violence is fueled by leadership choices on both sides. Speaker 0 asserts that a different Israeli administration could yield a more hopeful trajectory toward peace, while Speaker 1 stresses the importance of accountability for war crimes and the dangers of rhetoric that could undermine regional stability. Speaker 0 maintains it is possible to pursue peace through a viable, enforceable two-state framework, and urges focusing on disarming Hezbollah, negotiating with Lebanon, and pulling back to an international front to prevent further escalation. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes urgent punitive action against Iran with the imperative of a negotiated regional settlement, disarmament of proxies, and a concrete two-state solution as the viable long-term path, while condemning certain actions and rhetoric that risk perpetuating conflict.

Israel is often called the only democracy in the Middle East, but there is a cruel tyranny in its backyard. The Israeli society lives in denial, believing they have the right to do whatever they want because they are the chosen people and the only victims. They see themselves as superior to the Palestinians, who they believe are not equal human beings. This deep-rooted belief is a key issue that prevents progress and the realization of dreams. As long as Israelis don't change their perception of Palestinians, nothing will move forward.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live under military occupation, facing daily invasions, abductions, beatings, and restricted movement by Israeli soldiers. Israeli forces frequently demolish homes, destroy crops, confiscate land, shell Gaza, and kill Palestinians. US media often overlooks these Palestinian deaths, while emphasizing rocket attacks from Gaza without mentioning the context of Israeli violence. The history of the conflict and the influence of the Israel lobby, which receives over $10 million per day of American tax money, are also not reported. Palestinians endure the loss of their homes, farms, and livelihoods, with thousands of olive trees destroyed and almost 50,000 homes demolished since 1967. Gaza, blockaded by Israel and Egypt, is described as the world's largest open-air prison, with its 2 million inhabitants facing constant violence.

Netanyahu justifies his actions by claiming that Arabs forced Jews into exile and colonized Israel, leaving it barren. He argues that when the Jews returned and made the land flourish, the Arabs were welcomed back. However, this narrative is not grounded in reality. Under Netanyahu's leadership, Palestinians suffer daily, facing killings, arrests, torture, home demolitions, land confiscation, and water denial. The situation is exacerbated by issues like refugees, prisoners, Jerusalem, Ramadan, and al Aqsa. Netanyahu's dangerous reign, coupled with the inaction of interviewers like Peterson, Olsteen, and Maher, must be challenged. It is crucial to inform and mobilize others to take action against this ongoing injustice.

Israel cannot wage wars independently; they are American wars. The region has been manipulated by Britain, France, and the U.S. for a century, since the Versailles Treaty. There will be no peace while outside powers dictate terms. Tragedies in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, South Sudan, and Libya are attributed to the U.S. government and Israel. Peace requires the region determining its own future, free from outside influence. America provides financing, military backup, naval support, intelligence, and munitions to Israel, without which Israel could not fight or commit what is described as a genocide in Gaza. The U.S. is a major actor in the region, not on the fence. The region will lack safety and peace until the U.S. ceases manipulation and war. Empires divide to rule, and the U.S. is not acting on behalf of regional entities.

In Israel, Palestinians face ongoing violence, administrative detention, and property confiscation. Many Israelis expect them to accept this situation, but when they resist, they are blamed for the violence. The reality is that millions live under occupation without basic rights, and this can’t continue indefinitely. Criticizing the treatment of Palestinians can lead to severe repercussions, including job loss and imprisonment. There is a lack of awareness among Israelis about the true situation in Gaza due to biased media coverage. Personal threats and violence against those who speak out are common. After expressing dissent, one individual faced police interrogation, solitary confinement, and hostility from students, illustrating the intense pressure against those who oppose the status quo.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live under military occupation, facing daily invasions, abductions, beatings, and restricted movement by Israeli soldiers. Israeli forces frequently demolish homes, destroy crops, confiscate land, shell Gaza, and kill Palestinians. US media often overlooks these Palestinian deaths, while emphasizing rocket attacks from Gaza without mentioning their response to Israeli violence. Over 4,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli air strikes, compared to about 30 Israelis. The power of the Israel lobby, which secures over $10 million per day of American tax money, is also not reported. Palestinians endure the loss of their homes, farms, and livelihoods, with thousands of olive trees and almost 50,000 homes demolished since 1967. Gaza, blockaded by Israel and Egypt, is described as the world's largest open-air prison.

The speaker asks where Palestinians should seek accountability for their grievances, suggesting Israeli courts may not be the appropriate venue. The other speaker responds that the U.S. will always stand up for human rights, and that is why the U.S. continues to endorse a two-state solution. The speaker says a two-state solution protects Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state. It will also give the Palestinians a viable state of their own and fulfill their legitimate aspirations for dignity and self-determination. The first speaker repeats the question of where Palestinians should go.

