reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 states, "I love Israel." Speaker 1 responds, "Do I look stupid? I'm not gonna say that." Speaker 1 questions why people are so "crazy" and says, "The Israeli people are so crazy." Speaker 0 asks, "You eat a dog?" and "You kill people? You babies? You keep f***ing woman. You born the hospital?" Speaker 0 asks, "Israel or Palestine?" Speaker 1 states, "Since Israel babies, people, children, and women, I choose Palestine. Of course." Speaker 1 concludes by saying, "You guys look crazy. Chill."

Speaker 0, an IDF soldier from Israel, is asked about the bombings in Gaza and the killing of children. The soldier admits to bombing Gaza in response to their attacks but claims ignorance about the reasons behind the initial bombings. The conversation then shifts to the history of Palestine and Israel, with the soldier acknowledging that Palestine existed before 1948 but asserting that it is now occupied by Israel. The soldier denies being Islamic and states that he doesn't know if innocent Palestinians are killed. The transcript abruptly ends.

Speaker 0 explains that not all Republicans are registered with APAC, and that many colleagues would vote with him if not for political backlash back home. He says some Republicans tell him, “that’s wrong what APAC is doing to you,” and they want to talk to their APAC person. He notes that nearly everyone except him has an APAC person, which he likens to a babysitter who is always talking to you for APAC. When these members are in DC, they lunch with their APAC contacts, who have their cell numbers and keep conversations going. He mentions that four members of Congress have said they’ll talk to their APAC person to try to get ads dialed back. He questions why this isn’t more widely known, arguing that it benefits nobody for constituents to know they have a “buddy system with somebody who represents a foreign country.” Speaker 1 asks what APAC is, and Speaker 0 explains the concept further, noting that the APAC person is connected to the congressman and that this dynamic exists on the Republican side. He says the APAC person is embedded in the caucus presence, and that conversations with them occur when members come to DC. He remarks that this arrangement is not beneficial for public disclosure, so members don’t tell their constituents about it. Speaker 1 asks if any other country does anything similar. Speaker 0 responds emphatically that they do not: “Not only do they not have a Putin guy. Look. They don’t they they don’t have a Britain guy. They don’t have an Australian guy. They don’t have a Germany dude.” He asserts that APAC is the only country with someone who uniformly matches a congressman to an APAC contact, and that there is likely a spreadsheet at APAC mapping the APAC contact to the congressman’s votes on issues. He adds that APAC pays for trips for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel; he notes he may not be the only Republican who hasn’t taken the APAC Israel trip, but he’s among a minority who hasn’t yet. Speaker 1 asks about the trip, and Speaker 0 describes it as “vacationy,” including visits to the Western Wall and other sites, and mentions swimming in the Dead Sea. Speaker 1 comments that Israel is a great country and that Jerusalem is wonderful, but clarifies that this appreciation is distinct from the government of Israel and its politics. Speaker 0 agrees that Israelis are entrepreneurial and publicly minded, and Speaker 1 shares a personal fondness for Israel, praising the country and its people, while noting the difference between the people and the government. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss their affection for Israel, with Speaker 1 distinguishing his personal love of the place from political influence, and both agreeing that Israel is a special place, with Speaker 0 emphasizing the distinction between people and government.

The discussion opens with Speaker 0 noting that the first foreign visit by a New York City mayor is significant and asks where each candidate would go first. Speaker 1 (Cuomo) replies, “First visit, I would visit The Holy Land.” Speaker 2, addressing hostility and antisemitism in New York, adds, “Given the hostility and the antisemitism that has been shown in New York, I would go to Israel.” Speaker 0 then directs the question to Speaker 2 (Tilson). Tilson responds, “Yeah. I’d make my fourth trip to Israel followed by my fifth trip to Ukraine, two of our greatest allies fighting on the front lines of the global war on terror.” Speaker 0 moves to Speaker 3 (Mamdani), who says, “I would stay in New York City. My plans are to address New Yorkers across the five boroughs and focus on that.” Speaker 4 interjects with a follow-up to Mamdani: “Mister Mamdani, can I just jump in? Would you visit Israel… as mayor?” Mamdani answers that as mayor, “I'll be doing as the mayor, I'll be standing up for Jewish New Yorkers, I'll be meeting them wherever they are across the five boroughs, whether that's in their synagogues and temples or at their homes or at the subway platform because, ultimately, we need to focus on delivering on their concerns.” The conversation then covers a direct question: “And just yes or no, do you believe in a Jewish state of Israel?” Mamdani replies, “I believe Israel has the right to exist.” Speaker 4 counters, “Not Israel. State?” Mamdani responds, “Notice. As a state with equal rights.” Speaker 1 presses Mamdani further, noting, “He won't he won't say it has a right to exist. Does a Jewish state be very clear?” Speaker 2 adds, “Answer was no. He won't visit Israel.” Mamdani claims, “I I said that That's what he was trying to say. No. Unlike you, I answered unlike you, I answered the question directly. Alright.” The conversation then shifts to Speaker 5, who shares a personal rationale: “My my goal would be to take my first trip to Israel. My wife's life work in this area means a lot to our family, and it could coincide with my young son, Miles, bar mitzvah, if you'd like to have his bar mitzvah.” Speaker 2 interjects briefly, “Okay. But” before the excerpt ends.

Hamas invaded Israel on October 7th. Speaker 1 admits to not being well-informed about the situation and feels unqualified to comment. They express uncertainty about the accuracy of the information they have seen.

Speaker 0 states that “this right here was always the plan from day zero, and they just told us,” signaling that the plan has been in motion from the beginning and that the participants were informed about it. Speaker 1 asks the group to explain the plan in detail: how much it will cost, where the money will come from, and who will reward the contracts. The question centers on funding sources, cost, and accountability for contracts. Speaker 2 responds by saying the money-raising part is “the easy part,” but emphasizes that the real focus is the master plan. They say they are working with a group of people who have been developing master plans for two years, implying a long preexisting framework behind the project. They assert that “we have plans already. We have a master plan already,” and mention that Jared has been pushing this and that they are working together on it. They claim that if the world saw the progress so far, they would be impressed. Speaker 0 interjects with a clarification question about the two-year timeline, noting a perceived gap in the explanation and pressing for details on what was being done during that period. Speaker 3 explains the timing more specifically: the material was filmed before October 7 and released later, indicating that the planning had been underway prior to that date. They suggest that this means “they were working on the plans before October 7.” Speaker 0 adds, “So that means that everything else was a script that they already wanted to implement the whole time,” implying that prior material or discourse could have been designed to align with the planned actions. Speaker 3 references Charlie Kirk and asks, “Was there a stand down order?” This raises a question about whether a directive to halt actions existed. Speaker 0 questions the existence of a stand-down order, asserting that “Israel’s the side of new size New Jersey,” then shares a personal observation from a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Gaza border, noting the distance as forty-five minutes, and mentions that “Six hours. They’re live streaming the killing of Jews.” They pose the question of whether someone in the government ordered a stand-down. Speaker 3 notes that “the sixty minute episode aired on October 19,” and that the material “was filmed immediately after October 7.” They add that the filming occurred “days after the Israel cease fire deal completion, October 10.” Speaker 0 reiterates the sequence by summarizing that the events were filmed immediately after October 7 and occurred in the days following the cease-fire agreement on October 10.