Israel wanted peace with the Arabic world since its existence. The PLO was founded in 1964 when the West Bank was in Jordan's hands and Gaza was in Egypt's, not because of occupation, but to eliminate Jews. Palestinians lost Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 because they preempted an attack against Israel. In 2000, Ehud Barak offered 97% of territories back, but it was refused. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza, removing its people and even Jewish remains from cemeteries. Greenhouses exporting $50 million in flowers were left for Palestinians, but they destroyed synagogues and greenhouses. Hamas then had an election. A woman was elected to the cabinet of Hamas because she had videos of her sons dressing as suicide bombers. Hamas put Palestinians in a prison in Gaza. Gaza could have been Singapore, but instead, Hamas built tunnels instead of helping their people. Palestinians brought this on themselves.

Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, but Palestinians are often ignored. Palestinians are treated as third-class citizens and face apartheid-like conditions. The Israeli government evicts Palestinians from their land, which is then used for Israeli settlements. Palestinians have limited control over their lives, with restrictions on building permits, water supply, solar energy, medical treatment, electricity, fishing, and transportation. The US government supports Israel and considers Hamas, the governing party in Gaza, a terrorist organization. Palestinians have chosen Hamas due to their frustration with Israeli oppression. Israel and the US need to adopt new approaches towards Palestinians. The Palestinian people face apartheid, deprivation, and civil rights violations. This information is readily available, but one must actively seek it out.

Israel is frequently preparing for military actions against various nations, often targeting defenseless populations. The situation in Palestine is dire, with widespread human rights violations and a system resembling apartheid. A recent tribunal has confirmed these apartheid conditions, urging for change and recognition of Palestinian rights. The historical context reveals that the conflict is rooted in the displacement of Palestinians by Zionist movements, which have led to systematic ethnic cleansing and violence. The suffering of Palestinians, including children, continues under military occupation, with severe restrictions on movement and access to basic needs. Many argue that the ongoing violence is a desperate response to oppression, highlighting the need for a resolution based on international law to allow coexistence. The narrative emphasizes the shared suffering of Palestinians, regardless of their religious background, under the current political and military regime.

The speaker acknowledges that the Israeli government and the US are part of the problem. They mention that in 2000, the Israeli government offered a Palestinian state, but it was turned down by Arafat and the PLO. There were also unsuccessful attempts to bring Palestinians and Israelis together during the speaker's time as Secretary of State. The speaker highlights that Israel left Gaza in 2005, but Hamas destroyed the infrastructure left behind and caused harm to Palestinians. They believe it is important to dislodge Hamas and work towards a two-state solution.

Professor and Host engage in a wide-ranging discussion about the Iran-Israel-Lebanon dynamic, the prospects for war, and the potential paths to change. - They open with tensions around Iran, suggesting that Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby won’t let Iran “rest,” and that Iran is implicated in the current Lebanon conflict while insisting that Lebanon’s fight is Lebanon’s own. The Professor stresses that Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization and not a direct Iranian proxy, and that Iran’s involvement is framed by its own interests rather than as an intrusive occupation of Lebanon. - The Host challenges this view, noting that Lebanon’s government decided not to join the war and that Hezbollah rearmed in the south, arguing that Iran has influence in Lebanon and that Hezbollah’s actions reflect a broader proxy dynamic in the country. The Professor counters that Hezbollah is not a proxy and emphasizes Lebanon’s sovereignty and internal affairs, while arguing that Iran can assist resistance groups when asked but should not be blamed for all Lebanese actions. - They discuss the state of the conflict: is the war over or a ceasefire that could resume? The Host asks for a probability estimate (1–10); the Professor places it at six or seven that it could re-ignite, arguing that Trump and Netanyahu will continue to push Iran and that the regime in Tehran will respond, given new leadership and a determination to avoid being disarmed or appeased. - On aims and capabilities, the Professor cites Trump’s stated desire to take over Iranian oil (per a Financial Times interview) and to “change Iran’s government,” including the idea of disintegrating Iran and establishing an Israeli-driven hegemony in the region. He also suggests Trump views oil leverage as a strategic tool against China, drawing on broader geopolitical ambitions such as the North-South Corridor. The Host and Professor discuss the idea of leveraging Iran’s oil to pressure or blockade China and to influence global power dynamics. - The conversation moves to the larger question of how to achieve U.S. objectives short of full-scale war. The Host suggests non-military options beyond sanctions, including possible tolls, business deals, or new arrangements around the Strait of Hormuz, while the Professor argues that sanctions relief would require Congressional action and that Netanyahu’s influence makes relief unlikely. The Host proposes that sanctions relief could be tied to dismantling proxies like Hezbollah, with Iran receiving asset unfreezing in exchange, and a tollbooth mechanism as possible recompense. - They compare political systems: the Host asks whether a more pragmatic Iranian leadership could compromise with the West, while the Professor challenges the notion of embracing Israel or normalization absent broader regional changes. They discuss Iranian internal politics, including protests and the 2021–2024 leadership shifts, arguing that the current leadership is generally more energetic and less likely to exercise restraint under renewed pressure. - The Wall Street Journal summary is invoked: a shift to a harderline leadership within Iran, with Mustafa Khamenei described as consolidating power and surrounding himself with hardliners who view destroying Israel as central. The Host and Professor debate whether this portends greater confrontation or potential pragmatism in dealing with the United States, emphasizing that any significant rapprochement would hinge on broader regional dynamics and the role of Israel. - The discussion turns to the prospects for a two-state solution versus a one-state outcome in Palestine. The Professor contends that a one-state solution would be unlikely unless Israel changes fundamentally, while the Host notes shifts in Western public opinion and some American youths showing increasing sympathy for Palestinian rights. They acknowledge that most polling in the U.S. still supports a two-state framework, even as younger demographics show divergent views. - They close with mutual acknowledgement that there is no straightforward path to peace, reiterating concerns about possible future confrontations, the influence of external powers, and the complexities of Lebanon’s sovereignty, Hezbollah’s role, and Iran’s internal politics. The Host and Professor each express hopes for peace, while recognizing the likelihood of continued strategic competition rather than a clear, immediate resolution.

Speaker 0 believes that the situation in America is adversely affecting peace in Israel. Speaker 1 asks if a deal can be made without involving Hamas. Speaker 0 states that they have met with Hamas leadership and believes they are willing to accept Israel's existence within the 6 to 7 borders. However, they emphasize the need for Hamas and Fatah to come together for an honest election. Speaker 0 criticizes Netanyahu's move towards a one-state solution, which previous prime ministers have condemned. They believe this is a mistake and that Israel is heading towards a disaster by insisting on control from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

I'm an Israeli patriot who cares about Israel, but I believe there is no symmetry or conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Instead, there is a brutal Israeli occupation that must end. The regime in our backyard is one of the most cruel and brutal tyrannies on Earth, resembling apartheid. In the occupied territories, one group has all the rights while the other has none. Visit the Jordan Valley to witness the stark contrast between prosperous Israeli settlements and the Palestinians living without basic necessities or rights. It's clear that this is apartheid, and no one can deny it.

In 2014, Israel launched a devastating attack on Gaza, resulting in thousands of Palestinian casualties. Despite global outrage, American public opinion remained largely supportive of Israel, influenced by media coverage that often frames the conflict from an Israeli perspective, emphasizing Israel's right to self-defense against Palestinian terrorism. This narrative overlooks the historical context of Palestinian dispossession and the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967. Israel's PR efforts, which began after the Lebanon invasion in 1982, aim to shape American perceptions by portraying Israel as a victim and downplaying the impact of the occupation. While international consensus supports a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders, Israel continues to expand settlements. The US government's backing of Israel further complicates efforts to achieve a just resolution.

The Palestinians live under Israeli government control, which many consider oppressive. Israel and America need to change their approach. Palestinians have been deprived of their land for over 70 years, leading to deep frustration. They face apartheid, lack basic necessities, and endure civil rights violations. This is not a secret; it's visible if you look for it.

The speaker criticizes Israel for the treatment of Palestinians, comparing it to apartheid in South Africa. They argue that Israel is motivated by a desire to acquire Palestinian land and exclude Palestinians from their own property. They highlight the lack of awareness and debate on this issue in the United States. The second speaker agrees and wishes for more open discussion. They ask about the responsibility of both Israelis and Palestinians in the conflict. The first speaker blames the conflict on Israel's occupation of Palestinian land, which violates international resolutions and commitments. They acknowledge acts of violence by Palestinians but do not excuse them.

The situation is not about Netanyahu or the current government; it's about the ongoing oppression of Palestinians by a powerful Israeli state. Historically, most Palestinian resistance has been nonviolent, but it has led to violence against them. Palestinians are being killed regardless of their actions. A realistic solution involves dismantling the apartheid state and supporting a free, democratic Palestine with equal rights. Palestinian leadership is largely absent due to Israeli actions. The military operation on October 7 showed significant Palestinian capability, but the resulting Israeli violence against civilians is not their responsibility. The immense suffering in Gaza is due to Israel's actions, not the Palestinians' attempts to resist. The focus should be on stopping the violence rather than debating past events.