Speaker 0 expresses a view on religion and national character, saying: “if a country doesn't have religion, doesn't have faith, doesn't have God, it's gonna be very hard to be a good country.” He adds, “This It'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you Christians.” He states, “I'm a Christian. I'm a Christian. I'm a Christian.” He admits doubt about heaven: “I don't think there's anything gonna get me in heaven. Okay? I really don't. I think I think I'm not maybe heaven bound. I may be in heaven right now as we fly an air force, but I'm not sure I I'm gonna be able to make heaven.” He claims to have been “really saved” by “somebody very special,” and repeats: “A high beak. A high beak. A high beak.” Speaker 1 recounts the presidential oath ceremony: “When US President Donald Trump took its oath of office, he had his right hand raised, but his left wasn't on the Bible. But does it matter? Academics tell Reuters that it was an oversight and it doesn't have much practical impact, although the moment has gone viral online.” A professor is quoted that “the oath is to the constitution.” He notes that “Two bibles were held by Trump's wife Melania as she stood next to him at the ceremony.” Speaker 2 presents claims about Trump’s faith: “Trump converted to Judaism two years ago and joined Chabad Lubavitch Synagogue in New York City according to a high level White House official.” A figure named Mister Goldberg says the story has allegedly been held by CNN's editors for months, but will be released soon. David Elias Goldberg, a fellow at the Jewish Center of Antisemitic Study, has also interviewed the White House source. The source says Trump was pushed by Ivanka and Jared Kushner to join the faith; Trump initially resisted, fearing it would threaten his evangelical Christian base, but then changed his mind and “officially converted in early two thousand seventeen.” The ceremony was private and guarded for nearly two years. The White House appears prepared to release this information gradually, and by summer, Trump is expected to address his new faith in an evening televised news conference. He is described as “the most pro Israel president in the history of America,” having given Israel “every single thing that they wanted,” and being “about to give them war with Iran.” The question is raised: “Has he converted?” A Times of Israel article is cited: “Trump, the first Jewish president of The United States.” It is emphasized: “Now that's not us saying that. That's times of Israel.” The discussion notes that Times of Israel is a Jewish nation, and that “these people do like Israel.” Speaker 0 interjects: “Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.” Speaker 3 adds: “And he loves Israel too. Six years ago, I was up here. And I said, this is our first Jewish president. This is our first Jewish president. This is our first Jewish president. Not not consecutive. We”—and then Speaker 0 closes with: “thank you for everything, Joel. We thank you for everything.”

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are an IDF soldier. Speaker 1 confirms that they are. Speaker 0 questions the IDF's actions in bombing Gaza and killing children. Speaker 1 claims to not have knowledge about it, but states that they bomb Gaza in response to being bombed. Speaker 0 asks about the reasons behind the initial bombings. Speaker 1 admits to not knowing the information. Speaker 0 mentions that before 1948, the region was called Palestine and argues that it is still occupied Palestine. Speaker 1 doesn't dispute it. Speaker 0 expresses a desire for more children to be harmed, and Speaker 1 responds with aggression. The conversation ends abruptly.

- Speaker 0: Since Israel began strikes on Gaza after Hamas’ surprise attack on October 7, it has targeted residential buildings. The UN says nearly 200,000 structures have been destroyed or damaged. With so many fleeing attacks, Palestinians packed into makeshift shelters, many of them UN run schools, but they were not safe. More than 1,000 schools have been bombed, and Israel has destroyed most of Gaza's hospitals, including Al Shifa, where more than 400 Palestinians were killed in a raid in March 2024. - Speaker 1: We make the best weapons in the world, and we’ve got a lot of them. And we’ve given a lot to Israel, frankly. And I mean, Bibi would call me so many times, can you get me this weapon, that weapon, that weapon. Some of them I never heard of, baby, and I made them. But we’d get them here, wouldn’t we? And they are the best. They are the best. And you but you used them well. It also takes people that know how to use them, and you obviously used them very well. But so many that Israel became strong and powerful, which ultimately led to peace. That’s what led to peace. So as we celebrate today, let us remember how this nightmare of depravity and death all began. - Speaker 2: In 1948, when the land of Palestine was officially stolen and given to a group of rabid Zionists who murdered over 10,000 Palestinians. This crime against humanity was decided as early as 1917 with the Balfour Declaration, the British Crown, and Lord Rothschild of the Rothschild banking dynasty, otherwise known as the Bank of England, who when it’s all said and done, will have control over hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Palestinian oil and gas reserves. As Michael Roverero famously said, all wars are bankers’ wars. According to Benjamin Franklin, the primary catalyst for the American Revolution was the Bank of England’s Currency Act. After the revolution, a value based economy with no interest being paid to any central bank was created. But it didn’t last long. The first bank of the United States was chartered in 1791 and favored foreign stockholders over Americans. The charter ended in January 1811 followed by the war of eighteen twelve and the establishment of the second bank of the United States in 1816, which gave more power to the Bank of England. Andrew Jackson successfully killed the bank’s renewal and shortly after became the first US president targeted for assassination when Richard Lawrence drew pistols on him outside The US capital, but misfired. Laws were passed in the early eighteen sixties for the US government to issue its own currency in a value based economy as opposed to the debt based system imposed by central banks. According to an 1864 edition of the London Times, this would have made America the wealthiest nation of the world. The article warned that if a government creates its own money, it will be without debt. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world and therefore must be destroyed. In 1865, president Lincoln was assassinated, and the economy was quickly phased back to the central bank’s debt enslavement model. In 1913, the tyrannical Federal Reserve Bank and federal income tax was born. The two world wars brought Germany under the heel of the central banking cartel. Western banking institutions financed the Bolshevik revolution. In 2000, Iraq stopped selling its oil and Federal Reserve notes. In 2003, Iraq was illegally invaded by The United States and dollar based oil sales were reinstated. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi’s gold dinar currency was making the nation rich. In 2011, The US invaded and reverted Libya’s oil sales to dollars. The Bank for International Settlements recently proposed efforts under the guise of anti money laundering that would provide scores to tokens and digital wallets including stablecoins. Digital ID, social credit scores, and a carbon tax is what the bankers are up to now. And everything else is a distraction. Today’s war is mostly psychological, and it’s being waged upon you. Greg Reese reporting. The Reiss report is now fully funded by my Substack subscribers. Subscribe today and support my work at gregreiss.substack.com.

Speaker 1 recalls asking someone, presumably a friend, about something. The friend responded that he was Israeli and would do certain things for his country. Speaker 0 notes that this got the person into big trouble. Speaker 1 says he accepted the answer, almost.

In the dialogue, Speaker 0 asserts that proxies trained and inculcated in the Zionist regime have implicated themselves in killings, asking how many people believe the incident with the USS Liberty ended. He recounts an incident where someone was proven arrested by American Marines in Iraq, describing the individuals as Jews who sniped and shot at Marines. He notes that these people were arrested after Marines chased them down, and claims that Zapata Engineering, described as a contractor for the company, helped to whitewash the case and secure their release. He emphasizes that these women and gentlemen are “the Jews who live in Israel and who are paid by American Jewry and who are Americans and Europeans in descent,” and he states that they are “actually killing American soldiers,” which he describes as unbelievable. He then asks Wolfgang what he has seen on the situation. Speaker 1, Wolfgang, responds by saying he has talked to many Iraqi veterans at a particular location, describing the place as an immense complex with many men he speaks to daily about different events in the Middle East. He claims that what they told him specifically is that most of the snipers were not even Iraqis, but actually IDF, meaning Israeli Defense Force. Speaker 0 reacts to Wolfgang’s statement, calling it an incredible claim coming from a colonel in the US Military, highlighting that the majority of the precise sniping used to kill and wound in sensitive places—where armor is known and targeted, with the sophistication to place a bullet into these people—comes from Israel. He repeats the assertion of Israel in emphasizing the credibility of the claim as unbelievable. Speaker 1 concludes by indicating that there is more to discuss on this topic and promises to elaborate later, saying, “And that's not all. We'll talk about that tonight.”

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about Gaza and the conflict. They discuss casualties and bombings, with exaggerated numbers. Speaker 0 questions the truth of the information. They touch on hummus, falafel, and Albert Einstein's nationality. Speaker 0 confuses "Free Palestine" with "Free bread." The conversation ends with Speaker 0 saying goodbye. Translation: The speakers discuss Gaza, casualties, and bombings, with exaggerated numbers. They mention hummus, falafel, and Albert Einstein's nationality. Speaker 0 confuses "Free Palestine" with "Free bread" and the conversation ends with a goodbye.

Speaker 0 asks what should be done if Israel is attacked by an outside force. Speaker 1 argues that the focus should be on preventing conflicts by actively engaging in the peace process, rather than reacting after the fact. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that the current situation in Israel cannot be blamed on the previous administration. Speaker 1 criticizes Speaker 0's limited understanding of the past events.

Speaker 0 states, "God bless Israel. God bless America." Speaker 1 asserts the need to make the people of the country love Israel more, stating, "They don't know what the fuck they're doing." Speaker 0 claims that it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before "they" get enough enriched uranium for the first bar.

Speaker 0 urges everyone to make noise, stating that if anything happens to them, it will be another war crime added to Israel's list. Speaker 1 reports they are being intercepted, assures everyone present is safe and unwounded, and emphasizes that no one was wounded until the time they ordered their vote. Speaker 1 asks to raise the alarm.

Speaker says they’ve been in Israel many times; "The whole country's a fortress." They find the story hard to believe. "I've been to that Gaza border. You cannot go 10 feet without running into a 19 year old with an AR 15 or an automatic machine gun that is an IDF soldier. Right? The whole country is surveilled." He raises questions: "Was there a stand down order? Was there a stand down order? Six hours? I don't believe it." "Israel's the side of new side of New Jersey." He notes a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Gaza border is "forty five minutes. Six hours." "They're live streaming the killing of Jews."

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 where he is from, and Speaker 1 replies that he is from Israel and served in the IDF. Speaker 1 mentions not counting how many Palestinians he has encountered and talks about Gaza disappearing. Speaker 0 inquires if Speaker 1 has ever seen a Palestinian child, to which Speaker 1 responds that he has seen 5 and jokes about looking inexperienced.

"I almost don't know these Jews." "Yeah. I saw what happened in Palestine." "In nineteen o five, the Jews went to Russia to try to kill the czar." "When the Russians found out what happened, they stopped them and put them out." "The Germans let them in in nineteen o five in mass numbers fleeing Russia." "They weren't fleeing persecution. They were fearing justice." "They tried to kill the czar." "The Germans let them get into banking." "Everything is made in Germany now." "The Jews took over." "Germans won World War one." "It's the Balfour Declaration." "America stepping into World War one made zero sense." "We want them at war with each other." "They told them, just give us Palestine as our homeland, and we get it." "Yeah. And it wasn't theirs to give."

Speaker 1 describes the damage: at least three bases in the Gulf have been devastated, including the fifth fleet headquarters; satellite imagery suggests the base in Bahrain looks like Gaza and has been “moonscape.” He says he doesn’t know about casualties because he isn’t sure if the base was evacuated, but the imagery indicates it has been flattened. He notes the base was expensive and long a hub for the U.S. Navy in the Middle East and has been “completely taken offline.” He mentions a Middle East expert who doubts a quick rebuild, suggesting that Arabs will be irate and not want the U.S. to build back in their countries after the war ends. Speaker 0 adds that the Arabs “give us billions in foreign investment” and in exchange the U.S. promised to protect them, but asks why we would defend them given the current actions. Speaker 1 states there are credible reports that whatever air defense systems were in Arab countries were sent over to Israel and left American bases and people vulnerable, implying the U.S. prioritized protecting Israeli targets over U.S. troops. He reflects that, a year or two ago, he wouldn’t have believed this, but after watching a Huckabee interview, he thinks the United States is being led by its proxy and calls it the proxy being the housekeeper while the U.S. is the homeowner. He says the U.S. is “being led around the nose… by what should be its proxy.” Speaker 0 questions the dynamic, saying, “they’re the housekeeper. We’re the homeowner,” and asks for clarity on the situation. Speaker 1 adds a personal note: a Gulf-based colleague sent a State Department warning to get out, with the message that people are “on your own” for evacuation—no flights provided. He contrasts this with the British government evacuating its people “no questions asked” until twenty-four hours ago. He concludes that the sole superpower is picking a fight with Iran’s missile city and not providing exfiltration for its people, and asserts that this indicates a decline of the empire. He mentions that the Chinese view is that their time is at hand due to what he calls national suicide with this insanity.

In this exchange, Speaker 0 raises the issue of the USS Liberty attack in 1967, arguing that if truth matters, the Israeli government must be held accountable because the American flag was flying on that ship. Speaker 0 presses why, in a discussion of modern Israeli–American relations, Speaker 1 would deem the attack “irrelevant” to current ties. Speaker 1 responds that when assessing today’s relations, citing the 1967 attack as a basis for judgment is irrelevant—comparable to using evidence from World War II or 1776 to define present-day relations with Britain or Germany. He emphasizes that while the attack was horrible and tragic for those involved, and that Israel paid reparations, the actual naval record indicates the incident was a mistaken and tragic event. He notes that those who reference the USS Liberty often do so to suggest Israel deliberately harmed America, and asks if that is Speaker 0’s broader point. Speaker 0 reiterates that truth requires accountability from the Israeli government, given the American flag on the ship. Speaker 1 points to the naval investigations, stating that multiple investigations exist and that the Israeli military at the time was flying Mirage planes and the USS Liberty was operating off-grid. He explains that the Israeli forces mistook the ship for an Egyptian vessel and believed it was shelling Al-Arish, which was not true. He describes the sequence: the American flag was knocked down in the initial attack, the engagement lasted about ninety minutes, and once it became clear the vessel was American, the attack was halted and a ship was dispatched to assist the Liberty. He also notes there have been other unfortunate friendly-fire incidents in war, such as during the Gulf War when US forces killed British troops. Speaker 0 asks about the broader agenda behind raising the incident, suggesting that it is not limited to that specific event. Speaker 1 acknowledges the question but questions the motive and implies that it is not an appropriate basis for evaluating current U.S.–Israel relations. Speaker 0 asserts that there are ongoing problems in the relationship, but again emphasizes the six-decade-old incident as relevant to the discussion. Speaker 1 maintains that, in the same way that many histories exist, there are many countries and contexts, and reiterates that the question is not answered satisfactorily. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 indicating this will be the last question.

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

In the exchange, the interviewer raises the question of why Ben labeled the 1967 USS Liberty attack as irrelevant to current Israeli-American relations, given that dozens of American servicemen were killed or wounded. Ben responds that focusing on a mistaken attack from 1967, and using it to define today’s Israel-U.S. relations, is irrelevant in the context of modern relations—comparing it to citing World War II or 1776 to define present ties with Britain or Germany. He acknowledges the attack was horrible and tragic for those involved, notes that the Israeli government paid reparations, and asserts that the actual naval record shows it was a mistaken attack. The interviewer presses for accountability, noting that the American flag was flying on the USS Liberty, which would seem to preclude misidentification. Ben reiterates the broader context: people who cite the Liberty often are not discussing the specifics of the incident, but are using it to suggest that Israel deliberately attacked an American ship to harm the United States. He questions whether that is the interviewer’s point and emphasizes a broader agenda. The interviewer insists on accountability and asks why the incident should be irrelevant to today’s relations. Ben maintains that the issue is not central to assessing current U.S.-Israel relations, arguing that the attack should be considered within its own time, and that today’s relations are shaped by a wide range of factors. He notes that there were multiple naval investigations, and that the Navy records show the Liberty was off its usual path, and that at the time, Israeli forces mistook it for an Egyptian ship while Mirage aircraft were deployed by the Israeli military. In the initial attack, the American flag was knocked down, and the assault continued for about ninety minutes; once the pilots realized it was an American ship, they reportedly called off the attack and sent a ship to assist the USS Liberty. The interviewer acknowledges that there have been various incidents and persistent concerns, but maintains that the question concerns American interests. Ben maintains his position that the broader agenda is central to the line of questioning, and questions the relevance of a six-decade-old attack as the number one issue in assessing current U.S.-Israel relations. The interviewer suggests that the audience includes people alive at the time, implying lasting relevance, while Ben calls for focusing on current relations rather than an old incident, noting the existence of a wide variety of historical contexts in 1967. The conversation ends with Ben indicating he will move to another point, signaling the interviewer is not addressing his core question.

Speaker 0, an IDF soldier from Israel, is asked about the IDF bombing Gaza and killing children. The soldier claims to not have knowledge about it and states that they only bombed Gaza in response to being bombed themselves. When asked about the reasons behind the bombings, the soldier admits to not knowing. The conversation then shifts to the history of Palestine and Israel, with the soldier denying that Palestine existed before 1948. The other person argues that Palestine still exists and is currently occupied. Tensions rise as the soldier threatens the other person, claiming to kill every Palestinian they see.

The speakers engage in a conversation about the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." One speaker questions which river and sea the phrase refers to, suggesting that it is important to know the specifics. The other speaker dismisses the importance of knowing the specific river and sea, stating that it doesn't matter. The conversation ends with one speaker apologizing and acknowledging that they shouldn't have engaged in the discussion.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to leave a private property, but Speaker 1 insists on using the restroom. Speaker 0 suggests using a restroom next door, but Speaker 1 refuses. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being afraid of being photographed and brings up Zionism. Speaker 0 mentions the history of Palestine and thanks Speaker 1 sarcastically. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 expressing support for Palestine.